Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Putting Christian Condemnation to Rest

Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:23:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For a good while, I've been look for the perfect way to sum the way I've come to understand Christianity, and in reading the Bible, I came across the perfect description.

Read the whole thing. It's worth it, and it's profound:

Romans 1:22-3:4

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions."

Literally, here, it's saying that God made these people gay:

"Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with omen and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

They got... well, lol, God forgive me, but they got buttfvcked under God for being stupid. Continuing...

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mine and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they were gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve"

And not necessary do

"to die, they not only do them, but approve of those who practice them.

And, here... here, ladies and gentlemen, is where it gets really good:

"Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

Truth. Continuing...

"We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things, yet do them yourself, you will escape judgment from God? Or, do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?. But, by your hard and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath wehn God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For, He wil render to every man according to his words: to those who by patience, in will-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but, for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but lory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality."

So, in one fell swoops, there goes all those arguments against God's morality. Continuing:

"All who have sinned without the law will also perish without he law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law."

Paying attention, here? It doesn't require a written law, or any adherence to a written law, to do good. Continuing...

"They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to the Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. But, if you call yourself a Jaw and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will and approve of what is excellent, because you are instructed the law, and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, and a light to those who are in the darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth -- you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself?"

I hope that Ahmed character reads this.

"While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you"."

And, if it wasn't clear enough, some more:

"Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law;"

Pay attention, this is excellent...

"but, if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not is uncircumcision become circumcision? Then, those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For, he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical."

That's right. It's it really wasn't literally. Gasp!

Shouldn't be a shocker. Continuing...

"He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual, not literal. His praise is not from men, but from God. Then, what advantage has the Jew? Or, what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way, To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. hat if some were unfaithful? Doe their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written:

"That thou mayest be justified in thy words,
and prevail when thou art judged."

.
.
.

You don't need to be a Christian for God to love you. Only a good person.

God does not condemn anyone for any one thing, and He welcomes homosexuals with good hearts home with open arms.

However, he spits on those who condemn others, for they are hypocrites.

The end.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:37:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:23:49 PM, Ren wrote:
For a good while, I've been look for the perfect way to sum the way I've come to understand Christianity, and in reading the Bible, I came across the perfect description.

Read the whole thing. It's worth it, and it's profound:

Romans 1:22-3:4

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions."

Literally, here, it's saying that God made these people gay:

No, it's saying God disowned them because they were gay. In other words, it says "If you're going to be gay, then I'm not going to hold your hand and force you to stay with me. Do whatever you want."

This basically states, along with with every other sin, that God will provide home and comfort for those who love him and do what we're supposed to do, but he will let us fall into sin if it is our choice.

God didn't 'make' anyone gay. God simply submitted to their desires and allowed it to happen despite the sinfulness.

"Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with omen and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

They got... well, lol, God forgive me, but they got buttfvcked under God for being stupid. Continuing...

I don't know how this puts Christian condemnaion to rest at all since it seems to say homosexuality is wrong.

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mine and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they were gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve"

And not necessary do

"to die, they not only do them, but approve of those who practice them.

And, here... here, ladies and gentlemen, is where it gets really good:

"Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

Truth. Continuing...

This simply says people should hold themselves accountable for what they hold others accountable for. If you accuse someone of being gay and it being wrong, then you should not be gay as well. I think that's fair.

You don't need to be a Christian for God to love you. Only a good person.

God loves all people, not just the good ones.

God does not condemn anyone for any one thing, and He welcomes homosexuals with good hearts home with open arms.

He does, but just because he as forgiven you for your sins, it doesn't take away from the fact that homosexuality is wrong despite this.

However, he spits on those who condemn others, for they are hypocrites.

God spits on people who pass hypocritical judgment, not judgment.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:47:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:37:54 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

No, it's saying God disowned them because they were gay. In other words, it says "If you're going to be gay, then I'm not going to hold your hand and force you to stay with me. Do whatever you want."

No.

It does not say that at all.

It says that God gave them to homosexual behavior for worshiping idols with the appearance of man, reptiles, etc.

God made them gay.

It says it right there in the Bible, in your face. Accept it.

I don't know how this puts Christian condemnaion to rest at all since it seems to say homosexuality is wrong.

Actually, it claims that homosexuality is rather depraved, but it was something inflicted upon them by God. It was far worse, apparently, to dishonor and mock God.

This simply says people should hold themselves accountable for what they hold others accountable for. If you accuse someone of being gay and it being wrong, then you should not be gay as well. I think that's fair.

You're really going to pretend as though you didn't see it say, right there in your face, that you should never judge anyone under any circumstances?

"Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself,"

You have no excuse for your beliefs.

God thinks you should be ashamed of yourself. That is straight up, as it is written. Accept it and improve.

