Open minded Christians...

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

OneFaith

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2016
2,270
369
83
#21
Is this another way of saying, "I don't believe God's word"? It seems to be a position of compromise, not willing to stand on God's word, and rather be a people pleaser. Risking the chance of offending others, they submit to political correctness. They seem to approve of communities that boast in sin, while professing to be "Christian." They alienate themselves from traditional values to make peace with the world. One might take the stance of "let go and let live" but to actually endorse, approve, and rejoice in the practice of sin?

Love is not approving of sin, love is showing the way to overcome sin and its penalty. We do not love the world by embracing its fallen nature. We reveal the light to them, the love of Christ. We share the Gospel. We do not feign interest in their indulgences, but offer genuine interest in their souls. We love them, because God loves them. Just as the Lord lets it rain on the good, and the evil, and lets the sun shine upon both. We love people.

If you proclaim to be a Christian, do not be so open minded that you would make friendship with the world at the cost of their soul. You have done them a great disservice. Offer them an embrace, but not an embrace of their sin. Show them love, true love. Preach the Gospel, share the truth. Will you have blood on your hands? Tainted with those perishing, as you lulled them into a false sense of security. They need to repent, and believe in Jesus. As you too ought to repent and stand with God's word.

May God bless you, guide you, and the Spirit guide you into all truth. In Jesus' name. Amen.
Hmm, I thought of it the opposite way. Like if Paul (Saul) wasn't open-minded he would never have converted to Christianity. Some people are so stubborn that they won't consider what the Scriptures say, and stick to what they were taught. Problem is we were all taught differently, so how can we all arrive at the same truth without an opened mind?
 

Embankment

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2017
703
196
43
#22
Hmm, I thought of it the opposite way. Like if Paul (Saul) wasn't open-minded he would never have converted to Christianity. Some people are so stubborn that they won't consider what the Scriptures say, and stick to what they were taught. Problem is we were all taught differently, so how can we all arrive at the same truth without an opened mind?
Excellent point!
 

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
34
#23
Hmm, I thought of it the opposite way. Like if Paul (Saul) wasn't open-minded he would never have converted to Christianity. Some people are so stubborn that they won't consider what the Scriptures say, and stick to what they were taught. Problem is we were all taught differently, so how can we all arrive at the same truth without an opened mind?
Context reveals that open-mindedness is not about willing to change, but a person claiming to be an "open minded" Christian, and agreeing with the subjective morality of the world, denying absolute truths (given by God). In one of the previous posts I explained where this statement originated, of being an open minded Christian. It is a statement said to point out that one is not "bigoted."

Your point, however, is good in the context of being open minded so as to learn, be corrected, and so on.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#24
God tells us to love the sinner, he does not call us to be open, or have an open mind to sin, that is a no,

The issue is how do we love? Sadly i think they church for years took one extreme, condemnation, judgment, some have even hated the person (not the sin). Sadly today, much like the gospel, we go from one extreme to the other, and think the term love means to allow or say it is ok to live that way, in fact, they deny it is even a sin.

The issue is, how do we come to the middle, how do we love without judgment?

I will be honest, other then the pure gospel. (The gospel of love and salvation based on grace, not on how sinful we are) I am not really sure myself.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#25
Paul, said he was all things to all people, how do relate this to todays world?
 

Paul1979

New member
Jun 19, 2018
27
2
3
#26
Here is the problem with this. When one says "open-minded" in the context of what the OP is arguing is a fallacy. At one point he is judging one group by "sin" and another group because they "agree" with them, and then creating a third group that is somehow "pure".

This is an oversimplification, False Analogy, Strawman, Hasty simplification of an issue.

There is no reason to think just because someone "accepts" another group, for whatever reason, that you have to label that person "open-minded" (which is being used as a pejorative) against someone who does not stay in the fold and hold to the "Group-Think" of a particular issue.

Let us say that the Bible says that if a person wears two forms of cloth and they are to be stoned to death. The Bible does say that you should not wear Wool and Linen. Yet people today wear clothes that are usually Cotton and Linen, yet no one bats an eye at it and justifies it because it falls under some form of law that we do not need to "follow". Yet, some arbitrary "sin" such as homosexuality, automatically becomes the "devil's sin", while others fall completely to the wayside. Yet, everyone here would be violating Deut. 22:11 by wearing mixed clothes. But if we decided to make that the "devil's sin" of the American Culture, everyone who wears mixed clothes would be considered in "sin" and that everyone who supports them would be considered an "open-minded Heretic" and you all would be a "closed-minded Bigot".

