[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I’m fucking shocked and awed that this idiotic fucking comment only got a response from me.[/quote]Are you actually this blind and or dense? Most people here, including even Capped, know me well enough to have not wildly misinterpreted my statement the way you did. Raise your eyes on this very page a bit.
[/quote]
I didn’t get to the “clarification made on your behalf”. Why don’t you explain your post, because you had a curious statement in support of it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I didn’t get to the “clarification made on your behalf”. Why don’t you explain your post, because you had a curious statement in support of it.[/quote]There cannot be anything moral or immoral about being descended from any certain ethnic group, racial heritage, or geographical area. ALL (stay with me now) ALL of mankind, male and female, are created in the image of the one true and living God regardless of where they are from or what color they are. They are what they are by the design and providence of their creator and are nowhere declared immoral by merely descending from any certain line despite the wholly uninformed proclamations that are likely on the way about Israel and the nations.
Homosexuality is in no way analogous to race because A-, it flies in the face of God’s clearly and unequivocally reported order of creation and B-, He specifically, repeatedly and without leaving the minutest slack for confusion or misunderstanding, pronounces the practice by both men and women an abominable capital crime that He will in no wise leave unpunished. Hence race is entirely amoral, but sexuality is everywhere treated as one of the most morally charged aspects of human reality that there is or ever will be because it either gloriously does or grotesquely does not conform to God’s most highest, most foundational creatures, institutions and covenants.
God created one man and one women to be the prototypical foundation of all human interpersonal relations and societies. Sin entered the picture and we had a few thousand years of deflected and compromised attitudes and practice. The last Adam (1st Cor. 15) restored and greatly elevated the former pre fall glory of the wonderful one flesh intimacy of man and wife that results in joy for both them and God as well as the perfect environment for raising a godly seed. Nowhere does God tolerate homosexuality in any form. God can and does save homosexuals, just like He can and does save every other kind of criminal there is. I view them as no worse than I am if left to myself. (I really do mean that)
Those who try to absorb sexual “orientation” into the discussion of human rights related to race are quite simply very very wrong. I don’t care what any self worshiping, autonomous secular group contrives in their efforts to subvert the law and order of the most high God. His dominion is from everlasting to everlasting and cannot ever be set aside.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I didn’t get to the “clarification made on your behalf”. Why don’t you explain your post, because you had a curious statement in support of it.[/quote]There cannot be anything moral or immoral about being descended from any certain ethnic group, racial heritage, or geographical area. ALL (stay with me now) ALL of mankind, male and female, are created in the image of the one true and living God regardless of where they are from or what color they are. They are what they are by the design and providence of their creator and are nowhere declared immoral by merely descending from any certain line despite the wholly uninformed proclamations that are likely on the way about Israel and the nations.
Homosexuality is in no way analogous to race because A-, it flies in the face of God’s clearly and unequivocally reported order of creation and B-, He specifically, repeatedly and without leaving the minutest slack for confusion or misunderstanding, pronounces the practice by both men and women an abominable capital crime that He will in no wise leave unpunished. Hence race is entirely amoral, but sexuality is everywhere treated as one of the most morally charged aspects of human reality that there is or ever will be because it either gloriously does or grotesquely does not conform to God’s most highest, most foundational creatures, institutions and covenants.
God created one man and one women to be the prototypical foundation of all human interpersonal relations and societies. Sin entered the picture and we had a few thousand years of deflected and compromised attitudes and practice. The last Adam (1st Cor. 15) restored and greatly elevated the former pre fall glory of the wonderful one flesh intimacy of man and wife that results in joy for both them and God as well as the perfect environment for raising a godly seed. Nowhere does God tolerate homosexuality in any form. God can and does save homosexuals, just like He can and does save every other kind of criminal there is. I view them as no worse than I am if left to myself. (I really do mean that)
Those who try to absorb sexual “orientation” into the discussion of human rights related to race are quite simply very very wrong. I don’t care what any self worshiping, autonomous secular group contrives in their efforts to subvert the law and order of the most high God. His dominion is from everlasting to everlasting and cannot ever be set aside.
[/quote]
Wait, I thought Deuteronomy was only binding for Jews as part the old covenant and that everything changed with Jesus?
