Originally posted by sonhouseYour own statements show how ignorant you are of the True God and what is written in the Holy Bible.
It just goes to prove how stupid this whole argument is since a real god would not set up a system where males are superior to females in the first place. The idea that a person with male genitalia is superior to persons with female genitalia is repugnant and ridiculous. If some god actually created us it created almost every form of life on earth with sexu ...[text shortened]... control other weak minded men and just accidentally suppressing women.
BULL CRAP. All of it.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYour own statements goes to show how profoundly brainwashed you and a few billion other people are. Show me the money. Have your god show itself, say something to me personally, I can change my mind about those things given real evidence. Outside of that, humans telling me what god to worship ain't gonna happen. The idea that a god would NEED worship from ANYBODY is so far off the scale as to be patently ridiculous. That is just humans projecting what THEY would like, small minded humans at that. Like humans would be so far up the evolutionary ladder as to make a god WANT to have billions of people worship it, just that much more evidence the entire religious edifice is 100% made up by humans)
Your own statements show how ignorant you are of the True God and what is written in the Holy Bible.
So you figure gay people were some kind of mistake, that god screwed up its creation? If your god is omniscient, a stupid concept in the first place, but for the sake of argument, you have to see if god created mankind and everything on Earth, then it also created gay people for a reason.
Of course you are too blind to even see the implications of that.
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, I agree God created everything He made for a reason; and when He made it all, it was good. Man also makes things and they are often good in the beginning, but over time they deteriorate and must be repaired or replaced.
Your own statements goes to show how profoundly brainwashed you and a few billion other people are. Show me the money. Have your god show itself, say something to me personally, I can change my mind about those things given real evidence. Outside of that, humans telling me what god to worship ain't gonna happen. The idea that a god would NEED worship from A ...[text shortened]... d gay people for a reason.
Of course you are too blind to even see the implications of that.
The Holy Bible says you have been given enough evidence and testimony from the prophets so that you are without excuse. It is because of His mercy that He does not show Himself, for the Holy Bible states that the wicked will be destroyed by the Holy brightness of His coming. You have been given the time to repent of your sins. Stop being stubborn and take that time for your own good.
5 edits
Originally posted by FMF
It absolutely is an issue. You conflated homosexuality with having sex with animals and children and then you say giving or not being able to give their informed consent to marriage or sex is "not an issue" when discussing the "morality" of that homosexual sex. I've called you out for conflating non-consensual sex/rape with homosexuality, and your response is that it's not an issue?
It absolutely is an issue. You conflated homosexuality with having sex with animals and children and then you say giving or not being able to give their informed consent to marriage or sex is "not an issue" when discussing the "morality" of that homosexual sex. I've called you out for conflating non-consensual sex/rape with homosexuality, and your response is that it's not an issue?
I probably don't follow your line too well because I am in a heated exchange with more than one person here.
Concerning the courts of human beings, we are limited in our knowledge. Often we do not know exactly what happened. We seek to be fair, as we should. What was consensual and how that could be proved or disproved are the areas that human lawyers, attorneys, judges, and courts wrestle with. And they try to get it right.
How good your attorney is and how much money one has plays an important role in human courts.
But I am speaking of the ultimate court with God. His knowledge is infallible. His record contains no errors. His wisdom is unsearchable. What He knows about the backround, innermost motive, advantages and disadvantages of every human being, is totally without error.
Paul says that God will judge "the secrets of men." Too often human courts cannot judge the secrets of the human heart.
"In the day when God judges the secrets of men according to my gospel through Jesus Christ." (Rom. 2:16)
There is no motive and no heart that is not totally laid bare before Him as He recalls to man his deeds.
" For the word of God ... is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature that is not manifest before Him, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we are to give our account." (Hebrews 4:12b,13)
You talk of mutual consent. Others talk of how one was born. All these things will be crystal clear to Christ.
He searches the reins of the heart and nothing is hidden to Him.
" ... and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the inward parts and the hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your works." (Rev. 2:23)
I may judge wrongly. You may also. I may condemn wrongly. I may excuse wrongly as well. You too. Every human court wrestling with these matters also may err. God knows everything and He will not err.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is incurable; Who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart and test the inward parts, Even to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds." (Jeremiah 17:9,10)
I think in essence, you are reminding me that I am overlooking this or that special circumstance. I do not disagree with you that I may overlook this or that particular nuance of a person's circumstance.
But we Christians see that "all have sinned" and all have a need and a right to know of the saving work of Christ and the judgment to come.
I do not deny that some may be born with a propensity to lean towards some kind of behavior. I do not expect any medical or psychiatric knowledge of mankind to be more informed then God. God has summed up all under sin and caused His Son to die on the cross that ALL may be saved.