Here is the point, the issue, whether it be homosexuality or mixed clothes it is a cultural issue and in America, it is an American-Christian culture issue, that picks and chooses what Bible verses they want to enforce so they can control the narrative of what Christian culture should be that it should be against American Culture. If it was appropriate someone would have picked up this verse and applied it to American Christianity if they believed that the American Culture was too "corrupted" and they had to enforce this verse to "separate" Christians from the American Culture.

Why did the Homosexual verse get picked up and others dropped off? It was a response to American Culture. American Christians have done this with various other issues. Creationism=Evolution, Biblicalism=German Liberalism, American Eschatology (Pre-trib/Rapture/Tribulation beliefs)=Civil War/Civil unrest of the 1850's to 1890's. Homosexuality was no different, it was a defensive response.

Why does the Bible say that only men cannot sleep with other men? If one were to read very carefully, you will find no prohibition against women to sleep with other women. This brings up a very good point as to why this issue is in the Bible.

The Hebrew/Jewish Culture was patriarchial, there were two strands of Cast: Men on top and Women on the bottom of the cast. There is an old saying out of the Talmud that says "Thank God I was not born a Woman" and with it, are I am not a Gentile and I am not a Slave. These three castes were looked down by the High Jewish Culture, Luke 18:11 gives a similar prayer, but it is about adulterers, Tax Collectors, Robbers, and Evildoers.

What does this have to do with Men sleeping with men? In Jewish Culture, if two men were to sleep with each other, one of the men would have to become a "woman" in the relationship. Which would be the highest insult within the culture, A man being called or associated as a woman. There is a second reason for this and that is that all men are equal caste. Which means there is no up or downward movement within the Jewish Caste System. So there would also be a Caste stigma. I will demonstrate this.

In the ANE (Ancient Near East) what we classify as Homosexuality was on paper, "illegal" but was allowed culturally and usually culturally regulated as to what is "allowed" and not. In Roman Culture, an upper-caste man is allowed to have a "sex slave" or a child or teenage boy, as long as the man is not equal to his status or the boy or teen is not of the age of a man. A famous story is between Julius Ceaser and his Nephew Octavian, both men are equal status, but when Octavian was a boy, he has no such protection, but when he came of age, the relationship had to stop, because, it would dishonor the status of Octavian. But if Ceaser wanted another person, it would have to be from a lower class and in each case, the upper-class individual was the "dominant" partner.

Why is there no prohibition with women sleeping with women? If one was a woman in the Jewish Culture, there was no "down" for them, they were at the bottom. Also, a man was allowed to marry more than one woman and that would mean that two women in the same marriage to the same man would be "allowed" to have relations with each other (and it was allowed only through marriage), (there are no prohibitions on this within the law, other than a man cannot marry two sisters, and that would violate the incest laws).

Why do I say all of this, very simple, most Christians have no idea why something is allowed and something is not. What we call homosexuality did not exist 3500 years ago. In fact, it did not exist as a word until 1868 and it was coined in America, and it fits very well with the other American-Christian Culture Theology of Creationism (post-1860's), Biblicalism (1880), and Eschatology (1850's-1900's), all three of these came up around the same time.

I am showing the history as to why this is a "thing" today and why people are wanting off this train. Many Christians, myself included, are tired of the Christian Culture War and everything they have fought for they have lost and lost handsomely. You are not defending the "original" intent of the Bible, you are defending a Defensive-Cultural-Theology from 150 years ago, that as of now, America has decided to make legal. And insulting Christians who do not agree with you, is not going to win them back, it is only going to grow the divide even more.

This is my defense as to why I do not support this issue. There is no basis for it, at all. If anyone is interested in reading up on this issue I would recommend the book "The Bible Now" by Richard Elliot Friedman, he goes through the homosexual issue and he lays out all the arguments that have been garnered to support as to why people still hold on to it, but he also argues as to why it was an issue for the Hebrew People of that time period, he lays out the cultural understanding of it and it is not what you think, much of what I argued is based off his argument.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#27
This topic reminds me of the age old axiom that an open mind is like an open window. It is best when it has a screen affixed upon it.

Christians are to screen everything through the bible. To be liked is not what we are to strive to attain but to rely upon biblical correctness.

