Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

That pesky jesus figure has to go. he's divisive. The New World Order religion has no room for Trinitarian stupidity.
 
RStringfield said:
Yeah, but those books were not compiled into any religious work before Moses. They were just scattered stories.

There is no proof that Ham committed any homosexual act. It's a stretch and it does not fit into the context of the story. Remember Ham's brothers turned their heads and covered Noah, which was meant to contrast Ham's acts. I don't think Noah would have felt covering him was much good if he had just been anally raped.
Click to expand...
So Ham's offspring were damned by Noah and God simply because he saw Noah's naked backside. Is that your position? :)
 
Ice Dancer said:
He did not need to, no matter how much you say he did. His audience already KNEW that homosexuality is an abomination against God. It would have been inclusive in his speaking about "sexual immorality". It is persons such as you who wish to split a hair that would have been non-existant to Israelites in Christ's day. You would have to find a scripture where Christ says homosexuality is A-OK to support what you wish...you cannot.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Look. It isn't like I said he was FOR it, I said he didn't mention it. Which you finally admit here. Although you work to twist it in there, to jam something he didn't mention into what he said, it isn't there.

Christ did not mention homosexuality. Plain and simple. Thanks for admitting that he didn't, even though you work to give him motive for not doing so... "he didn't have to"... Right. The person that is splitting hairs isn't the one who tells it like it is, the man didn't mention homosexuality.
 
On the trinity.

You all know the nicene creed. invented at nicea. why did they have to say that if the trinity was a fundamental teaching of christianity? I mean, we see through history that this thing was invented along the way. That the bible was actualy written by men. Are you guys scholars, historians, or believers or what?
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

Look. It isn't like I said he was FOR it, I said he didn't mention it. Which you finally admit here. Although you work to twist it in there, to jam something he didn't mention into what he said, it isn't there.

Christ did not mention homosexuality. Plain and simple. Thanks for admitting that he didn't, even though you work to give him motive for not doing so... "he didn't have to"... Right. The person that is splitting hairs isn't the one who tells it like it is, the man didn't mention homosexuality.
Click to expand...

"I finally admit here"? I NEVER said he used the term! I said he did not need to becuase his audience would understand that when talking about sexual immoralitis it would be a GIVEN that homosexuality would be an inclusive immoral act! How dishonest to suggest I have said anything to the contrary.

That you cannot connect the dots and yet wish to harp on about a ridiculous idea seems to me to be the hairsplitting position.

So tell me Damo when Christ was discussing with men who have been immersed in the Torah about sexual immorality, what sexual immoral behaviors do you think he'd be addressing?
 
AssHatZombie said:
On the trinity.

You all know the nicene creed. invented at nicea. why did they have to say that if the trinity was a fundamental teaching of christianity? I mean, we see through history that this thing was invented along the way. That the bible was actualy written by men. Are you guys scholars, historians, or believers or what?
Click to expand...

The same reason all creeds and confessions arose; to address false teachings that have arisen.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The same reason all creeds and confessions arose; to address false teachings that have arisen.
Click to expand...

Backroom at the council of nicea. These are the editors of the nicene creed ironing out the details of god's word.

inquisition2.jpg
 
Ice Dancer said:
"I finally admit here"? I NEVER said he used the term! I said he did not need to becuase his audience would understand that when talking about sexual immoralitis it would be a GIVEN that homosexuality would be an inclusive immoral act! How dishonest to suggest I have said anything to the contrary.

That you cannot connect the dots and yet wish to harp on about a ridiculous idea seems to me to be the hairsplitting position.

So tell me Damo when Christ was discussing with men who have been immersed in the Torah about sexual immorality, what sexual immoral behaviors do you think he'd be addressing?
Click to expand...
I'll tell you the one he didn't mention. How 'bout that? Since you actually know that I am right, and said so trying to give an excuse for it afterward... we can even say it together...
 
Ice Dancer said:
Not so at all. No one says you have to believe, but you asked a question and I answered.
Click to expand...
Christianity is the relgion it is today because they forced Jesus on people at the point of a sword. Entire regions of Europe were conquered in the name of Christianity and there was a failed attempt to do the same thing to the middle east. To pretend that people just accepted it because it was the religion of love is dishonest.
 
Damocles said:
I'll tell you the one he didn't mention. How 'bout that? Since you actually know that I am right, and said so trying to give an excuse for it afterward... we can even say it together...
Click to expand...

You are not right here Damo; the reason you won't answer the question is because it would have to consider "all" sexual immoralities since his generalization was "all" inclusive. This means he was speaking against homosexuality, no matter how you attempt to parse it. If this is not so, then tell me what he meant by sexual immoralities???
 
Socrtease said:
Christianity is the relgion it is today because they forced Jesus on people at the point of a sword. Entire regions of Europe were conquered in the name of Christianity and there was a failed attempt to do the same thing to the middle east. To pretend that people just accepted it because it was the religion of love is dishonest.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely wrong. To mix and convolute the persecutions of the 16th century with the early church is bogus.
 
Southern Man said:
I say you had diarrhea of the keyboard. You start off with an obvious wrong and keep going, but in five different directions. Are you on crack?
Click to expand...

I do try to be clear and detailed as we all know the "misunderstandings" that occur on this board.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do the same. What is the obvious wrong I started with?

As for going in five different directions that's referred to as looking at the big picture.

Why would God condemn Noah's grandchildren and great-grandchildren when God wanted the earth to be populated? We know it wasn't to punish Noah.

It's reasonable to conclude God believed (knew?) that any offspring from Ham, which included Canaan and his offspring, would carry the "homosexual gene/trait" or whatever is responsible for one being attracted to the same sex. That being the case it follows homosexuality is no more simply a choice but is programmed into the individual.

Let's hear a decent refutation, assuming you have one, rather than references to cracks. :)
 
Ice Dancer said:
You are not right here Damo; the reason you won't answer the question is because it would have to consider "all" sexual immoralities since his generalization was "all" inclusive. This means he was speaking against homosexuality, no matter how you attempt to parse it. If this is not so, then tell me what he meant by sexual immoralities???
Click to expand...
I've answered the question, and pointed out the reality. Jesus didn't speak on that one. Just as he didn't speak on abortion and many other issues of the day.

Now, again, that doesn't change what was a "sin" nor did the New Covenant. Still, Christ didn't speak on that issue during his time on Earth. Your insistence that he "spoke around it" because you desperately want it covered doesn't change the reality one whit. He didn't speak on it in any of the Gospels, nor in any of the other "Gospels" that were rejected by the council at Nicea.

Your insistence that he "really meant that" when he said something else doesn't change it, no matter how much you wish it to be true.
 
BTW - I'll ask again. Does anybody feel better after this "marital counseling"?

I wish the religious folk would just let their religion deal with their own marriages and ignore what other people did with other religions (including Atheism).
 
Damocles said:
I've answered the question, and pointed out the reality. Jesus didn't speak on that one. Just as he didn't speak on abortion and many other issues of the day.

Now, again, that doesn't change what was a "sin" nor did the New Covenant. Still, Christ didn't speak on that issue during his time on Earth. Your insistence that he "spoke around it" because you desperately want it covered doesn't change the reality one whit. He didn't speak on it in any of the Gospels, nor in any of the other "Gospels" that were rejected by the council at Nicea.

Your insistence that he "really meant that" when he said something else doesn't change it, no matter how much you wish it to be true.
Click to expand...

You did NOT answer this question "What sexual immorlities was Chrust talking about?" He was speaking in a generalized term on sexual immoralities. So which ones was he speaking to? All of them? Easy question Damo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top