Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[apple0154]

As far as I know, all Christianity says that everybody needs to be "saved" or we'll all burn, that would include the Jews.

That fits in with how God usually works. Recall Sodom and Gomorrah? If a certain number of sin-free folks could be found the cities would be saved. If not, everybody fries.

Then we had the complete devastation with the flood.

It appears God's an all-or-nothing type of being.

 

[Damocles]

Nothing in Romans 10. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11.

Yeah, I meant Chapter 1... Fat fingering the number keypad...

 

[Timshel]

The funny thing is that coming out is usually just an end to the denial for most. For instance, my uncle came out at 70. I am sure the news was met by the rest of the family the same as it was be my. My response was, "yeah, I already knew that."

It did not make us any more familiar with him or homosexuals. It made him more familiar with the fact that most of my very conservative family did not give a shit and that we loved him regardless of his sexual preferences.

 

[apple0154]

Your argument is stupid. You pretend that the masses are always right and all they need is more exposure to the unfamiliar. 60-70 years ago more exposure for a homosexual would have made them more familiar with a noose and that's about it.

60 or 70 years ago there was no way homosexuals knew of many others so they couldn't come out en masse.

Blacks were not in the closet. It was not private information or a secret that they were black. If they had been able to hide as homosexuals can, they would have escaped many abuses, MANY of which come from the government that you trust so much.

True, however the government mentality has changed.

You do have a point, that familiarity can breed acceptance. At this point in time, I think all homosexuals coming out would be to their general benefit. But, that is up to the indivdiual and it is stupid to pretend that it is without danger or that it could have been done years ago with the same results. It still comes with considerable repercussions if you want a military career.

The point is today people can connect with others like themselves. I'm not suggesting everyone simply run in the street. What I am saying is now is the time for people to be less secretive. They have ways to connect with others.

Of course it will take time for change. Everything does but there has never been a better time.

 

[Timshel]

Listen, it's still not all candles and sing alongs for all homosexuals. Many can still lose their job. I will let them decide what they choose to keep private. I damn sure don't want the government harassing them for such information.

You pretend that discrimination is a thing of the past. It is not. Sure things are better for many. But the fight aint over yet (probably never will be) and the right to privacy is what it's all about anyway.

 

[Canceled2]

You guys are great at dropping context. SM has claimed that Christ broke from the old testament ways. He may believe Christ is God. But, apparently he believes that Christ represented a new covenant. That is the what the new testament indicates.

This started with SM arguing that the morality of the bible is objective and without it we would end in slavery, genocide and infanticide. To which I pointed out that the bible is filled with tales of God's chosen engaging in those very things.

He is right, it's pretty much all in the old testament.

Christ DID initiate a "new covenant" specifically salvation through grace alone in Christ alone. This is the "good news" of the NT.SM is merely "claiming" what every theologian down through the ages has claimed.

Christ did not "break" from the OT he fullfilled the Law of Moses. He is the intermediary. The OT is God's Testament of Him giving men laws and men showing their inability to keep them...all of the OT stories were to point to the Christ the promised one from Genesis.

This is a very simplified explanation...

 

[Timshel]

Christ DID initiate a "new covenant" specifically salvation through grace alone in Christ alone. This is the "good news" of the NT.SM is merely "claiming" what every theologian down through the ages has claimed.

Uh huh. You guys can't read or keep more than two thoughts in your head at once. I was pointing out to PMP that SM had basically argued the new covenant of Christ broke with the old covenant and therefore old testament denunciations of homosexuality are not neccessarily relevant. I fully unerstand SM's basis for that, dumbfuck, and I agree with it. I don't see how the new testament can be read any other way.

Christ did not "break" from the OT he fullfilled the Law of Moses. He is the intermediary. The OT is God's Testament of Him giving men laws and men showing their inability to keep them...all of the OT stories were to point to the Christ the promised one from Genesis.

This is a very simplified explanation...