Love does not offend but righteousness is bound to offend sinfulness. We are light and the darkness is bound to flee when we enter. The kinder and more gently you talk with the sinner the more offended he is likely to become if he rejects the gospel. Sometimes the sinner needs to get really lost before he can see his need of the Savior. It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin in the heart of the sinner.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,003
4,315
113
#28
Context reveals that open-mindedness is not about willing to change, but a person claiming to be an "open minded" Christian, and agreeing with the subjective morality of the world, denying absolute truths (given by God). In one of the previous posts I explained where this statement originated, of being an open minded Christian. It is a statement said to point out that one is not "bigoted."

Your point, however, is good in the context of being open minded so as to learn, be corrected, and so on.
your position was supported by Jesus in an application you can use the broad & Narrow road Broad. Broad being open minded
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#29
your position was supported by Jesus in an application you can use the broad & Narrow road Broad. Broad being open minded
The broad road leading to destruction? That broad road? It is the narrow way that leads to God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Embankment

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2017
703
196
43
#30
Each and every one of us was dead in our on sin. God through the sacrifice of his son and out of pure love for us forgave everything we ever did and everything we ever could do. Jesus paid for it all, God remembers our sin no more.
Instead of rejoicing in that we make it our past time to go after everyone else's sin. It's like somehow we are less of a sinner than they are? Their sin is not forgiven?
What did Jesus say? Look at the plank in your on eye.
 
Jun 20, 2018
21
7
3
Brisbane
#31
Is this another way of saying, "I don't believe God's word"? It seems to be a position of compromise, not willing to stand on God's word, and rather be a people pleaser. Risking the chance of offending others, they submit to political correctness. They seem to approve of communities that boast in sin, while professing to be "Christian." They alienate themselves from traditional values to make peace with the world. One might take the stance of "let go and let live" but to actually endorse, approve, and rejoice in the practice of sin?

Love is not approving of sin, love is showing the way to overcome sin and its penalty. We do not love the world by embracing its fallen nature. We reveal the light to them, the love of Christ. We share the Gospel. We do not feign interest in their indulgences, but offer genuine interest in their souls. We love them, because God loves them. Just as the Lord lets it rain on the good, and the evil, and lets the sun shine upon both. We love people.

If you proclaim to be a Christian, do not be so open minded that you would make friendship with the world at the cost of their soul. You have done them a great disservice. Offer them an embrace, but not an embrace of their sin. Show them love, true love. Preach the Gospel, share the truth. Will you have blood on your hands? Tainted with those perishing, as you lulled them into a false sense of security. They need to repent, and believe in Jesus. As you too ought to repent and stand with God's word.

May God bless you, guide you, and the Spirit guide you into all truth. In Jesus' name. Amen.
A closed mind is a mind that exhausts it's ability to learn, selective learning starves us from adapting & change.

Hosea 4:6 NIV
my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
#32
Paul, said he was all things to all people, how do relate this to todays world?
This certainly did not mean that Paul was open-minded.

But Paul was sensitive to the kind of people he was addressing or ministering to, and adjusted his words and actions to make it possible to communicate with them.

Let's say you are sharing the Gospel with a Ph.D. You would adjust your words to communicate better with that person. On the other hand, if you were sharing the Gospel with a child, you would make a similar adjustment.
 

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
34
#33
Each and every one of us was dead in our on sin. God through the sacrifice of his son and out of pure love for us forgave everything we ever did and everything we ever could do. Jesus paid for it all, God remembers our sin no more.
Instead of rejoicing in that we make it our past time to go after everyone else's sin. It's like somehow we are less of a sinner than they are? Their sin is not forgiven?
What did Jesus say? Look at the plank in your on eye.
While I understand the sentiment you're expressing, its not really on topic. Its not even their sins we're discussing as opposed to the endorsement from proclaimed Christians of their sins and lifestyle. This is like applauding the killing spree of a serial killer, the raping of a rapist, the theft of a thief, and so on. Then saying, "I am an open minded Christian", in agreement with their acts. Such a statement relegates objectivity to subjectivity. Alienating oneself from absolute standards, to relative ones.
 

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
34
#34
Here is the problem with this. When one says "open-minded" in the context of what the OP is arguing is a fallacy. At one point he is judging one group by "sin" and another group because they "agree" with them, and then creating a third group that is somehow "pure".

This is an oversimplification, False Analogy, Strawman, Hasty simplification of an issue.

