Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

Yet he covered others specifically. Again, this is just a reach. If we follow your logic there was no necessity to mention any specific sin ever, all he ever had to say was 'sin' then it was all covered.

The reality is, he didn't cover it. Other sins were covered specifically but not that one. It doesn't mean it wasn't a 'sin' just that Christ didn't cover that specific one.
Click to expand...

But he most certainly DID cover it, just not in the specific terms you require him to. Again, Jesus message was not about instructing people what was "right and wrong" as much as it was about "tolerance and love" with the emphasis on forgiving the sinner and not casting judgment upon them for their sins. You want something specific from Jesus where he says homosexuality is wrong, but that had already been long established and understood, he didn't have to speak specifically of it. The fundamental purpose for the message of Christ, was to emphasize love and compassion for the sinner... hate the sin- love the sinner... that is what Jesus brought to mankind. Before Jesus, a homosexual might not only be banished from society, but he may actually have been killed for what he did... Jesus changed that, and taught his followers to be tolerant of these things, even though they were still wrong and immoral.
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

Yet he covered others specifically. Again, this is just a reach. If we follow your logic there was no necessity to mention any specific sin ever, all he ever had to say was 'sin' then it was all covered.

The reality is, he didn't cover it. Other sins were covered specifically but not that one. It doesn't mean it wasn't a 'sin' just that Christ didn't cover that specific one.
Click to expand...

But his opinion on it can be derived from knowing that it's included in class of sins he discussed. that's not a stretch, it's called logic and not being a dumbass.
 
Dixie said:
But he most certainly DID cover it, just not in the specific terms you require him to. Again, Jesus message was not about instructing people what was "right and wrong" as much as it was about "tolerance and love" with the emphasis on forgiving the sinner and not casting judgment upon them for their sins. You want something specific from Jesus where he says homosexuality is wrong, but that had already been long established and understood, he didn't have to speak specifically of it. The fundamental purpose for the message of Christ, was to emphasize love and compassion for the sinner... hate the sin- love the sinner... that is what Jesus brought to mankind. Before Jesus, a homosexual might not only be banished from society, but he may actually have been killed for what he did... Jesus changed that, and taught his followers to be tolerant of these things, even though they were still wrong and immoral.
Click to expand...
Translation:

You are right, he didn't. But I want it to be that way so bad I'll ignore that he didn't and pretend he did because he was generic.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But his opinion on it can be derived from knowing that it's included in class of sins he discussed. that's not a stretch, it's called logic and not being a dumbass.
Click to expand...
It might be logical had he not mentioned specific sins along the way. However, he did. He didn't cover it and some people who desperately want to believe he did will attempt to ascribe words he didn't say.
 
Damocles said:
It might be logical had he not mentioned specific sins along the way. However, he did. He didn't cover it and some people who desperately want to believe he did will attempt to ascribe words he didn't say.
Click to expand...

So there's a rule if you talk about something in detail, every item not mentioned explicitly is no longer in the class?

Have you been taking stupid pills.
 
Damocles said:
Translation:

You are right, he didn't. But I want it to be that way so bad I'll ignore that he didn't and pretend he did because he was generic.
Click to expand...

There is no translation needed in what I said, Dumo.

You are looking for specific command from Jesus forbidding homosexuality, and there isn't one, so you presume Jesus was all okay with homosexual behavior. I pointed out the FLAW in your thinking, and you don't like that... because you think of yourself as infallible. Your viewpoint on this is just flat out WRONG, as it is many times, but you are far too stubborn and arrogant to ever admit you are wrong about anything, EVER! So, you just go right ahead and post your little "translations" of what people say that you don't want to hear.
 
Damocles said:
It might be logical had he not mentioned specific sins along the way. However, he did. He didn't cover it and some people who desperately want to believe he did will attempt to ascribe words he didn't say.
Click to expand...

So then, Damo, answer these questions. If homosexuality were not included in his discussion about sexual immoralities how do you jump to that conclusion? Why would it not be included? And if not included, which sexual imoralities was he discussing? How do you know this?

As to your silly "specific" sin requirement to make my point valid, let's hear one and look at the context and relevence. You know nothing about biblical study at all, and yet you attempt to force your opinions onto biblical texts.

What words have I ascribed that he didn't say?
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

Yet he covered others specifically. Again, this is just a reach. If we follow your logic there was no necessity to mention any specific sin ever, all he ever had to say was 'sin' then it was all covered.

The reality is, he didn't cover it. Other sins were covered specifically but not that one. It doesn't mean it wasn't a 'sin' just that Christ didn't cover that specific one.
Click to expand...

