5wide

Well they definitely hit it spot on with my worst pick of the draft.

It is true that they will say that, but I think there's a difference. It is also true that many Christians will continue to say that they are a liar or a thief even after they've changed. The thought is the same - to remember what you were to help you stay on the right path. The motivation would be completely different. From the other side, if a former alcoholic has been sober for years, I do not view them as an alcoholic any longer. If a homosexual abstained from relationships, I'd still view them as a homosexual.

The challenge is how to convey a loving, caring attitude while condemning the act/sin. The issue of homosexuality is especially challenging. For starters, this thread is exhibit A. We're debating whether homosexuality is even a sin. Nobody debates whether lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, etc. is sinful. Secondly, while it is true in the general sense that we're born with a sinful nature, inclined toward sinful behavior, the acts mentioned above are singular acts in themselves. When we do them, they are things we consciously decide to do. We may be habitual offenders, but we still decide to perform the act each and every time. It doesn't seem quite the same for homosexuality, IMO. Certainly, there would be a decision to act upon your desire. But, assuming you believe a person is born homosexual, that desire is inherent. If a person changes, stops lying or stops stealing, we generally don't consider them liars or thieves any longer. But, if a person chooses not to act upon their desire, they are still a homosexual. They just don't act on it. It just seems a little different in that regard to me. And finally, related to the last point, I think it touches upon our sense of fairness in life. Relationships and companionship is an inherent desire in pretty much all of us, with the ultimate desire for it to culminate in a lifelong partner. For a person to be born with an attraction to the same sex, which we think is sinful, doesn't seem fair. Just briefly imagine if it was the other way around and heterosexuality was viewed as sinful. The problem is, the fairness we think of is a subjective, human idea. I don't think it is fair that I'm born with a sinful nature. I'd rather not be this way. But, life isn't fair. Anyone with any experience knows that.

I think that's the crux of it. It makes for a difficult task to try to debate an issue from two different foundations. The verse from Tobit is of no value in this debate from a Protestant perspective. Someone needs to definitively win the Sola Scriptura argument first. Then we can proceed to tackle these other issues. FWIW, understanding this has helped me tremendously with regards to a better understanding of Catholics. I've thoroughly enjoyed my discussions with the Catholic members of BGP and have a much better grasp of their beliefs and where they come from. It goes without saying that I differ on a few of them, but I don't feel that it is necessary to try to win a debate. It cannot be done for the very reason quoted, IMO. Rather, I believe it is better to seek to understand the other view. Where does it come from? I appreciate all those who have responded in past threads for enlightening me on the Catholic beliefs.

I think sometimes people mistake a Christian's belief that a particular act is sinful with them hating that particular person or group of people. There are some who would fit that description no doubt, but for the most part, I don't think that's the case. For example, I do not believe the people who have responded to this thread with the prevailing Christian view hate homosexuals. Nor do I believe it is judgmental to acknowledge that something is a sin. There are lots of sins, many I am guilty of myself, but I do not hate the people who commit or have committed those acts. Such is the case with this topic. Homosexuality gets much attention because it is a hot-button issue. I suspect much of that is due to it being used as a political tool.

If only I hadn't drafted Jahvid Best... But, there's always one pick in the first half of the draft that I lament before the draft is even finished.

A crime is a crime. I'm sure they're all unique and different in some way. It doesn't require an additional piece of legislation. Punish them for the crime. A judge and jury can hear the details (like what motivated the act) and determine a proper punishment. Hate crime laws are unnecessary when enforcing the laws we already have would suffice. What if Timothy McVeigh had just been bored? Should his punishment have been different? Or, had he blown up the building because he hated black people and one worked there, should it have been different?

Mustard Seeds select... PK Alex Henery PHI

A crime is a crime. If someone murders another person, it doesn't matter to me what motivated them to do it. Murder is a crime. End of story. Why does there need to be additional legislation depending on the supposed motivation? Does it change anyone's view of the act? Does it make you feel a little better about this random beatdown that it was just a case of boredom, or would you feel a little better if they were racists? In America, it seems we believe that we can legislate away everything we don't like. This statement applies to much more than just this example. Again, if we simply enforced and upheld the laws that are/were already in place to protect our citizens, there should be no need for these additions.

They're not instructing them how to perform the act, but rather the health risks, facts vs. myths. I don't see why that would be a problem.

