Gay Mob Attacks Christians

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

420×528 33.9 KB

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
look if you are so certain it is there than you can link to it? It would be in the the Old testament right? where is it?

only once does he tell women to be silent in church and surprise it is when he is giving rules for orderly conduct in church not when he is giving commands from God.

Ephesians 5:22-24
You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; He gave His life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.

Colossians 3:18
You wives must submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11: 8-9
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

wow your a genious, where does it say anything about being silent, submitting is not being silent.

And why don’t you put the next verse in ephesians.

new covenant, don’t have to follow jewish laws,

but again you don’t believe in the bible or anything it stands for so who cares.[/quote]

162

So a thread about violent homos turns into bible study?

163

[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
only 2 laws of god in the new testament

love the lord your god with all your heart, with all your mind with all your body with all your soul

Love your naeighbor as yourself.

the two laws of the new covenant

So those are the only two laws? Then where is this anti-gay marriage stance coming from?[/quote]

those are the only two laws of God,

not the ways we should live our lives,

we should show love to everyone including homosexuals, but not compromise our God given morals.

164

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So a thread about violent homos turns into bible study? [/quote]

keep trying to stop the religious argument but then it gets brough back up.

I say it is a double standard if this where gays in a christian area most of them would be in jail by now.

165

[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I am not I am going by the acts that fit the definition of sexual immorality at the time and by the people giving the statement.

If you want to prove what Jesus meant by sexual immorality, you have to provide a definition from Jesus on what sexual immorality means. Without that, you are imposing your own definition and are only guessing at what Jesus meant.[/quote]

so you are saying there is no way of knowing what sexaul immorality means, so this is a meaningless statement then.

so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.

166

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.[/quote]

We don’t know much about Him.

Where has he explicitly stated that homosexuality is immoral? All I see is stories about some evil people who liked to take it in the rear, and you all draw conclusions from that.

You force your own interpretation of the bible on other people, whether you realize it or not.

167

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So a thread about violent homos turns into bible study? [/quote]

Of course. It’s cool to hate Christianity these days. It’s a SWPL thing:

168

[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.

We don’t know much about Him.

Where has he explicitly stated that homosexuality is immoral? All I see is stories about some evil people who liked to take it in the rear, and you all draw conclusions from that.

You force your own interpretation of the bible on other people, whether you realize it or not.[/quote]

So can either you or forlife define sexual immorality for me, and then can we please drop the religious talk since it is not the topic of the thread.

if this were done towards the gay community this would be considered a hate crime so why don’t talk about the topic in that light.

169

[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
look if you are so certain it is there than you can link to it? It would be in the the Old testament right? where is it?

only once does he tell women to be silent in church and surprise it is when he is giving rules for orderly conduct in church not when he is giving commands from God.

Ephesians 5:22-24
You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; He gave His life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.

Colossians 3:18
You wives must submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11: 8-9
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

wow your a genious, where does it say anything about being silent, submitting is not being silent.

And why don’t you put the next verse in ephesians.

new covenant, don’t have to follow jewish laws,

but again you don’t believe in the bible or anything it stands for so who cares.

[/quote]

What’s so funny about that absurd caricature is that her outfit looks so much like a niqab, which actually IS mandated in Islam:
http://www.muhajabah.com/niqab-index.htm

It’s funny that the SWPL chick who posed for that picture couldn’t find time to critique a faith that actually mandates such behavior and harsh penalties for violating it. Recall those Muslim women who were prevented from leaving a burning building in Mecca because they were uncovered not too long ago.

SWPLs are silly.

170

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
So can either you or forlife define sexual immorality for me, and then can we please drop the religious talk since it is not the topic of the thread.

if this were done towards the gay community this would be considered a hate crime so why don’t talk about the topic in that light.[/quote]

But neither of us are the ones claiming someone else is sexually immoral. In a logical sense, I define immoral sex as something that involves a distinct LACK of INFORMED consent.

i.e. Pedophilia, Bestiality etc.

171

[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.

We don’t know much about Him.

Where has he explicitly stated that homosexuality is immoral? All I see is stories about some evil people who liked to take it in the rear, and you all draw conclusions from that.

You force your own interpretation of the bible on other people, whether you realize it or not.[/quote]

I think you’re trying to create a dichotomy between Jesus and the Apostles, (especially Paul), that’s not found in the New Testament.

