Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Southern Man said:
http://thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9
Click to expand...

This does not help you.

1. The passage is totally out of context and has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
2. Argues that Christ endorsed the law of Moses, i.e., old biblical traditions or the laws of slavery, genocide and infanticide.
3. Implies that Paul's interpretations of scripture are divinely inspired and are the words of Christ. That's just nonsense.

Christ never condemned homosexuality.
 
RStringfield said:
This does not help you.

1. The passage is totally out of context and has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
2. Argues that Christ endorsed the law of Moses, i.e., old biblical traditions or the laws of slavery, genocide and infanticide.
3. Implies that Paul's interpretations of scripture are divinely inspired and are the words of Christ. That's just nonsense.

Christ never condemned homosexuality.
Click to expand...

So you know more than the experts at that site?
 
RStringfield said:
What part of their argument do you find compelling? I responded to every point they made.

I don't see anything that establishes the authors credentials or status as an expert.
Click to expand...
1. Your opinion.
2. Christ specifically addressed those other issues, what he didn't address still stands.
3. You don't know that. The fact that Paul received Sainthood means that his words were truthful.
4. Are you maintaining that homosexuality is not a sin? That's laughable.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Your opinion.
Click to expand...

What is my just my opinion?

Southern Man said:
2. Christ specifically addressed those other issues, what he didn't address still stands.
Click to expand...

What other issues? You mean the slavery and genocide. Not really. He addressed the entirety of dogmatic faith in church doctrine and instead preached about a personal relationship with God.

Southern Man said:
3. You don't know that. The fact that Paul received Sainthood means that his words were truthful.
Click to expand...

That is the teaching of your church, not Christ. You ignore the message of Christ for dogmatic faith in church doctrine.

4. Are you maintaining that homosexuality is not a sin? That's laughable.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in sin. It's not immoral.
 
Southern Man said:
That alone tells me that you don't have a clue about the teachings of Christ.
Click to expand...

All you ever do is make statements without any support. What tells you that I don't have a clue about the teachings of Christ?

I know the Bible, quite well. We spent plenty of time studying it in the Baptist school I attended for the first several years of my edcuation and I have read it through a couple times on my own.
 
Damocles said:
More people would have come forward more quickly had society (the government) recognized their right of privacy and wrote laws accordingly to protect them from others violating those rights.

The reality is, government finally recognizing the right (for whatever reason) of people to love whom they will rather than try to force them into a dogmatic religious set of rules (how they think and love is again a simple extension of privacy).

It wasn't until some braver people worked past the fear induced by inaction of the government, which was caused by the fact that such inaction allowed others to violate their "privacy" (right to assemble, their property, their clubs), that the government (society) even began to realize that this was something that should be protected.

The function of government should be solely to protect the rights of the individual citizen, that would mean protecting them from attack from their neighbors due to the "ick" factor.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how the government knowing has any bearing on ones right to do something. "Right to assemble, their property, their clubs" are either a right or not a right. That doesn't change by the government knowing.
 
Southern Man said:
How fucking ironic is that? :cof1:

Seriously if you not simply read but understood the teachings of Christ you wouldn't have any question on the sin and immorality of queer.
Click to expand...

I switched over to IE cause Firefox continues to be a pain in my ass. No spell checker.

Again, you did nothing but make a statement. You offer nothing to establish your assertion.

I understand the teachings of Christ just fine. I don't agree with all of them, but he said nothing about homosexuality and gave no indication that it was a sin of great importance or a sin at all.
 
Southern Man said:
http://thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9
Click to expand...
If this is true, then Jesus also endorsed the rules on slavery, the rules on kosher eating (later thrown away because of what Paul wrote in the book of Romans), and the rules on wearing cloth made of two different fabrics.

When was the last time you sent your wife out of the house when she was on her period? That's in there too... Did you make sure she washed herself in the river before she returned? It's in there...
 
RStringfield said:
I understand the teachings of Christ just fine. I don't agree with all of them, but he said nothing about homosexuality and gave no indication that it was a sin of great importance or a sin at all.
Click to expand...

Apparently you aren't as familiar with Jesus' teachings as you thought. While he doesn't speak of homosexuality being a "sin," he certainly does speak of it as being a very despicable and lowly behavior, the lowest of the low, as a matter of fact. When he wanted to emphasize how pathetically sorry and immoral someone was, he compared them with 'those men who lie with men'. I can't cite the verses, but I've read it, it's in there. Jesus certainly didn't advocate it or endorse it.
 
Dixie said:
Apparently you aren't as familiar with Jesus' teachings as you thought. While he doesn't speak of homosexuality being a "sin," he certainly does speak of it as being a very despicable and lowly behavior, the lowest of the low, as a matter of fact. When he wanted to emphasize how pathetically sorry and immoral someone was, he compared them with 'those men who lie with men'. I can't cite the verses, but I've read it, it's in there. Jesus certainly didn't advocate it or endorse it.
Click to expand...



There's an old story about a pamphlet that lists all the comments that Jesus made, regarding homosexuality, and when you open it; it's blank, page after page after page.

So obviously your reading leaves a lot to improve on.
 
RStringfield said:
This does not help you.

1. The passage is totally out of context and has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
2. Argues that Christ endorsed the law of Moses, i.e., old biblical traditions or the laws of slavery, genocide and infanticide.
3. Implies that Paul's interpretations of scripture are divinely inspired and are the words of Christ. That's just nonsense.

Christ never condemned homosexuality.
Click to expand...

????....unless your one of those folks who believes that Jesus is God.....that makes your claim a bit problematic.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top