There is no cut-and-dry, black-and-white guidelines to understanding and interpreting scripture. Some of it is literal, some isn't. Some of the literal stuff can be used allegorically (as Paul does) to make a deeper point. The fact is, the Holy Spirit guides us in understanding God's word. Without Him, we're flailing around like a man lost at sea. Certainly some of it is pretty straight forward and any literate person should be able to grasp it. In my experience, God can speak to us and teach us many different things from a single verse or passage depending on when we read it, the circumstances of our lives, etc.

Replace years with months.

Mustard Seeds select... RB Knowshon Moreno DEN

I'm with you guru. Philbin has impressed me thus far. Based on what they've shown us on the show, Tannehill has looked good. Regardless of who starts the season, it is hard to imagine him not being the man at some point. It wouldn't surprise me if he wins the job though. Considering their situation, and if he continues to impress, it makes more sense to get him on the field and get him some experience. I hope Les Brown and 7-11 make the squad. Even though I'm not really a fan, you gotta feel for David Garrard.

:cry:

I think one reason this issue gets so much attention is because it is used by both political parties and media to score points and divide the population. What would the response have been if the Chick-Fil-A guy had called out pre-marital heterosexual sex?

John doesn't dispute that an Antichrist is coming. The point he makes is twofold - 1) that an antichrist is coming and 2) that the spirit of antichrist is currently manifest in the world and present in some people. That a man who personifies evil is coming at the end of the age is clearly taught. What we have chosen to call him is of less importance, but antichrist is logical. The word trinity isn't found in the Bible at all, if I'm not mistaken. Randy Parker was correct. Paul clearly teaches about it in 2 Thessalonians 2 when he writes the Thessalonians that the coming of Christ will be preceded by the revelation of the "man of lawlessness", "the son of destruction". Paul also says in v. 7 that the "mystery of lawlessness is already at work", which echos what John writes, i.e., that antichrist is coming, but the spirit that will drive him is already at work in the world. There are other passages that support this belief as well... Daniel 7 - a king will arise to oppose God. Daniel 9 - the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city. Daniel 11 - a king who exalts himself above and speaks astonishing things against God. Also, Revelation 13 (mentioned by Randy Parker) tells us about the beast and the false prophet. And, some believe the rider on the White Horse in chapter 6 represents the antichrist.

I don't care what they decide to do with regards to the age limit on Olympic participation, but I think Team USA will be in a dogfight to medal if they go to 23 and under.

As an outside observer going on the words of analysts and such, one big difference between Chad and the other big mouth diva WR's that he's associated with is that almost all of those guys were considered highly intelligent football players. I've heard multiple reports of people being impressing with Randy Moss' knowledge of the game. I've never heard that about Chad Johnson. The guy was undeniably talented, but I haven't heard anything to suggest his attention to detail is at the necessary level to prolongue his career and make himself worth the headache. I think Chad was always a more "fun" type of diva where Moss and TO were more surly. Regardless, not everyone likes that act and it gets magnified depending on the results on the field, i.e., it was "funner" when the Bengals were playing well, more annoying when they weren't. If you're starting a new regime and trying to rebuild as Philbin is, do you really want that on your roster from a guy that is past his prime? Heck, I'm not sure I'd want Chad in his prime if I were in Philbin's current position.

Mustard Seeds select... DEF Dallas Cowboys

Schools like LSU and Alabama and some others don't need guys like this. Sure it's a loss, he was a talented guy, but they're loaded with talent. This won't ruin their season.

Was Mike Brown included in the trade package?

I was thinking the same thing. That veto has had a gigantic impact on the league. Is David Stern a prophet? The veto made no sense to me when it happened and I think New Orleans got a worse deal in the trade that was allowed. Yet, it turned into gold with Anthony Davis and Austin Rivers in the draft and I believe I heard that they signed Eric Gordon. The Clippers got Paul to pair with Griffin and are now a player in the west. Now, the Lakers end up signing Nash and landing Dwight without losing Pau. I think Stern is a greenseer. Incredible. In one deft move, he's allowed three franchises to strike gold. Pau is a lucky charm I think. The Lakers got him in a great deal (although not quite as bad as some make it out to be) and now they manage to keep him out of this trade.

Count me in that group. But, only from the perspective that I stated. It would have given them a young franchise superstar center to carry the torch and build around for the future and attract marquee free agents. But, as a Laker fan, I love it. Got the best of both worlds.

I subscribed to HBO last year to watch Game of Thrones and was really pumped to finally see Hard Knocks live (I have watched some replays on NFL Network, but its not the same). And, of course, the lockout ruined it. So, I'm pretty pumped to finally get to see it.