Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are claiming that people who take issue with the things you say or the way you behave do so out of "hatred" even though you offer no evidence. There could hardly be a more blatant and self-pitying way to attempt to "personalize" things than what you are doing here.
I have to disagree, on the basis that people who like each other no not continuously year after year subject the persons that they like to derogatory and critical remarks. Interesting that you could not find a single positive remark, I rest my case.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have years of evidence through interaction on these forums, the fact that you cannot find a single positive statement is evidence in itself through the omission of any positive statement and you are the one who personalised it, i was initially talking of Jehovah witness collectively as being objects of hatred, it was you who made it personal, so don't start with any jive talk.
You are claiming that people who take issue with the things you say or the way you behave do so out of "hatred" even though you offer no evidence. There could hardly be a more blatant and self-pitying way to attempt to "personalize" things than what you are doing here.
Originally posted by sonshipThen Paul says " Let not one deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience." (Eph. 5:3-6)But aren't Paul's beliefs about homosexuality also a product of the prejudices of his time and culture? Once again they pick and choose to support their prejudices whether they want to admit it or not.
Paul's words on homosexuality were certainly grounded in he perception of God's will and the Hebrew Bible.
But when he lists it as ...[text shortened]... eliever in Christ should open their heart fully to trust Jesus for victory.
Many will have lots of words, lots of vain words.
They have lots of reasonings from science, sociology, politics, or just cultural reasonings.
Paul says "Let no one deceive you with vain words ..." .
Many talkers will come with rationales, excuses, justifications, etc. Paul tells the Christians not to let themselves be deceived by many vain words. It is because of these things the wrath of God is coming.
The things are the things Paul enumerated and the things included in "whatever other thing is opposed to the healthy teaching ... the gospel of the glory of the blessed God ..." .
The anger of God is not here yet. But it is going to come and break out over the world. "Let no one deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. " (Eph. 5:6) .
So man needs to be saved from the guilt of these sins and from the power of them as well. Christ saves from the guilt and power of sin.
And another thing. Whoever passes judgment upon others is in danger. For in judging others and doing the same thing ourselves, we are in danger because "the judgement of God is according to truth" (Rom. 2:2)
"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 judgment of God is according to truth upon those who practice such things."
So the Hydrogen bomb of God's judgment is coming. Jesus Christ is the only effective bomb shelter.
"For indeed the day comes, burning like a furnace, and all the proud ones and all the ones who act wickedly will be stubble; and the coming day will set them ablaze, says Jehovah of hosts, so that it will not leve them root or branch.
But unto you who fear My name will the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings, and you will go forth and leap about like well-fed calves." (Malachi 4:1-2)
So we should want the healing that is in His coming - a great healing over the globe but that after judgment.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou may have "years of evidence" of people disagreeing with you and or taking exception to your forum behaviour. This is not evidence of people feeling or demonstrating "hatred" towards you. Clearly you do not have any evidence that they do. You are the one making the accusation, robbie. The onus here is on you to come up with something. Can you even name the people you claim "hate" you?
I have years of evidence through interaction on these forums, the fact that you cannot find a single positive statement is evidence in itself through the omission of any positive statement and you are the one who personalised it, i was initially talking of Jehovah witness collectively as being objects of hatred, it was you who made it personal, so don't start with any jive talk.
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75So you're conceding that [in your view] about 88% of "man" does know the difference between right and wrong, right? So what is the validity or purpose of your extraordinary generalization that "man" does not know the difference between right and wrong?
Ok, got to get the other chart out for this one...It says oficially that it is 12.672493580000000000000000000000000 %.
Originally posted by galveston75What does this have to do with what we are talking about? Haven't people of all denominations, creeds, faiths [and lack of religious creeds, too] down through history, lost their lives standing up for what they believe is right and against what is wrong?
But mark my word, JW's have been put to death and it will happen again. When it does you'll remember this statement....
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipSeems like you begin with the premise that homosexuality is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter, yet don't show that either is true.
