Originally posted by twhiteheadLook, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm simply saying that if one rejects or denies that God has told us what sin is, and seeks to redefine what the Bible clearly says sin is, that person does not understand the mind of God.
I am sure that some of us are (void). What I always find interesting is how you prefer to simply insult us (point out our inadequacies) and leave it there rather than try to help fill the void. You frequently enter threads and basically tell a poster he is ignorant of the subject and sometime go on to point out that he doesn't have a hope of understanding ...[text shortened]... results, but if I am not directly involved in the actual sin, am I absolved of responsibility?
The Bible says that God created everything. And so He did. But to go to the extreme and suggest that God is responsible for our choices by saying He created anything sinful or evil, is a corruption of the clear meaning of simple truth.
There is nothing constructive about twisting the meaning of basic truth. There is far too much of that going on in this forum.
The Bible is really quite easy to understand if one simply lets it say what it says.
Originally posted by josephwYou mean like when you twist the Bible and insert the words 'Trinity' and 'Triune'?
....There is nothing constructive about twisting the meaning of basic truth. There is far too much of that going on in this forum.
The Bible is really quite easy to understand if one simply lets it say what it says.
Or like when you say that good works are not required for salvation even though Christ says in plain english that we will be judged by our works.
Would those be examples of twisting the Bible's basic truth?
Originally posted by jaywillsexual perversion. this is a difficult subject to tackle. in the medieval times anything other than the missionary position was considered sinful perverse. not to mention anal or oral sex.
Does "all sexuality" mean that there is no such thing as sexual perversion of any kind?[/b]
if the one(masturbation), two or more persons involved are consenting adults anything goes. only deeply religious people would feel ashamed for having fun and think god made sex feel good only to fuk with us. only deeply religious people(any religion) would take god as a burden instead of blessing and associate all fun with sin.
Originally posted by googlefudgeTry atheism?
Who wrote the bible? people, prove they were told what to write by god, and that they got it right.
Also Sin is a religiouse concept. Us athiests get on by without it with no trouble whatsoever. you should try it sometime.
So, as an atheist you have no code of conduct? If you do, on what authority do you base you beliefs in?
Homosexuality is considered immoral by the vast majority of people around the world at all times and places because it is self evident by nature alone. The attempt to legitimise homosexuality is self delusional.
Originally posted by josephwthen why god says two men getting it on is sinful but doesn't mention lesbianism at all?
If you believe that homosexuality is a psychological condition, then you have bought into man's way of thinking.
The Bible is explicit. Sin is whatever God says it is. Sin is what separates us from God. God defines sin.
When we start defining sin according to what we think it is, and not what God says it is, then the truth is not in us.
does the bible say anything about ferraris? how about Fords? is it sinful to own a car? how can you know it is not sinful if god didn't tell you it is or not?
could it be possible you "start defining sin according to what we think it is, and not what God says it is"? hmm?
i am quite anxious to hear what you have to say about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999The Bible clearly teaches that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is how God has revealed Himself. When one says that the idea that God is not three in one, then one fails to understand the Godhead.
You mean like when you twist the Bible and insert the words 'Trinity' and 'Triune'?
Or like when you say that good works are not required for salvation even though Christ says in plain english that we will be judged by our works.
Would those be examples of twisting the Bible's basic truth?
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
We, will not be judged for sin. We, who have trusted in what Christ has done on our behalf at the cross, are not worried about being judged for sin.
Rom. 8:1a There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
Originally posted by ZahlanziMaybe this says it about both men and women :
then why god says two men getting it on is sinful but doesn't mention lesbianism at all?..
Romans 1:26 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 recompense of their error which was meet.
Originally posted by josephwWas it only when the NT was written, then people understood this very important concept of the "godhead'?
The Bible clearly teaches that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is how God has revealed Himself. When one says that the idea that God is not three in one, then one fails to understand the Godhead.
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
We, will not be judge ...[text shortened]... d for sin.
Rom. 8:1a There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
What did people do before that. Believed incorrect doctrines?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwSin is a religious term, it has to do with doing things that have been banned by god. If you don't believe in god then there is no such thing as sin. This is not the same as saying there are no morals, or codes of conduct, they just aren't faith based.
Try atheism?
So, as an atheist you have no code of conduct? If you do, on what authority do you base you beliefs in?
Homosexuality is considered immoral by the vast majority of people around the world at all times and places because it is self evident by nature alone. The attempt to legitimise homosexuality is self delusional.
And until Christians came along Homosexuality was commonplace, the Romans for example were buggering themselves senseless left right and centre. And sexual orientation is pretty well decided at birth, and anyone who takes issues with someone else's sexual orientation needs to get a life.
And no I wasn't suggesting you try atheism, that would be hypocritical and absurd, I was suggesting you ditch the crap about sin, and have some fun. (also possibly hypocritical but hey what the heck.)
Originally posted by josephwhomosexuality is the species answer to over population. no longer driven by the need to reproduce, we are now given a vacation from having lots of kids.
Try atheism?
So, as an atheist you have no code of conduct? If you do, on what authority do you base you beliefs in?
Homosexuality is considered immoral by the vast majority of people around the world at all times and places because it is self evident by nature alone. The attempt to legitimise homosexuality is self delusional.
if by some event a plague wipes out 95% of humanity, i am quite sure that homosexuality will disappear in the course of few generations.
your claim that homosexuality is immoral lies solely on god saying so(assuming that god said so and not some homophobe trying to impose his view on the jews). you don't think why did god say so, what where his reasons and do they still apply. you just blindly follow rules set by people you never knew, people who died thousands of years ago.
Originally posted by ZahlanziRom. 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
then why god says two men getting it on is sinful but doesn't mention lesbianism at all?
does the bible say anything about ferraris? how about Fords? is it sinful to own a car? how can you know it is not sinful if god didn't tell you it is or not?
could it be possible you "start defining sin according to what we think it is, and not what God says it is"? hmm?
i am quite anxious to hear what you have to say about it.
Rom. 1:26 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:
The Bible is quite clear about what is sin and what is not.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Actually there is evidence that from the species perspective, there are benefits to having homosexuals around (or having a degree of homosexual behaviour). It can increase a species survival fitness, which is probably why almost every where in nature you can find homosexual behaviour.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"homosexuality is the species answer to over population. no longer driven by the need to reproduce, we are now given a vacation from having lots of kids."
homosexuality is the species answer to over population. no longer driven by the need to reproduce, we are now given a vacation from having lots of kids.
if by some event a plague wipes out 95% of humanity, i am quite sure that homosexuality will disappear in the course of few generations.
your claim that homosexuality is immoral lies solely on god ...[text shortened]... just blindly follow rules set by people you never knew, people who died thousands of years ago.
Over population? That is a hoax.
Why use homosexuality to stop over population? Why not simply exterminate those that are lower down on the evolutionary scale?
Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwover population is a hoax?? really, to what end?
[b]"homosexuality is the species answer to over population. no longer driven by the need to reproduce, we are now given a vacation from having lots of kids."
Over population? That is a hoax.
Why use homosexuality to stop over population? Why not simply exterminate those that are lower down on the evolutionary scale?
Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed.[/b]