And the apostles announced the gospel to all and warned everyman, to present everyman mature in Christ -
" ... Christ in you, the hope of glory, Whom we announce admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man full-grown in Christ; For which also I labor, struggling according to the operation which operates in me in power." ( Col. 1:28,29)
Will the Gospel preacher make some mistakes ? Probably yes. Will some be warned who may have some special medical condition, some special wound of the past compelling them to act in a psychological way, some coercement, some consentment .... generally are there details of which the gospel announcer is unaware ?
Yes, yes, yes. But it is not us alone speaking. We believe the Holy Spirit works to convict and shine specific enlightenment.
Some people will no doubt be offended. "You don't know me at all!! You don't know my particular case. My case is one of mutual consent. My case is one of I couldn't help myself. My case is one of my dad or mom HURT me so much that I NEEDED same sex partner for special psychological healing. My case is the taboos and prohibitions of early childhood drove me to act in some way."
Yes, all these may be true. And there are other factors that even the sinner is not aware of. Where she condemns herself, maybe God would not. Where she excuses herself, maybe God would not.
Where he feels guilty, maybe Jesus knows he should NOT feel guilty because of that. Where he rationalizes and justifies himself, maybe Christ would not and will bring to light the things hidden in darkness.
The judgement of God is according to truth.
"Therefore you are without excuse, O every man who judges, for in what you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgement of God is according to truth upon those who practice such things." (Rom. 2:1,2)
So I am not a condemner. I am not the one judging. I am the one annnouncing the Gospel that Jesus saves. I am warning everyman, EVERYMAN ... His salvation is towards all. His record of our deeds is infallible. And His judgment "IS ACCORDING TO TRUTH".
Will some feel misunderstood ? Will some want not to hear the Gospel ? Will some feel offended ? Will some feel like they are being unfairly warned ? Yes. Some will be annoyed. Some will be incensed, teed off.
But the Holy Spirit is working with the word of God. And in Him is the great love for the sinner and the complete infallible insight to apply the word of God as each man needs to hear it.
Some seem to be waiting for the perfect Christian to come along. We gospel announcers encourage men not to look to anyone but Jesus Christ Himself.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo the deal is your god made everything then went away and things went to pot. Ok, now I get it.
Yes, I agree God created everything He made for a reason; and when He made it all, it was good. Man also makes things and they are often good in the beginning, but over time they deteriorate and must be repaired or replaced.
The Holy Bible says you have been given enough evidence and testimony from the prophets so that you are without excuse. It is beca ...[text shortened]... iven the time to repent of your sins. Stop being stubborn and take that time for your own good.
Originally posted by sonhouseFair enough.
I think you misunderstood my feelings when they said those things when I was 8. I wasn't the least bit scared. I saw through the hypocrisy, that's all. I was a pretty fart sme, er, smart feller🙂
Hate isn't the word. Disdain, maybe. disgust, disgustdain perhaps.
Originally posted by jaywillYour long, long tangential post does not address what I have been putting to you. Indeed it feels like you are trying to smother further discussion.
I probably don't follow your line too well because I am in a heated exchange with more than one person here.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI had a feeling you wouldn't like what I wrote.
Your long, long tangential post does not address what I have been putting to you. Indeed it feels like you are trying to smother further discussion.
That is alright. However, no "smothering" is going on there.
I take the word of God seriously. And what the Apostle Paul wrote is under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I think you want me to "smother" the apostle's teaching there in favor of modern secular trend setting.
I do not "smother" what Christ's apostle taught. Rather I try to enter into his same spirit, same attitude, same motive, and same realization.
If I and Paul must be called "homophobic" we simply will have to bear that label for Christ's sake.
Originally posted by jaywillIt didn't address my points. Occasionally your long posts are interesting. They certainly lack pertinence on many occasions. Sometimes they come across like a kind of attempted filibuster - like the one above, and one or two earlier ones on this thread.
I had a feeling you wouldn't like what I wrote.
Why are you conflating the rape of children with consensual homosexual relationships? I find this a deeply spiteful conflation; an ugly rhetorical device, although I suppose you could have laid it on thicker and compared homosexuality to raping babies or someone raping their own grandmother. Perhaps we should be thankful or that. You presumably think that using the raping children comparison demonstrates your concept of Christian love in some way.
6 edits
By the way, maybe someone noticed that in the Old Testament David was greatly loved by Jonathan. And not a few people have pointed out that this man on man deep love possibly suggests, at least, Jonathan's homosexuality.
I think they have a reasonably strong case, as I read the story of David and Jonathan.