There is no reason to think just because someone "accepts" another group, for whatever reason, that you have to label that person "open-minded" (which is being used as a pejorative) against someone who does not stay in the fold and hold to the "Group-Think" of a particular issue.

Let us say that the Bible says that if a person wears two forms of cloth and they are to be stoned to death. The Bible does say that you should not wear Wool and Linen. Yet people today wear clothes that are usually Cotton and Linen, yet no one bats an eye at it and justifies it because it falls under some form of law that we do not need to "follow". Yet, some arbitrary "sin" such as homosexuality, automatically becomes the "devil's sin", while others fall completely to the wayside. Yet, everyone here would be violating Deut. 22:11 by wearing mixed clothes. But if we decided to make that the "devil's sin" of the American Culture, everyone who wears mixed clothes would be considered in "sin" and that everyone who supports them would be considered an "open-minded Heretic" and you all would be a "closed-minded Bigot".

Here is the point, the issue, whether it be homosexuality or mixed clothes it is a cultural issue and in America, it is an American-Christian culture issue, that picks and chooses what Bible verses they want to enforce so they can control the narrative of what Christian culture should be that it should be against American Culture. If it was appropriate someone would have picked up this verse and applied it to American Christianity if they believed that the American Culture was too "corrupted" and they had to enforce this verse to "separate" Christians from the American Culture.

Why did the Homosexual verse get picked up and others dropped off? It was a response to American Culture. American Christians have done this with various other issues. Creationism=Evolution, Biblicalism=German Liberalism, American Eschatology (Pre-trib/Rapture/Tribulation beliefs)=Civil War/Civil unrest of the 1850's to 1890's. Homosexuality was no different, it was a defensive response.

Why does the Bible say that only men cannot sleep with other men? If one were to read very carefully, you will find no prohibition against women to sleep with other women. This brings up a very good point as to why this issue is in the Bible.

The Hebrew/Jewish Culture was patriarchial, there were two strands of Cast: Men on top and Women on the bottom of the cast. There is an old saying out of the Talmud that says "Thank God I was not born a Woman" and with it, are I am not a Gentile and I am not a Slave. These three castes were looked down by the High Jewish Culture, Luke 18:11 gives a similar prayer, but it is about adulterers, Tax Collectors, Robbers, and Evildoers.

What does this have to do with Men sleeping with men? In Jewish Culture, if two men were to sleep with each other, one of the men would have to become a "woman" in the relationship. Which would be the highest insult within the culture, A man being called or associated as a woman. There is a second reason for this and that is that all men are equal caste. Which means there is no up or downward movement within the Jewish Caste System. So there would also be a Caste stigma. I will demonstrate this.

In the ANE (Ancient Near East) what we classify as Homosexuality was on paper, "illegal" but was allowed culturally and usually culturally regulated as to what is "allowed" and not. In Roman Culture, an upper-caste man is allowed to have a "sex slave" or a child or teenage boy, as long as the man is not equal to his status or the boy or teen is not of the age of a man. A famous story is between Julius Ceaser and his Nephew Octavian, both men are equal status, but when Octavian was a boy, he has no such protection, but when he came of age, the relationship had to stop, because, it would dishonor the status of Octavian. But if Ceaser wanted another person, it would have to be from a lower class and in each case, the upper-class individual was the "dominant" partner.

Why is there no prohibition with women sleeping with women? If one was a woman in the Jewish Culture, there was no "down" for them, they were at the bottom. Also, a man was allowed to marry more than one woman and that would mean that two women in the same marriage to the same man would be "allowed" to have relations with each other (and it was allowed only through marriage), (there are no prohibitions on this within the law, other than a man cannot marry two sisters, and that would violate the incest laws).

Why do I say all of this, very simple, most Christians have no idea why something is allowed and something is not. What we call homosexuality did not exist 3500 years ago. In fact, it did not exist as a word until 1868 and it was coined in America, and it fits very well with the other American-Christian Culture Theology of Creationism (post-1860's), Biblicalism (1880), and Eschatology (1850's-1900's), all three of these came up around the same time.

I am showing the history as to why this is a "thing" today and why people are wanting off this train. Many Christians, myself included, are tired of the Christian Culture War and everything they have fought for they have lost and lost handsomely. You are not defending the "original" intent of the Bible, you are defending a Defensive-Cultural-Theology from 150 years ago, that as of now, America has decided to make legal. And insulting Christians who do not agree with you, is not going to win them back, it is only going to grow the divide even more.