Yeah, I don't believe that's from Christ but the words of his supposed followers who erected a new church. The new church just did the same thing as the old one did, i.e., interfered with the personal relationship with God, which was the true message of Christ.

 

[Canceled2]

Uh huh. You guys can't read or keep more than two thoughts in your head at once. I was pointing out to PMP that SM had basically argued the new covenant of Christ broke with the old covenant and therefore old testament denunciations of homosexuality are not neccessarily relevant. I fully unerstand SM's basis for that, dumbfuck, and I agree with it. I don't see how the new testament can be read any other way.
Yeah, I don't believe that's from Christ but the words of his supposed followers who erected a new church. The new church just did the same thing as the old one did, i.e., interfered with the personal relationship with God, which was the true message of Christ.

I was responding to your poorly written statement. You have absolutely no clue about the true message of Christ which is; confess and repent and be saved...like any sin, homosexuality is not acceptable to Christ...period. To repent means literally to turn away from. This might mean a life-long, daily, moment by moment, turning...but that is what Christ requires.

The New Church was initiated by Christ to care for his people and to evangelize. The fact that people such as yourself wish to choose your own interpretations is not new, but certainly is typical. You want your own personal belief have at it...

 

[DamnYankee]

Yeah, and it's important to understand what you read.

You're welcome.

 

[DamnYankee]

You are pathetic. Who is talking about keeping the Sabbath? How about trying to make your own argument, not just a statement, but an actual argument?

From the link:

God promised to make a “new covenant,” which would not be like the one given to Israel when the nation left Egypt (Jer. 31:31ff). When that “new covenant” was given, a “change” in laws was made (Heb. 7:12). But the old law, bestowed when Israel came out of Egyptian bondage, contained the ten commandments (1 Kgs. 8:9,21). Thus, the decalogue passed away when the Old Testament was replaced by the New.

Its not just the sabbath being discussed. Dummy.

 

[DamnYankee]

You can't have it both ways. Christ said he did not come to change the laws of Moses... but to fulfill them.

He did.

 

[Timshel]

I was responding to your poorly written statement.

And you responded out of context.

You have absolutely no clue about the true message of Christ which is; confess and repent and be saved...like any sin, homosexuality is not acceptable to Christ...period. To repent means literally to turn away from. This might mean a life-long, daily, moment by moment, turning...but that is what Christ requires.

The New Church was initiated by Christ to care for his people and to evangelize. The fact that people such as yourself wish to choose your own interpretations is not new, but certainly is typical. You want your own personal belief have at it...

I don't care what you or anyone else think he says. Since you apparently did not understand, I believe that that was part of his message. So I would not pretend to tell you what you should read into it. But, it was pretty clear that he did not claim that your opinion or anyone elses mattered to my salvation. You can read it as him saying you should beg for the new churches blessings all you like and do just that if you want. I don't care.

 

[Canceled2]

And you responded out of context.

I don't care what you or anyone else think he says. Since you apparently did not understand, I believe that that was part of his message. So I would not pretend to tell you what you should read into it. But, it was pretty clear that he did not claim that your opinion or anyone elses mattered to my salvation. You can read it as him saying you should beg for the new churches blessings all you like and do just that if you want. I don't care.

I repsonded to what you posted in the post I responded to period!

It is not what I "think" he said, it's simply "what" he said.

I never made a claim that it was my opinion, I made the claim that it's what he said.

He was clear what salvation required. I never said he claimed one should "beg" for the new churches blessings.

Do you really think your ridiculous attempts at twisting what a person says passes for anything other than bs?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

LMFAO.... Yeah, because a pamphlet put out by homosexual activists is much more convincing and honest than the text of the King James Bible!

 

[Timshel]

I repsonded to what you posted in the post I responded to period!

Out of context, in order to make it appear that I misundestood SMs argument. I had not and in fact had already expressed agreement.

It is not what I "think" he said, it's simply "what" he said.