Now Jesus does not have one word for or against homosexuality. One would assume that if it was that high up on his agenda he would have mentioned it when he made the all new and revised covenant.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I didn’t get to the “clarification made on your behalf”. Why don’t you explain your post, because you had a curious statement in support of it.[/quote]There cannot be anything moral or immoral about being descended from any certain ethnic group, racial heritage, or geographical area. ALL (stay with me now) ALL of mankind, male and female, are created in the image of the one true and living God regardless of where they are from or what color they are. They are what they are by the design and providence of their creator and are nowhere declared immoral by merely descending from any certain line despite the wholly uninformed proclamations that are likely on the way about Israel and the nations.
Homosexuality is in no way analogous to race because A-, it flies in the face of God’s clearly and unequivocally reported order of creation and B-, He specifically, repeatedly and without leaving the minutest slack for confusion or misunderstanding, pronounces the practice by both men and women an abominable capital crime that He will in no wise leave unpunished. Hence race is entirely amoral, but sexuality is everywhere treated as one of the most morally charged aspects of human reality that there is or ever will be because it either gloriously does or grotesquely does not conform to God’s most highest, most foundational creatures, institutions and covenants.
God created one man and one women to be the prototypical foundation of all human interpersonal relations and societies. Sin entered the picture and we had a few thousand years of deflected and compromised attitudes and practice. The last Adam (1st Cor. 15) restored and greatly elevated the former pre fall glory of the wonderful one flesh intimacy of man and wife that results in joy for both them and God as well as the perfect environment for raising a godly seed. Nowhere does God tolerate homosexuality in any form. God can and does save homosexuals, just like He can and does save every other kind of criminal there is. I view them as no worse than I am if left to myself. (I really do mean that)
Those who try to absorb sexual “orientation” into the discussion of human rights related to race are quite simply very very wrong. I don’t care what any self worshiping, autonomous secular group contrives in their efforts to subvert the law and order of the most high God. His dominion is from everlasting to everlasting and cannot ever be set aside.
[/quote]
Wait, I thought Deuteronomy was only binding for Jews as part the old covenant and that everything changed with Jesus?
Now Jesus does not have one word for or against homosexuality. One would assume that if it was that high up on his agenda he would have mentioned it when he made the all new and revised covenant.
[/quote]
Really?
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
Better yet I should have kept quoting from the same chapter:
1Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,
1Cor 6:10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1Cor 6:11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Better yet I should have kept quoting from the same chapter:
1Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,
1Cor 6:10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1Cor 6:11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
[/quote]
Yeah, but that is all you have, Paul.
Now Paul is not only not Jesus, he also never met him, was not an apostle and sexually repressed like no other.
Also, Paul was so heavily influenced by stoicism, that a certain denial of worldly pleasures and especially homosexuality is can easily be attributed to this heathen philosophy.
[quote]orion wrote:<<< Also, Paul was so heavily influenced by stoicism, that a certain denial of worldly pleasures and especially homosexuality is can easily be attributed to this heathen philosophy. >>>[/quote]Not that you will believe or care at all, but Paul based everything he said on a divinely inspired package of his colossal old testament scholarship, direct revelation from the living Christ Himself and authoritative judgment based on both. In short Paul’s words ARE Jesus’s words. You don’t believe that. Fine. Neither did I for the first 20 years of my life.
[quote]orion wrote:<<< Also, Paul was so heavily influenced by stoicism, that a certain denial of worldly pleasures and especially homosexuality is can easily be attributed to this heathen philosophy. >>>[/quote]Not that you will believe or care at all, but Paul based everything he said on a divinely inspired package of his colossal old testament scholarship, direct revelation from the living Christ Himself and authoritative judgment based on both. In short Paul’s words ARE Jesus’s words. You don’t believe that. Fine. Neither did I for the first 20 years of my life.
[/quote]
“Divinely inspired”.
This is why I cant respect the religious mentality - it all boils down to “divinely inspired”. Paul was divinely inspired. The council of nicea was divinely inspired. Whenever you can’t actually explain anything (because it doesn’t make sense), the answer is just “Uh, well, it was divine inspiration. The bible says so!”
Tiribulus, do you admit that it’s possible for a person to honestly believe something that is not true, as a result of them starting from the premise that it is true and only accepting “evidence” that fits their conclusion and ignoring all evidence that doesn’t?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content. Homosexuality, as is all sin, is stiff necked defiance of the clearly declared created order of almighty God. My church is full of black people who will propound for you the sins of black America (and homosexuality) better than I can. I am a minority there.