Can you not just answer the damned question Damo?

When Christ was discussing sexual immoralities...which sexual immoralities would be included in that and why or why not?

As to your test of "specific" let's have one and then look at its context and relevence to what was in view remembering the audience, their culture, and the speakers objective. You see Damo, that is how you study a book like the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
There is no translation needed in what I said, Dumo.

You are looking for specific command from Jesus forbidding homosexuality, and there isn't one, so you presume Jesus was all okay with homosexual behavior. I pointed out the FLAW in your thinking, and you don't like that... because you think of yourself as infallible. Your viewpoint on this is just flat out WRONG, as it is many times, but you are far too stubborn and arrogant to ever admit you are wrong about anything, EVER! So, you just go right ahead and post your little "translations" of what people say that you don't want to hear.
Click to expand...

Uhh, you mis-spelled "Damo"...
 
apple0154 said:
Let's recap.

Msg 315: (Apple) So you agree homosexuality is an inheritable trait, something passed from one generation to another, as opposed to simply being a conscious choice?

Msg 317: (SM) Actually, it is something taught by an older generation to a younger one.

Msg 324: (Apple) Taught? Did someone teach you for whom you should have romantic feelings?

Msg 328: (SM) Yes. I was taught that my feelings towards the opposite sex were normal moral natural and healthy.

Msg 335: (Apple) But you already had those feelings. My point is you were not "feeling-less" and then chose those feelings because of what others said.

Let me put it this way. Did someone tell you how you should feel towards your wife? When you were dating, before your marriage, did anyone say, "SM, that's the right woman for you so you better start getting 'those' feelings for her" or did you experience those feelings yourself without anyone mentioning anything?

I would guess you came by those feelings all by yourself without anyone telling you.

Now imagine if someone told you those feelings you had for her were wrong and tried to convince you to marry someone else. For example, maybe suggesting a gal from a more prominent family or from a more financially successful family or a more religious family. Do you think they would have been successful? Do you think you could have simply dropped those feelings you had for your future wife and dated and married someone else?
Click to expand...

My attraction to the opposite sex was evident long before I met my wife. I had the hots for my Kindergarten teacher.
 
Ice Dancer said:
So your source is that most authors don't believe that centurians were effected by a marriage ban? Further goes on to suggest a reason would be their possible wealth and prestige... did you even read your source? you really are a dork.
Click to expand...

You apparently did not read but a couple sentences. The authors stated that it did apply to many centurions, but that it MAY have depended on rank and income.

Ice Dancer said:
Again, pais, literally translated means child servant.
Click to expand...

It can be and was used in different contexts to mean child, child servant (or just a person younger than the speaker), beloved servant and younger partner in a homosexual relationship. In this context it is quite clear that it at the very least meant beloved servant.

Luke used the words "entimos doulos" to describe the pais. Entimos doulos means beloved servant.

Further, in Matthew the centurion uses the word doulos to describe his other servants and only uses pais to describe the sick servant. This contrast indicates that the servant was, likely, his lover or, at the least, that the pais was of special importance.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
My attraction to the opposite sex was evident long before I met my wife. I had the hots for my Kindergarten teacher.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point! No one told you how you should feel. You experienced feelings for the opposite sex without being taught.

The same applies to homosexuals. They are not taught to feel that way.
 
RStringfield said:
You apparently did not read but a couple sentences. The authors stated that it did apply to many centurions, but that it MAY have depended on rank and income.



It can be and was used in different contexts to mean child, child servant (or just a person younger than the speaker), beloved servant and younger partner in a homosexual relationship. In this context it is quite clear that it at the very least meant beloved servant.

Luke used the words "entimos doulos" to describe the pais. Entimos doulos means beloved servant.

Further, in Matthew the centurion uses the word doulos to describe his other servants and only uses pais to describe the sick servant. This contrast indicates that the servant was, likely, his lover or, at the least, that the pais was of special importance.
Click to expand...


I will have to defer to Apostle RStringfield's vast personal knowledge of being a beloved younger servant in a homosexual relationship in biblical times.


Past life and all...

Oh! That's not Christian you say? Pagan it is? :eek:
 
usaloyal2theend said:
I will have to defer to Apostle RStringfield's vast personal knowledge of being a beloved younger servant in a homosexual relationship in biblical times.


Past life and all...

Oh! That's not Christian you say? Pagan it is? :eek:
Click to expand...

Pagan, no. It's just a stupid ad hom.

It's obvious that the servant was special, in some way, to the centurion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top