172

[quote]haney1 wrote:
has it occured to you that verse 36-38 are just paul being sarcastic?[/quote]

Lol! That is too rich…now if a prophet says something you don’t like you can say he was “just being sarcastic”. Was he also being sarcastic when he wrote to Timothy?

Ok then, Paul was clearly being sarcastic when he preached against gays. After all, he is the only one in the entire new testament to even mention gays.

Come on, that is a stretch by any imagination and you know it.

[quote]However I am still waiting on quotes from the Law of God.
[/quote]

Why do you keep insisting on a quote from the old testament, when it is clearly stated that the old testament was done away in Christ and all things became new? If you’re questioning whether the commandment for women not to speak in church and to have their heads covered comes from God, how can it be any clearer than this:

If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.

173

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Which moral standard are you using to judge what’s in Scripture? If you’ve got one better, why not give it to us for us to examine? [/quote]

How about equal treatment of blacks, women, and gays for starters?

174

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
so you are saying there is no way of knowing what sexaul immorality means, so this is a meaningless statement then.

so by your argument we don’t anything about jesus.
[/quote]

Ummm, no. I’m saying that you shouldn’t put words in the mouth of Jesus.

If someone defines sexual immorality, then you know what they mean by sexual immorality. Jesus did not define it, and he certainly did not say homosexuality is inherently immoral.

He did say something about loving others and leaving the judgment to God, though.

175

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
So can either you or forlife define sexual immorality for me, and then can we please drop the religious talk since it is not the topic of the thread.[/quote]

It’s not like there is some universal definition for sexual immorality, which is derived from the unchanging laws of the universe. Human beings create our own definitions for things, and often we disagree on what those definitions should be.

For me, sexual immorality is sexual behavior that results in significant harm. If nobody is hurt, then how could it be considered immoral?

176

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Which moral standard are you using to judge what’s in Scripture? If you’ve got one better, why not give it to us for us to examine?

How about equal treatment of blacks, women, and gays for starters?[/quote]

Well, you’re making a moral critique of the Bible, which sort of demands that you’re using some coherent standard and worldview. We could sit here all day and explain the texts you’re using to throw your Big Gay Hissy Fit about the Bible, but at the end of the day, it wouldn’t matter. The Bible doesn’t affirm your worldview, therefore you’re not going to like it. All I’m asking for is that you use some coherent moral standard to judge the Bible and that you let us examine it.

BTW, the Bible does affirm equal treatment for “blacks, women, and gays, for starters.” “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and all that. I could post a 7 page sermon on Ephesians 6 that would demolish your moral outrage there, if you’d like. I doubt it would diminish your narcissistic hissy fit one iota, however.

177

I agree with the fundamental morality of loving your neighbor as yourself. I disagree that Jewish culture fully allowed that principle to be expressed at the time the letters of the new testament were written. Society has evolved, and today we are less misogynistic, less racially biased, and less homophobic than people were back then.

178

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Which moral standard are you using to judge what’s in Scripture? If you’ve got one better, why not give it to us for us to examine?

How about equal treatment of blacks, women, and gays for starters?[/quote]

Don’t be such a bigot.

179

[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
has it occured to you that verse 36-38 are just paul being sarcastic?

Lol! That is too rich…now if a prophet says something you don’t like you can say he was “just being sarcastic”. Was he also being sarcastic when he wrote to Timothy?

Ok then, Paul was clearly being sarcastic when he preached against gays. After all, he is the only one in the entire new testament to even mention gays.

Come on, that is a stretch by any imagination and you know it.
[/quote]

No I gave you reasons why it could be sarcasm.

Jesus employs similiar tactics when he refers to the gentile woman as a dog.

You are more of a literalist than any fundamentalist I have ever met. You like them are wrong in your understanding of the text.

I tell you what though lets assume that the women are commanded to be quiet. Then how would these women fulfill the verses right before they are commanded to be silent?

I cor 14:26
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church

[quote]
However I am still waiting on quotes from the Law of God.

Why do you keep insisting on a quote from the old testament, when it is clearly stated that the old testament was done away in Christ and all things became new? If you’re questioning whether the commandment for women not to speak in church and to have their heads covered comes from God, how can it be any clearer than this:

If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. [/quote]
because the old testament is the only thing recognized as the law. Paul say that in romans.

You are claiming the law of God is being referenced in verse 34. If that is what you are claiming Paul is referencing then it only exist in the OT.

180

355×600 39 KB