I would hasten to add that the Bible never mentions that they wanted or attempted sex acts with each other. And I see no particular condemnation upon Jonathan's affection for David.
Jonathan should have probably abandoned his crazily jealouse father's govenment and joined David. Jonathan's loyalty to the declining divinely rejected king Saul was his undoing.
As is often the case, the Bible records the matter candidly in a very matter of fact way - Jonathan loved David as he loved his own soul.
Originally posted by FMF
It didn't address my points. Occasionally your long posts are interesting. They certainly lack pertinence on many occasions. Sometimes they come across like a kind of attempted filibuster - like the one above, and one or two earlier ones on this thread.
Why are you conflating the rape of children with consensual homosexual relationships? I find this a deeply ...[text shortened]... t using the raping children comparison demonstrates your concept of Christian love in some way.
Why are you conflating the rape of children with consensual homosexual relationships? I find this a deeply spiteful conflation; an ugly rhetorical device, although I suppose you could have laid it on thicker and compared homosexuality to raping babies or someone raping their own grandmother. Perhaps we should be thankful or that. You presumably think that using the raping children comparison demonstrates your concept of Christian love in some way.
Would you splice and quote the words I wrote that you are talking about ?
Quote me. I don't think I would make a broad and wreckless generalization.
In the last post I acknowledge that CLEAR lines between force and consensual may be hard for humans to see. They are not hard for God to see.
In other words, fuzzy lines between what was forced on one and what one wanted to happen to him or her, will not excuse us from needing Christ's saving and sanctification.
Originally posted by jaywillIf you can offer some objective moral reason to condemn homosexuals that I could possibly subscribe to - some harm to others involved, some deception, some coercion, some lack of empathy - then I would be interested to hear what it is.
[quote] Why are you conflating the rape of children with consensual homosexual relationships? I find this a deeply spiteful conflation; an ugly rhetorical device, although I suppose you could have laid it on thicker and compared homosexuality to raping babies or someone raping their own grandmother. Perhaps we should be thankful or that. You presumably thin ...[text shortened]... d to happen to him or her, will not excuse us from needing Christ's saving and sanctification.
All I am getting, instead, is that you have internalized something you read in a book and you are regurgitating it. And to me you are hiding behind this internalized-regurgitated thing as if it is, in and of itself, a stance with genuine moral substance that people who don't happen to subscribe to your book could weigh up and adopt because of some inherent interpersonal common sense or virtue or generosity of spirit contained in it.
6 edits
FMF,
Here is what Paul wrote in First Corinthians 5 -
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be led astray; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the covetous, not drunkards, not revilers, not the rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.
And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
Perhaps you say that the Apostle Paul should NOT have included "homosexuals" .
Perhaps someone thinks that Paul should not have included "thieves".
Why stop at the mention of "homosexuals" ?
Do you think Paul should NOT have included, say "adulterers" ?
Should Paul have excluded the mention of "idolaters" as well ?
Why not ? Some of us are probably BORN with a great propensity to worship idols. There is plenty of idol adoration on the Internet. The Americans even have a popular program "American Idol" . Why idols of worship are fun !
Perhaps Paul was too old fashion. Perhaps he should not have singled out "homosexuals" or "fornicators" or "idolaters" either.
Maybe Paul was "forniphobic" as well as "homophobic". Perhaps Paul had a phobia about a little innocent stealing. Everyone steals at one time or another.
These are the things which Paul said could disqualify one from inheriting the kingdom of God. He or she must be sanctified, transformed, conformed to the image of Christ to inherit the kingdom of God.
IF you feel that Paul was wrong to mention "homosexuals" why was he not wrong to mention also "thieves" and "drunkards"?
And these are only representative and not an exhaustive list.
Paul says "Do not be led astray ...". Do you think someone could be "led astray" into error by criticizing Paul's word here ? I think a seeker of the truth could conceivably be "led astray" by such attempts to alter the apostle's warning there.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillAnother fairly long screed that doesn't tackle head on what I am putting to you. You even avoided using 'Reply & Quote'. Bit of a giveaway that.
FMF,
Here is what Paul wrote in First Corinthians 5 -
[b]"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be led astray; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the covetous, not drunakrds, not revilers, not the rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.
/b] by such attempts to alter the apostle's warning there.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywilli notice you didn't include the "effeminate" in your discussion on who paul should have left out.
FMF,
Here is what Paul wrote in First Corinthians 5 -
[b]"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be led astray; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the covetous, not drunkards, not revilers, not the rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.
...[text shortened]... /b] by such attempts to alter the apostle's warning there.
do you think paul should have left out the effeminate? or do they deserve hell with the rest of the usual suspects?