Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Timshel]

Since you reject the Gospel your opinion about any part or portion OF the Gospel is irrelevent....

Not according to Christ. lol

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.

I was not preaching on my beliefs, dumbfuck. Again, you drop context. I was responding to SM's arguments concerning the bible.

I know what I am talking about and you cannot show otherwise. I have read extensively on the subject of Western religions. I have read the bible several times over. I grew up in a family where religion was a common topic for conversation and it was debated, thoroughly. No one in my family believed we needed that damn preacher either. We were Baptist, and I believe that is pretty typical for Baptists.

It's an interesting topic and I will definitely discuss it, but I am not telling you what you need to believe. I am not preaching to you.

 

[Canceled2]

Not according to Christ. lol
I was not preaching on my beliefs, dumbfuck. Again, you drop context. I was responding to SM's arguments concerning the bible.
I know what I am talking about and you cannot show otherwise. I have read extensively on the subject of Western religions. I have read the bible several times over. I grew up in a family where religion was a common topic for conversation and it was debated, thoroughly. No one in my family believed we needed that damn preacher either. We were Baptist, and I believe that is pretty typical for Baptists.
It's an interesting topic and I will definitely discuss it, but I am not telling you what you need to believe. I am not preaching to you.

You can think you can make Christ be whoever you want...But that does not make a legitimate argument.

You reject Christs own claim that he is Messiah. You reject the Biblical teaching when and where you want to...again your perogative.

Your parents statemnets are likewise irrelevent to your argument.

I know what I believe. I know that I have a better understanding of what the Bible says and teaches than you do.

You are right, you are not preaching you are merely claiming something that is not yours, in this case...reason.

dumbfuck belongs entirely to you.

 

[Canceled2]

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.

Because you did not address this part of my post:

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. Christ was also a Jew and his ministry was to the Jews. His audience would have also known Gods law regarding homosexuality.

What Christ did say on sexual immorality~~~

*Mathew 15:18-20 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

*“The Greek word for ‘fornication’ (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, ‘fornication’ can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28).” (Dr. Henry M. Morris)

**Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).

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

 

[Timshel]

You can think you can make Christ be whoever you want...But that does not make a legitimate argument.

Straw man.

You reject Christs own claim that he is Messiah. You reject the Biblical teaching when and where you want to...again your perogative.

Another inaccurate claim about my position. I don't believe Christ claimed to be the messiah.

I reject or accept parts of the bible or Gospels according to what fits in context. I don't think most of Christ's teachings, that are directly attributable to him, fit with the later teachings of followers or even with the supposed supernatural claims that he made. Again, I don't need to ascribe supernatural bullshit to the bible as you do in order to make it all appear to be divinely inspired. I can take the more rational approach and assume that any history compiled in such a way was likely to be flawed and incomplete, even if it was about God.

 

[Canceled2]

Straw man.

Another inaccurate claim about my position. I don't believe Christ claimed to be the messiah.

I reject or accept parts of the bible or Gospels according to what fits in context. I don't think most of Christ's teachings that are directly attributable to him fit with the later teachings of followers or even with the supposed supernatural claims that he made. Again, I don't need to ascribe supernatural bullshit to the bible as you do in order to make it all appear to be divinely inspired. I can take the more rational approach and assume that any history compiled in such a way was likely to be flawed and incomplete, even if it was about God.

Your belief about what Christ claimed is again irrrelevent and wrong. He DID claim to be the Messiah.

I have made no strawman and your simply saying it, does not make it so.

The Bible ascribes its own claim to the Super Natural. You are not a neccesary adovocate to change that provable and obvious fact...well to all but a dumbfuck that is


I know you think you can have your cake and eat it too, but as has been seen, your thinking ain't a guarentee of anything but split-hair soup.

 

[Timshel]

Your belief about what Christ claimed is again irrrelevent and wrong. He DID claim to be the Messiah.

Says you. Again, plenty of people have come to the same conclusions, including many of our founders.

I have made no strawman and your simply saying it, does not make it so.

Yes, you did. You claimed that I was arguing that one could make Christ into whatever they wanted. That's not my argument.

 

[Canceled2]

Says you. Again, plenty of people have come to the same conclusions, including many of our founders.

Yes, you did. You claimed that I was arguing that one could make Christ into whatever they wanted. That's not my argument.

No matter what conclusions you or any of the Founders have come to does not make for a legitimate argument or proof for what Christ Himslef claimed about himself.

I never said that it was your argument, but it was certainly one of your arguments...and you continue to make it one and THAT is part of what I addressed...

 

[Timshel]

No matter what conclusions you or any of the Founders have come to does not make for a legitimate argument or proof for what Christ Himslef claimed about himself.

And neither are your conclusions or even the Gospels proof of what Christ claimed. They are accounts and maybe the best ones we have, but there is no reason to believe they are infallible, excpet for your fairytale bullshit.

I never said that it was your argument, but it was certainly one of your arguments...and you continue to make it one and THAT is part of what I addressed...

It's not one of my arguments. It has no relation to my argument.

 

[Canceled2]

And neither are your conclusions or even the Gospels proof of what Christ claimed. They are accounts and maybe the best ones we have, but there is no reason to believe they are infallible, excpet for your fairytale bullshit.

It's not one of my arguments. It has no relation to my argument.

