Originally posted by RJHindsI "blame" you for your posts. I "blame" KingOnPoint for his. Same for Suzianne. People can "blame" me for my posts by all means. I take full and unconditional responsibility for all my actions and words on this forum and do not feel I am in need of forgiveness. 😉
In my opinion you would do best to stop blaming others and take responsibility for your own actions and repent of what you know is wrong and ask God for forgiveness.
FMF,
You seem though to think that Christians should not criticize others in some way. You seem to have an issue with Christians criticizing others.
If I personally have an issue with Christians criticizing others, then I can ask myself, do I do that same thing that I don't want Christians to do? If I wrongfully criticize others myself, then how is it that I don't want Christians to wrongfully criticize others also?
The reason why sinfully criticizing others is wrong, is not because I say that it is wrong or because some other human says that it is wrong, but it is only because God in the bible says that it is sin. Thus when God is holding a Christian to that love, He also wants other humans to be as God wants them to be even when the other humans are not Christians. Being sinless is what God desires from everyone. However, He does not demand that people be sinless in order to earn Heaven. Christ was sinless and earned salvation for the sakes of men and women, boys and girls. Christ is the Savior of all people according to the bible.
King James Version
============
2 Peter 3: 9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Web Site Referenced:
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?q=should perish&bsec=N&order=
FMF Sent:
"I take full and unconditional responsibility for all my actions and words on this forum and do not feel I am in need of forgiveness."
The thing is that you not in trouble eternally because you need humans to forgive you. Human forgiveness by me is not your trouble. Forgiveness by God is all our troubles. If we don't have His forgiveness in Christ, then according to the bible, we are condemned.
It isn't because we feel we need forgiveness from God, but it is truth according to the bible. It is never a matter of feeling.
Lastly, even if you and I take full responsibility for our sinning, it doesn't matter that we take responsibility. It is a matter of what God requires of us. If we don't repent according to the bible, we will perish. Just taking responsibility doesn't help us with God according to the bible.
Originally posted by KingOnPointYes, I told you, I am already familiar with your Christian notions of "sinning" and "heaven" and "forgiveness" and I reject out of hand your ludicrous suggestion ~ rooted in those notions ~ that it doesn't matter if we take full responsibility or not for our actions. This is a convoluted perspective that has no ring of psychological or interpersonal or moral truth and your deadpan certainty that you are right simply does not have the traction of actual evidence to my way of thinking.
The thing is that you not in trouble eternally because you need humans to forgive you. Human forgiveness by me is not your trouble. Forgiveness by God is all our troubles. If we don't have His forgiveness in Christ, then according to the bible, we are condemned.
Originally posted by FMFand yet here you are moralising over people.
Yes, I told you, I am already familiar with your Christian notions of "sinning" and "heaven" and "forgiveness" and I reject out of hand your ludicrous suggestion ~ rooted in those notions ~ that it doesn't matter if we take full responsibility or not for our actions. This is a convoluted perspective that has no ring of psychological or interpersonal or moral tru ...[text shortened]... y that you are right simply does not have the traction of actual evidence to my way of thinking.
Originally posted by FMFYes but you also have stated that you have no objection to homsexual acts and yet we have the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men in the UK ever. Why is that? Why is there nothing objectionable in their behavior which has self evidently led them to contracting a potentially life threatening although treatable disease and passing it on to others that you don't find morally objectionable.
I moralize about what I see as morally unsound behaviour ~ things like child sex abuse, religiously motivated murder, child sacrifice. I think everyone here does at various times.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think knowingly passing on a disease, or behaviour that is reckless or negligent that could harm others, is morally unsound and objectionable. I have said so on many an occasion. I don't see homosexual acts, in and of themselves, as morally unsound.
Yes but you also have stated that you have no objection to homsexual acts and yet we have the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men in the UK ever. Why is that? Why is there nothing objectionable in their behavior which has self evidently led them to contracting a potentially life threatening although treatable disease and passing it on to others that you don't find morally objectionable.
Originally posted by FMFand yet the behavior itself (which you refuse to condemn) has contributed to the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men. Tell us why thats not morally objectionable.
I think knowingly passing on a disease, or behaviour that is reckless or negligent that could harm others, is morally unsound and objectionable. I have said so on many an occasion. I don't see homosexual acts, in and of themselves, as morally unsound.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHaving no religious beliefs relating to them, I have no reason to see homosexuality or homosexual acts as being inherently morally unsound. I feel under no pressure whatsoever to condemn homosexuality so I do not see myself as "refusing" to condemn it.
and yet the behavior itself (which you refuse to condemn) has contributed to the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men. Tell us why thats not morally objectionable.
Heterosexual acts also lead to the spreading of diseases but I am not going to condemn heterosexual acts as morally unsound. Spreading diseases knowingly or recklessly by either homosexuals or heterosexuals, however, I do condemn as being morally objectionable.
Originally posted by FMFhetrosuxal acts have not led to the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men, homsexual acts have and yet you will not condemn them. It matters not whether you have religious sentiments or not its empirically established that homosexual behavior has led to these figures. So here we have an instance in which behavior has been engaged in which is clearly destructive and you refuse to condemn it as being morally objectionable. Why is that? are you simply intent to ignore the evidence?
Having no religious beliefs relating to them, I have no reason to see homosexuality or homosexual acts as being inherently morally unsound. I feel under no pressure whatsoever to condemn homosexuality so I do not see myself as "refusing" to condemn it.
Heterosexual acts also lead to the spreading of diseases but I am not going to condemn heterosexual acts as ...[text shortened]... ly by either homosexuals or heterosexuals, however, I do condemn as being morally objectionable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI condemn both heterosexuals and homosexuals who knowingly or recklessly spread diseases. Higher rates of infection among homosexuals than heterosexuals gives homosexuals reason to be extra careful, but heterosexuals should be careful too. If they deliberately or negligently pass on diseases then I have no hesitation in condemning such behaviour but I do not see homosexuality/homosexual acts ~ in and of themselves ~ as being immoral, unless those acts involve coercion or deception.
hetrosuxal acts have not led to the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men, homsexual acts have and yet you will not condemn them. It matters not whether you have religious sentiments or not its empirically established that homosexual behavior has led to these figures. So here we have an instance in which behavior has been engage ...[text shortened]... n it as being morally objectionable. Why is that? are you simply intent to ignore the evidence?
Originally posted by FMFHeterosexuals have not contributed significantly to the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men in the UK and all arguments pertaining to them are null in this context. Are we seriously to believe that you think homosexual men are unaware of the health risks associated with their sexual practices?
I condemn both heterosexuals and homosexuals who knowingly or recklessly spread diseases. Higher rates of infection among homosexuals than heterosexuals gives homosexuals reason to be extra careful, but heterosexuals should be careful too. If they deliberately or negligently pass on diseases then I have no hesitation in condemning such behaviour but I do not see ...[text shortened]... acts ~ in and of themselves ~ as being immoral, unless those acts involve coercion or deception.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiearound 48% of people with HIV are women.
hetrosuxal acts have not led to the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men, homsexual acts have and yet you will not condemn them. It matters not whether you have religious sentiments or not its empirically established that homosexual behavior has led to these figures. So here we have an instance in which behavior has been engage ...[text shortened]... n it as being morally objectionable. Why is that? are you simply intent to ignore the evidence?