I never made a claim that it was my opinion, I made the claim that it's what he said.

He was clear what salvation required. I never said he claimed one should "beg" for the new churches blessings.

Do you really think your ridiculous attempts at twisting what a person says passes for anything other than bs?

It is not what he said. It's what you have read into it and to a large degree what his early followers read into it. We don't really know exactly what he said. My understanding is he basically said...

"Fuck the church and these fucking hypocrites that tell you salvation lies in them. Reject the idea that you must obey their commands in order to find salvation with the lord, while they are not without sin. You don't need them, you have a direct line to God. Love him and love your neighbors."

That's it, in a nutshell. I don't buy everything in the Gospels as being accurately ascribed to Christ (just like Jefferson did not). It's not possible since someone else actually wrote it many years later. Further, the Gospels are unlikely to be the complete teachings of Christ.

Since you ascribe some supernatural shit to it all, though, you don't bother with such considerations. Like I said, if it works for you...

 

[Timshel]

LMFAO.... Yeah, because a pamphlet put out by homosexual activists is much more convincing and honest than the text of the King James Bible!

No version of the bible contains any reference to homosexuality by Christ. Whatever version you are using, aint the King James.

 

[Damocles]

LMFAO.... Yeah, because a pamphlet put out by homosexual activists is much more convincing and honest than the text of the King James Bible!

Dude, Jesus never spoke on the issue of Homosexuality. It isn't in there.

 

[Canceled2]

Out of context, in order to make it appear that I misundestood SMs argument. I had not and in fact had already expressed agreement.

It is not what he said. It's what you have read into it and to a large degree what his early followers read into it. We don't really know exactly what he said. My understanding is he basically said...

"Fuck the church and these fucking hypocrites that tell you salvation lies in them. Reject the idea that you must obey their commands in order to find salvation with the lord, while they are not without sin. You don't need them, you have a direct line to God. Love him and love your neighbors."

That's it, in a nutshell. I don't buy everything in the Gospels as being accurately ascribed to Christ (just like Jefferson did not). It's not possible since someone else actually wrote it many years later. Further, the Gospels are unlikely to be the complete teachings of Christ.

Since you ascribe some supernatural shit to it all, though, you don't bother with such considerations. Like I said, if it works for you...

Since you reject the Gospel your opinion about any part or portion OF the Gospel is irrelevent....there, that settles it. You have no clue, only your personal misconstrued beliefs based on you supposedly not giving a fuck, but oddly enough insisting you know what you are talking about.

 

[Canceled2]

Dude, Jesus never spoke on the issue of Homosexuality. It isn't in there.

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

The reason Paul found it neccesary to address sexual sins in Corinth was because of rampant sexual depravity being practiced there...Paul's audience were Roman's NOT Jews. This is important because Jews being quite familiar with God's teaching on homosexuality already understood homosexuality was a sin!

Paul was a Jew, but he was also a Roman citizen and his ministry was to the Roman's, whereas Peter's was to the Jews.


This is why biblical understanding is neccesary for any worthwhile intellectual debate on the subject.

 

[Damocles]

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

The reason Paul found it neccesary to address sexual sins in Corinth was because of rampant sexual depravity being practiced there...Paul's audience were Roman's NOT Jews. This is important because Jews being quite familiar with God's teaching on homosexuality already understood homosexuality was a sin!

Paul was a Jew, but he was also a Roman citizen and his ministry was to the Roman's, whereas Peter's was to the Jews.


This is why biblical understanding is neccesary for any worthwhile intellectual debate on the subject.

All of those were written by Paul and were not said by Jesus. Paul doesn't even claim that Jesus said them. Jesus never spoke on the issue of homosexuality in any of the Gospels, which are the only books that have His words.

Incidentally, there is also no mention of homosexuality in any of the rejected "Gospels".

I am clear and 100% correct when I state that Jesus never spoke on the issue of homosexuality.