You have claimed that Christ is not God. You have claimed that the Bible is not accurate and is fallible...so it most certainly IS an argument YOU have and are making!!!

Your infantile understanding of what the Bible says and teaches makes any and all arguments you have about or against it ridiculous, and of the highest level of pure hubris!

 

[Timshel]

You have claimed that Christ is not God. You have claimed that the Bible is not accurate and is fallible...so it most certainly IS an argument YOU have and are making!!!

Nope. That's not my argument.

Your infantile understanding of what the Bible says and teaches makes any and all arguments you have about or against it ridiculous, and of the highest level of pure hubris!

And back at you. It's your argument that is built upon the fantastical notion, that the authors and translators were divinely inspored to record the unerring and complete truth. That, is ridiculous.

 

[Canceled2]

Nope. That's not my argument.
And back at you. It's your argument that is built upon the fantastical notion, that the authors and translators were divinely inspored to record the unerring and complete truth. That, is ridiculous.

OK so you do believe that Christ is the Messiah and that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God...great.

It is not merely "my" fantastical notion. It is a learned understanding of what the scriptures principally teach. YOU on the other hand have no clue about what the scriptures teach and yet are arrogant and ridiculous enough to argue a position about them.

 

[Damocles]

Because you did not address this part of my post:

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. Christ was also a Jew and his ministry was to the Jews. His audience would have also known Gods law regarding homosexuality.

What Christ did say on sexual immorality~~~

*Mathew 15:18-20 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

*“The Greek word for ‘fornication’ (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, ‘fornication’ can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28).” (Dr. Henry M. Morris)

**Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).

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

This "can mean"...

The reality is you work to stretch something that doesn't mention it to fit. When Paul speaks on the subject he makes it clear. Jesus did not speak directly to homosexuality. "Could include" isn't the same thing as "does"...

This is why understanding language is important, it is also best to understand that Christ spoke in Aramaic, not Greek.

Look, I'm not arguing that Christianity doesn't think it is a "sin", I am simply pointing out with accuracy that Christ never spoke directly of homosexuality in any of the Gospels, even those rejected at Nicea.

 

[Timshel]

OK so you do believe that Christ is the Messiah and that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God...great.

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

It is not merely "my" fantastical notion. It is a learned understanding of what the scriptures principally teach. YOU on the other hand have no clue about what the scriptures teach and yet are arrogant and ridiculous enough to argue a position about them.

Which is again why I will reference the founders. Not that they are an authority, but you are pretending that my argument is based on ignorance. You have no proof of that. I can't (well don't care to) prove what I have told you about my studies, but it is the truth. So...

Many of the founders had similiar views and no one doubts their knowledge of the subject matter. For instance, Jefferson studied the bible in both Aramaic and Hebrew. Have you done so? I have read more than most, but can't claim that kind of knowledge.

Of course, that is not proof of my argument or Jefferson's but it is proof that it is not necessarily a position based on ignorance. You are just blowing hot air anyway,as you offer no argument to support your assertion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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

Yes he did, when I have time, I will find the passage. He used the example of "men lying with men" to denote how despicable something was, I can't recall the exact context, but it's indeed in there, because I have read it. Now he did not directly speak of homosexuality or say it was a sin or anything, as far as I know... but he did speak of it, and not very highly. From my understanding of what he said, it wasn't something to be very proud of.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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

But then, the King James Bible has been rewritten many times.
OH WAIT, you've probably got the bible that the white power groups use.

Now I understand your behavior.
You should see someone about your condition.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=389fdI7GlKc&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=389fdI7GlKc&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Timshel]

Yes he did, when I have time, I will find the passage. He used the example of "men lying with men" to denote how despicable something was, I can't recall the exact context, but it's indeed in there, because I have read it. Now he did not directly speak of homosexuality or say it was a sin or anything, as far as I know... but he did speak of it, and not very highly. From my understanding of what he said, it wasn't something to be very proud of.

Oh boy! Going to get me a good seat for this.

Could this be a new Ditzy classic? Maybe. We know he's wrong and Dixie has trouble acknowledging his many and repeated errors. Will he go for the full faceplant, like 1/3 and so many others, or will he wimp out, backpedal and pretend he never really meant what he has clearly claimed?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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

Now-now, If Dixie believes that it's there; well then, who are we to confuse him with facts.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes he did, when I have time, I will find the passage. He used the example of "men lying with men" to denote how despicable something was, I can't recall the exact context, but it's indeed in there, because I have read it. Now he did not directly speak of homosexuality or say it was a sin or anything, as far as I know... but he did speak of it, and not very highly. From my understanding of what he said, it wasn't something to be very proud of.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh boy! Going to get me a good seat for this.

Could this be a new Ditzy classic? Maybe. We know he's wrong and Dixie has trouble acknowledging his many and repeated errors. Will he go for the full faceplant, like 1/3 and so many others, or will he wimp out, backpedal and pretend he never really meant what he has clearly claimed?

 

[Damocles]

Yes he did, when I have time, I will find the passage. He used the example of "men lying with men" to denote how despicable something was, I can't recall the exact context, but it's indeed in there, because I have read it. Now he did not directly speak of homosexuality or say it was a sin or anything, as far as I know... but he did speak of it, and not very highly. From my understanding of what he said, it wasn't something to be very proud of.

No, Paul did. Romans chapter 1, again in Corinthians...