rhutchin

You have sex with your little girl???

I think stoning is to good for you.

I see no reason to punish your little girl for your immorality.

Johnny Skeptic

Why is that? Farrell Till and other skeptics have reasonably proven that inerrnancy is a fraud. Your presuppostion is based entirely upon emotion. You do not even know that God exists, much less what his intentions are.

But you do not have any credible evidence whatsoever that the original Bible said anything at all about homosexuality. In addition, even if it did, you do not have any credible evidence whatsoever that the writers spoke for God and not for themselves. Further, even if the Bible that we have today is the same as the original Bible, and even if the writers spoke for God and not themselves regarding the entire Bible, no rational minded and fair minded man would be able to will himself to love a God who shows favoritism, who refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him is they knew that he (supposedly) exists, who says that killing people is wrong, but hypocritically kills some of his most devout and faithful followers, who makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, who punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, and who indiscrimately distributes tangible blessings to people without any regard whatsoever for their worldview, which means that a God who supposedly wants to reveal himself to people has gone out of his way to make it appear that tangilble blessings are not distributed by him, but entirely at random according to the laws of physics. You have said that you would not be able to love a God who endorsed lying. Why do you consider lying to be any worse than the atrocities that I mentioned? Do you believe that we should change our laws so that liars would be put to death? It is incredible that you have said that God's character is not an issue regarding whether or not people should accept him, when in fact the character of God is THE fundamental issue regarding whether or not people should accept him.

So you see, rhutchin, even if you have credible evidence that the original Bible condemned homosexuality, that the Bible that we have today is the same as the original Bible, and that the writers spoke for God and not themselves regarding the entire Bible, you still lose.

May I ask why you love God? You never speak of having a warm, intimate, loving relationship with God. Maybe you do not have such a relationship. Maybe no Calvinist ever did. We know that John Calvin didn't. He was a murderer.

I used to think that you are a good debater. I don't anymore. Your arguments have become ridiculously easy to refute. At the GRD Forum, you once made an inept and failed attempt to use secular arguments against homosexuality, and yet you recently showed up at this forum and claimed that you never used any secular arguments at all. I proved that you did when I posted what you said. You also claimed in that debate that there are not any credible arguments against homosexuality expect for the arguments in the Bible, but I showed that MOST of your prior arguments had in fact been secular arguments. The more that you make posts, the more that you get yourself into trouble. You once made the absurd claim that a man can test God by honoring his parents, and by tithing. That is obviously false. You also said that there is empirical evidence that God is good. That is also false.

djrafikie

I can't quite believe you said that, either you have a seriously perverted sense of humour, or you are actually an idiot.

let me rephrase that.
I am bisexual, and I sleep with other women. I have a little girl. According to you i should be stoned to death. so what about my child? What makes you think you have the right to deprive her of a parent?

It did'nt even cross my mind that such a thing as you have suggested may be inferred from my comment, mind you rhutchin, I don't think about CHILDREN like that, so why would it?

you need help.

And you are NEVER babysitting any child of mine.

Sicko.

Amaleq13

Enough with the personal comments, folks. This exchange simply does not belong in this forum.

Thanks in advance,


Doug aka Amaleq13, AS:C&H moderator

jakejonesiv

Whenever the discussion turns to homosexuality and Christianity, Romans 1:19 ff comes to the fore.

According to Dr. Detering, these are two different concepts of natural revelation in Romans. The earlier,the Marcionite concept is "Natural Law." This natural law is revealed in the consciouness. Romans 2:12-16.

The catholic layer contains the "Revelatio generalis", a previous natural God revealed by the creation. Romans 1:19-2:1. This section is gladly cited to this day for the voucher of general revelation. It was missing in the original version of the letter.

Dr. Detering points out that the presumed catholic interpolation (1:19-2:1) also contains the polemic against the homosexual practices of the heathen world, 1:26. This is common in Jewish literature of that time.

How the original (marcionite) author of the letter stood on the homosexual question, we do not know. Possibly it was regarded as the lesser of two evils compared with marriage, the work of the Demiurge.

See Vergleich

Jake Jones

seebs

But the question is whether we should execute them.

You may have missed a subtlety. We are supposed to forgive everyone. We were not given the authority to set limits or requirements on this.

Yes.

I think the problem here is that you're trying to uphold the Mosaic Law, but Jesus explicitly condemns it:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 5, Verses 38-39

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Of course, it could be that I've misunderstood, and you're Jewish, not Christian.

seebs

From a personal and emotive perspective, I'd be pretty hostile. The teachings of Christianity are not determined by my emotional responses.

Could I perhaps judge that the action is wrong, in context? I probably could. Do I know enough to judge the person as a whole? No.

It seems to me you're arguing that personal injury and offense trump the moral teachings of Jesus. "Screw that hippy-trippy stuff, I'm looking out for my family!" It has a certain emotional appeal, but ultimately, it's a "moral code" which can be fully implemented and adhered to by a paper wasp. I think I'd like to set my sights a little higher than "vermin".

Yes. As a concrete example, your excuses for being judgemental are veiled in religious language, even though they contradict core teachings of Christianity.

Everyone does it.

And this is exactly the opposite of what Jesus told us to do. Try "If an action directly harms other people, we should judge it to be wrong." There's a standard for other people's actions.

The only person whose actions you can judge in terms of Heaven are your own.

That said... Most Christian denominations would teach against the "salvation by works" you preach here.

The Evil One

No, I meant literally, look again at the question, as in, look again at what the poster you were responding to actually asked.

Pharoah asked you a series of questions involving "do you think that X should be given the death penalty". You said "Yes to all of the above".

But hidden among that list of questions was

"Do you do any work on the Sabbath Rhutchin? If so, why shuldn't YOU be put to death? If not, do you think that other Sabbath-breakers should be executed?"

which I assume you had overlooked because your "yes to all the above" doesn't seem to cover it.

Clivedurdle

The xian god according to the gnostics?

Clivedurdle

Not sure it is correct to say that love between men was less than that between a man and a woman. Men were then equals, a woman was not.

If the anti homosexual stuff is catholic and also earlier up tight priests, do we have a doctrinal distinction based on personality which is caused by how people love themselves?