[/quote]
I’m sorry Trib. Here’s your original quote above. More troubling, “Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.” Perhaps the foregoing is so poorly written that I am not understanding your revisionist version.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Tiribulus, do you admit that it’s possible for a person to honestly believe something that is not true, as a result of them starting from the premise that it is true and only accepting “evidence” that fits their conclusion and ignoring all evidence that doesn’t?[/quote]Uh… yep. Evey single last human being since Adam save for Jesus of Nazareth alone is born in that very condition and remains there until resurrected by the grace and mercy of their creator.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content. Homosexuality, as is all sin, is stiff necked defiance of the clearly declared created order of almighty God. My church is full of black people who will propound for you the sins of black America (and homosexuality) better than I can. I am a minority there.
[/quote]I’m sorry Trib. Here’s your original quote above. More troubling, “Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.” Perhaps the foregoing is so poorly written that I am not understanding your revisionist version. [/quote]You cannot see that I was saying that the fact of being a black person carries with it no statement of that person’s morality in itself? You don’t see that? Do you disagree?
Man it’s like a moth to the flame. I see this hateful nonsense and can’t help but respond.
I don’t care if you hate gay guys and want to stone them to death and deny them civil rights. I have a problem with you actually doing it.
I have no problem with churches not recognizing gay marriage, it against your religion. That’s fine. I do have a problem with the attempt to deny gays the right to marry in a civil proceeding. Why? Because of the separation of church and state. Christianity holds, for now, at the moment, that gays can’t marry. This is theology and has no relevance to our laws. The US is a Christian nation only by virtue of most of it’s citizens being Christian. It’s laws are secular.
Moreover the idea behind 1 man, 1 woman, raising babies in love is what 100 years old at MOST. In biblical times most men were polygamous. Women were sold as slaves with no say in who they married. The average marrying age was 14 with some girls being married as early as 9 to men in there 30’s or 40’s. Women were sold as slaves. A raped woman could be sold to her attacker for 50 shekels, assuming she wasn’t killed outright. Let’s face it the Christian religion of yesteryear looked an awful lot like Islam of today. We’ve made so much progress, why move backwards?
Some guys fuck other guys…get over it…it isn’t your business.
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
Man it’s like a moth to the flame. I see this hateful nonsense and can’t help but respond.
I don’t care if you hate gay guys and want to stone them to death and deny them civil rights. I have a problem with you actually doing it.
I have no problem with churches not recognizing gay marriage, it against your religion. That’s fine. I do have a problem with the attempt to deny gays the right to marry in a civil proceeding. Why? Because of the separation of church and state. Christianity holds, for now, at the moment, that gays can’t marry. This is theology and has no relevance to our laws. The US is a Christian nation only by virtue of most of it’s citizens being Christian. It’s laws are secular.
Moreover the idea behind 1 man, 1 woman, raising babies in love is what 100 years old at MOST. In biblical times most men were polygamous. Women were sold as slaves with no say in who they married. The average marrying age was 14 with some girls being married as early as 9 to men in there 30’s or 40’s. Women were sold as slaves. A raped woman could be sold to her attacker for 50 shekels, assuming she wasn’t killed outright. Let’s face it the Christian religion of yesteryear looked an awful lot like Islam of today. We’ve made so much progress, why move backwards?
Some guys fuck other guys…get over it…it isn’t your business.[/quote]
LOL…thanks for the laugh this must be intermission.
I love seeing the worthless argument that is religion brought up. It is like you desire a theocracy, and demand that your religious considerations be given primacy to the idea of a liberal democracy
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content. Homosexuality, as is all sin, is stiff necked defiance of the clearly declared created order of almighty God. My church is full of black people who will propound for you the sins of black America (and homosexuality) better than I can. I am a minority there.
[/quote]I’m sorry Trib. Here’s your original quote above. More troubling, “Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.” Perhaps the foregoing is so poorly written that I am not understanding your revisionist version. [/quote]You cannot see that I was saying that the fact of being a black person carries with it no statement of that person’s morality in itself? You don’t see that? Do you disagree?
[/quote]
No. I don’t see that. “Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.” I can see it if I strain but really, you think this is a well constructed sentence?