[quote] The problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in apostle Paul writing here. Let's take all his thoughts into consideration.
As such, what you HAVE shown is the strong level of prejudice that you have against homosexuality. From what I gather, your strong level of prejudice is purely based upon your belief that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.
So, you've basically demonstrated my point.
Originally posted by galveston75What "couple [of] exceptions" among the people on this forum do you imagine could play a part in putting you to death for what you believe? You say probably people here "would never do such a thing or even have a thought like that" ...with a couple of exceptions. Who are these couple of people you are referring to?
But it's what we believe that is the issue and as in the past, that belief and ones who stand up for it have died and will still die. Probably not by you or anyone here, with a couple exceptions, would never do such a thing or even have a thought like that. But mark my word, JW's have been put to death and it will happen again. When it does you'll remember this statement....
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like you begin with the premise that homosexuality is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter, yet don't show that either is true.
As such, what you HAVE shown is the strong level of prejudice that you have against homosexuality. From what I gather, your strong level of prejudice is purely based upon your belief that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.
So, you're basically demonstrating my point.
Seems like you begin with the premise that homosexuality is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter, yet don't show that either is true.
It is true that there is no mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the "red letters" sense.
As such, what you HAVE shown is the strong level of prejudice that you have against homosexuality.
I disagree with this. I think what I presented was proportional and balanced.
I showed you how homosexuals were mentioned along with other matters of man in a rather of matter of fact way. In other words, whatever there applies to the sin of the homosexual applies with similar force to any other of the errors.
Not only so, I mentioned that the list was not exhaustive but opened, applying to whatever other thing. This is sober and proportional. This is not picking PARTICULARLY on the homosexual over the kidnapper or the fornicator or the perjurer.
Can't you see, at least in those passages, the even handed treatment of the apostle ?
From what I gather, your strong level of prejudice is purely based upon your belief that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.
So, you're basically demonstrating my point.
Let's eliminate from Paul's list in First Timothy "homosexuals". Shall we now say that there is also no exhortation in the Bible that men need to be forgiven and saved from being liars or perjurers?
It seems that you are the one being particularly partial rather than me. Why don't you scold me for artificially interpreting that the Bible condemns as a sin perjury or kidnapping ?
Show me in like manner that "liars" are not at all condemned in the Bible and that by elaborating on First Timothy 1:9-10 I am singling out in a begotted way liars.
Demonstrate that I show a "strong level of prejudice" against those who strike their mothers or those who strike their fathers.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipMaybe I needed to state it more explicitly: By your very begining with the premise that homosexuality is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter without showing that either is true, shows the strong level of prejudice that you have against homosexuality.Seems like you begin with the premise that homosexuality is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter, yet don't show that either is true.
It is true that there is no mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the "red letters" sense.
[quote]
As such, what you HAVE shown is the strong level of prejudice that you have a ejudice" against those who strike their mothers or those who strike their fathers.
It is true that there is no mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the "red letters" sense.
Then what makes you believe that Jesus considered it a moral matter?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipFor one, you messed up your link.
Christian apologist Greg Koukle, host of [b]Stand to Reason, answers a question.
" Did Jesus condemn Homosexuality ? "
He's talkative, please listen to the entire video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDmoB26ikQE[/b]
For another, I'm not all that interested in having to listening to the guy yammer on about his niece so that I can find out what he might have to say.
Why don't you just summarize the salient points?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"forced to accept"??
please answer the question, why should others be forced to accept a practice and a morality that they deem contrary to nature and which is opposed to their religious beliefs? You have stated that it is because of homophobia, i don't believe that, I think its much more likely to be because the practice is deemed as unnatural by physiology and anti-scriptural.
exactly who is being "forced" here?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI could probably find the link again, but if you weren't prepared to read it the first time I can't see you doing it this time, so I'm happy to leave you to your homophobic delusions.
haha, whatever it was, it was some attempted use to deny the clear and unequivocal meaning of the text by shifting focus.