It's the anti Christian folk who wish to use the scriptures in a cherry picking way to prove their points all the while dismissing cultural and historical relevence.
Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
It's the anti Christian folk who wish to use the scriptures in a cherry picking way to prove their points all the while dismissing cultural and historical relevence.
*sigh*
Yes, I did. I said, while he did speak more generally on fornication, he did not speak on this specific subject.
Which is true. The reality is, the person trying to tell us all he "spoke around it" isn't me.
Again, ID, the reality is he never spoke on this particular sin, while other sins he mentions very specifically (regardless of the "necessity"), why if this were the case would he ever mention any sin directly? He could just say "sin" every single time and according to you he would have just covered it all. It would include them all, all the time. Had Jesus thought that this particular sin was specifically more reprehensible than others he would have specified it, just as he did with other sins.
You want him to have spoken on this, so you try to say that this more "inclusive" word means he was really speaking about this sin. He didn't speak on homosexuality, just as he never spoke on the idea that we should be theocratic. He could have, but it just wasn't covered. Later apostles and teachers of the church did but not Jesus.
Nonsense. You are reading what you want into it. Christ may well have meant to include homosexuality, but that is not at all clear. He certainly did not single it out for special condemnation, as Christians do.
I was referring to the story of the centurion and his pais. I don't see anything definite in it. But if you are going to stretch the bible as ID is...
Ah... Works for me.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
you people are being dumb though. Of course homosexuality is part of fornication in the jewish world. he wouldn't need to "explicitly speak of it" it was a commonly known abomination. And you had some gotcha moments and stupidity. good for you.
Christians make a point of singling it out? That's just stupid, stringfield.
Christians make a point of singling it out? That's just stupid, stringfield.
So Ham's offspring were damned by Noah and God simply because he saw Noah's naked backside. Is that your position?
God had supposedly just destroyed the world for things like rape and incest. If Ham had raped Noah why not a more severe punishment of Ham?
The story indicates that Ham mocked his father.
You realize the entire story of Noah was likely only passed down in oral traditions, if it was not a complete fiction. This story was likely used to provide justification for the later destruction of the Canaanites. It's been used to justify slavery. Now you use it to justify discrimination against homosexuals.
You use it to embrace a moral code of slavery, genocide and infanticide.
Christian's don't single out homosexuality?
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
It's on a list of many sins.
Maybe you mean they are the only single group that will criticize it openly. Maybe you're singling out the christians.
And they make little fuss about those other sins. They don't deny the other "sinners" the right to marry.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
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.
Dude, God didn't want the earth populated with queers.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I never felt we were married to begin with. Libertarians are conservatives who lack the balls to be social conservatives.
Libertarians are fiscal conservatives who took the balls of the social "Conservative" (desperately trying to make their beliefs "safe" by using the force of law) and used them to defend the constitution. They knew the social "Conservative" was a fiction anyway and they wouldn't need them.
Oddly enough I am a "social conservative" in my life, I just have no compelling reason to attempt to make others be the same by writing my personal moral code into law.
Anyway, you're right. It has never been a "marriage", just an uneasy compact.
apple0154
MEOW
So you agree homosexuality is an inheritable trait, something passed from one generation to another, as opposed to simply being a conscious choice?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Spare me the hyperbole with what you think I embrace.
Leviticus 18:9
KJV: The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
NIV: Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
According to you, the authors of the NIV should have wrote: "Do not mock your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere."
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, it is something taught by an older generation to a younger one.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Libertarians are fiscal conservatives who took the balls of the social "Conservative" (desperately trying to make their beliefs "safe" by using the force of law) and used them to defend the constitution. They knew the social "Conservative" was a fiction anyway and they wouldn't need them.
Oddly enough I am a "social conservative" in my life, I just have no compelling reason to attempt to make others be the same by writing my personal moral code into law.
I don't advocate laws that ban socially liberal practices Damo, in spite of your continued assertion.
And the fact remains, Libertarians hold very few elected offices. They need social conservatives.
Oh, and just an FYI, I've never even considered being anti-Christian. I just am pro-1st Amendment when it comes to law. In other threads you will see me defending things like Christmas displays at Christmastime and telling people to man up and say "Merry Christmas"...
You've confused libertarian (small l), and Libertarian (a political party). The TEA Party is a sign that small "l" libertarian is once again gaining among Conservatives. And for that I am very glad.