Did Trump Pick Richard Grenell as VP
Trumpin For VP Pick?
A buddy of mine sent me a text. He thinks it might be Richard Grenell based on what Sebastian Gorka said.
Gorka mentioned... "This is not identity politics.. and no one is even talking about the pick".
What do you guys think?
I like Richard.
But if this is true. I am not sure it will help with the culture war.
What is your thoughts?
No, it doesn't. And reading in a bunch of new age interpretations will never change the Word of God.
You can't accept the new without the old. The old predicts the new. The entire OT prefigures the NT. Christ is ever-present throughout the Old Testament. He permeates it. And Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
Further, it is against Man's nature to engage in homosexuality. God made us for each other. Man and woman He made us. There is no way to read the Bible and come to this liberal theology nonsense.
So, respectfully, you don't have some hidden, unknown knowledge that most Christians are unaware of. The translations are accurate, and it has been known for 2000 years what Christ was talking about.
Also, there's a really good reason why not one single successful society exists that tolerates homosexuality, open relationships, polygamy, etc.
The arguments presented here go further in depth on this and to me are very compelling: https://americansfortruth.com/2013/08/09/gay-marriage-and-distant-consequences-homosexuality-sexual-immorality-and-the-downfall-of-american-civilization/
And for bonus points: Ancient Greece did not accept homosexuality, and young boys did not have sexual relationships with older men. That is a liberal lie to defame our ancestors and push their own ideology.
Homosexuality has been rejected in every society to exist, and for good reason.
Edit: also, the OT saying that homosexuality was abomination was not just the law for the Jews. The OT saying to execute homosexuals was. One is moral, the other is legal. God's morals don't change, while the law only exists to guide us towards the moral.
The OT is a different message from the NT. Or else, where in the OT is the equivalent of the book of Romans/Galatians? It’s not there. But if God’s character is the same in the OT as in the NT, then why is the message different? The OT is legalism and sacrifice. The NT put an end to legalism and sacrifice, as Jesus paid the debt for all God’s children to be reconciled.
But who was the ransom paid to? Did Jesus pay his Father to save His children? Or was the ransom paid to an entity who was so prideful he thought himself ti be god?
The OT reveals the problem and foreshadows the solution. But the solution isn’t in the OT.
The OT and NT preach the same message, because Jesus is the focus of both of them.
Jesus Christ is the message. The solution is in the OT, and it's Christ. And since everything done in the OT by God was good and holy, and since God does not change, the whole OT is still good and holy.
It is blasphemous to claim God's character changed between the OT and NT. His character does not change, He is perfect and good. If you can't see the New Testament in the Old Testament, you can't see Jesus. He came to fulfill the law, as He said. This is because the law was created to achieve the ideals espoused in the NT.
And again, the moral law is distinct from the ceremonial and judicial/civil law (though ultimately these are man-made categories. But, as Paul tells us, all scripture is profitable for learning). The moral law does not change. What is good does not change.
Also, Jesus explicitly outlined things that no longer apply, like the dietary laws and circumcision. What He didn't do was tell us to go around having gay butt sex whenever we please. In fact, he explicitly reiterates that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the rest of the NT is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin.
Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
This isn't talking about rape, it's talking about men and women having consensual sex among their own genders. I don't know about you, but this is sounding kinda OT to me.