This is my defense as to why I do not support this issue. There is no basis for it, at all. If anyone is interested in reading up on this issue I would recommend the book "The Bible Now" by Richard Elliot Friedman, he goes through the homosexual issue and he lays out all the arguments that have been garnered to support as to why people still hold on to it, but he also argues as to why it was an issue for the Hebrew People of that time period, he lays out the cultural understanding of it and it is not what you think, much of what I argued is based off his argument.
Romans 1:26-27 King James Version (KJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lesbianism is covered in the bible. It is a sin.

Don't think I'm on some witch hunt. I was appalled at what self-proclaimed "open minded Christians" were saying on Youtube, not realizing the cost of such a perspective. They called themselves this, not I.
 

OneFaith

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2016
2,270
369
83
#35
Context reveals that open-mindedness is not about willing to change, but a person claiming to be an "open minded" Christian, and agreeing with the subjective morality of the world, denying absolute truths (given by God). In one of the previous posts I explained where this statement originated, of being an open minded Christian. It is a statement said to point out that one is not "bigoted."

Your point, however, is good in the context of being open minded so as to learn, be corrected, and so on.
Agreed, Christians should be open-minded to scriptural truth, not to tolerating sin.
 

Embankment

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2017
703
196
43
#36
Romans 1:26-27 King James Version (KJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lesbianism is covered in the bible. It is a sin.

Don't think I'm on some witch hunt. I was appalled at what self-proclaimed "open minded Christians" were saying on Youtube, not realizing the cost of such a perspective. They called themselves this, not I.
Romans 1
Romans 1:26-27 King James Version (KJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lesbianism is covered in the bible. It is a sin.

Don't think I'm on some witch hunt. I was appalled at what self-proclaimed "open minded Christians" were saying on Youtube, not realizing the cost of such a perspective. They called themselves this, not I.
Romans 1 is meaningless without Romans 2. This is the kind of philosophy one get when they read the Bible by key word surch instead of actually reading the Bible..........
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness,forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a]7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality,he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.11 For God does not show favoritism.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
#37
Let us say that the Bible says that if a person wears two forms of cloth and they are to be stoned to death. The Bible does say that you should not wear Wool and Linen. Yet people today wear clothes that are usually Cotton and Linen, yet no one bats an eye at it and justifies it because it falls under some form of law that we do not need to "follow". Yet, some arbitrary "sin" such as homosexuality, automatically becomes the "devil's sin", while others fall completely to the wayside. Yet, everyone here would be violating Deut. 22:11 by wearing mixed clothes. But if we decided to make that the "devil's sin" of the American Culture, everyone who wears mixed clothes would be considered in "sin" and that everyone who supports them would be considered an "open-minded Heretic" and you all would be a "closed-minded Bigot".
Your comment lacks spiritual understanding. Forget the law of Moses upon which you're trying to establish an equivalence that is not there. Homosexuality is sexual immorality. No sexually immoral person has an inheritance in the kingdom of GOD.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
#38
I am showing the history as to why this is a "thing" today and why people are wanting off this train. Many Christians, myself included, are tired of the Christian Culture War and everything they have fought for they have lost and lost handsomely. You are not defending the "original" intent of the Bible, you are defending a Defensive-Cultural-Theology from 150 years ago, that as of now, America has decided to make legal. And insulting Christians who do not agree with you, is not going to win them back, it is only going to grow the divide even more.
That's a spiritually ignorant view. What is being defending is this.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
 
Sep 12, 2014
55
2
8
56
#39
(Romans 12.2) NIV Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. So in following scripture your thinking process would not be of human nature but of spiritual nature. And Adstar I 100% agree with your statement by opening your mind this is the tool Satan uses to attack. (Mathew 7) KJV
Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

It is through this so called open mindedness your thinking has soared above GOD. Proverbs 26:12 Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

I may not know alot but I do know that GOD I serve wants me to be the servant not the Master and leave the thinking to Him. Open Minded is doubt and disbelief in GODS truth. So my question to all of you would be this who out here or anywhere has an opinion of any sort any type or merit that would out weigh the wisdom of the FATHER in heaven in HIS infinite wisdom (if your answer is no one then what is it that this mind is opening too.)
 
Sep 12, 2014
55
2
8
56
#40
Now I am not saying you should not call out evil, however since I was made whole why can't anyone else be. 1Thessalonians 5:23 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.