God loves all people, not just the good ones.

Lol... the Bible says that God literally hates hypocrites. Doesn't say that about homosexuals, but certainly about hypocrites.

There is no man without sin. You, a judger, are a hypocrite. God hates you, bro.

He does, but just because he as forgiven you for your sins, it doesn't take away from the fact that homosexuality is wrong despite this.

And, clearly, that's none of your business, straight from the word.

God spits on people who pass hypocritical judgment, not judgment.

All judgment is hypocritical judgment.

Judgement is for God only.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:57:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:23:49 PM, Ren wrote:
For a good while, I've been look for the perfect way to sum the way I've come to understand Christianity, and in reading the Bible, I came across the perfect description.

Read the whole thing. It's worth it, and it's profound:

Romans 1:22-3:4

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions."

Literally, here, it's saying that God made these people gay:

"Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with omen and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

They got... well, lol, God forgive me, but they got buttfvcked under God for being stupid. Continuing...

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mine and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they were gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve"

And not necessary do

"to die, they not only do them, but approve of those who practice them.

And, here... here, ladies and gentlemen, is where it gets really good:

"Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

Truth. Continuing...

"We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things, yet do them yourself, you will escape judgment from God? Or, do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?. But, by your hard and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath wehn God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For, He wil render to every man according to his words: to those who by patience, in will-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but, for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but lory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality."

So, in one fell swoops, there goes all those arguments against God's morality. Continuing:

"All who have sinned without the law will also perish without he law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law."

Paying attention, here? It doesn't require a written law, or any adherence to a written law, to do good. Continuing...

"They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to the Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. But, if you call yourself a Jaw and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will and approve of what is excellent, because you are instructed the law, and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, and a light to those who are in the darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth -- you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself?"

I hope that Ahmed character reads this.

"While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you"."

And, if it wasn't clear enough, some more:

"Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law;"

Pay attention, this is excellent...

"but, if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not is uncircumcision become circumcision? Then, those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For, he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical."

That's right. It's it really wasn't literally. Gasp!

Shouldn't be a shocker. Continuing...

"He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual, not literal. His praise is not from men, but from God. Then, what advantage has the Jew? Or, what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way, To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. hat if some were unfaithful? Doe their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written:

"That thou mayest be justified in thy words,
and prevail when thou art judged."

.
.
.

You don't need to be a Christian for God to love you. Only a good person.

God does not condemn anyone for any one thing, and He welcomes homosexuals with good hearts home with open arms.

However, he spits on those who condemn others, for they are hypocrites.

The end.

Did you read anything you just posted?

Gays are gay because God gave them up to their passions. He condemns that sin like any other sin. He does not accept homosexuality.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:07:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

It does not say that at all.

It says that God gave them to homosexual behavior for worshiping idols with the appearance of man, reptiles, etc.

God made them gay.

It says it right there in the Bible, in your face. Accept it.

"God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity"

He 'gave them up' 'in the lusts of their hearts.' This says their hearts were already impure. God didn't give them these impurities. This was something already inside of them. Again, this is a statement of submission.

To me, the interpretation that "God made them homoseual" doesn't translate from this.

If I say I "gave myself up in the guilt of my crimes to the police." That doesn't mean "I forced myself to go to jail." It means I allowed it to happen.

I don't know how this puts Christian condemnaion to rest at all since it seems to say homosexuality is wrong.

Actually, it claims that homosexuality is rather depraved, but it was something inflicted upon them by God. It was far worse, apparently, to dishonor and mock God.

I'd like to know your specific logic on this interpretation. This is a passage commonly used to condemn homosexuals, so I'm interested in your insight because I don't see it personally.

This simply says people should hold themselves accountable for what they hold others accountable for. If you accuse someone of being gay and it being wrong, then you should not be gay as well. I think that's fair.

You're really going to pretend as though you didn't see it say, right there in your face, that you should never judge anyone under any circumstances?

"Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself,"

You have no excuse for your beliefs.

"when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself"

That is clearly referring to holding yourself accountable and hypocritical judgment. It's the exact same logic as in Matthew 7 I believe.

Lol... the Bible says that God literally hates hypocrites. Doesn't say that about homosexuals, but certainly about hypocrites.

I'd like the scripture that says God "hates" hypocrites.

And, clearly, that's none of your business, straight from the word.

I make it my business when it affects society, and it spills over to affecting my family and the messages given to my niece. I take particular offense whether or not it is right.

All judgment is hypocritical judgment.

I'm not a homosexual, I have not been sexually promiscuous with men. That makes me not a hypocrite when talking about homosexuality.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.

Lmfao, out of context?

Those were quotes through three chapters, and I did not skip a word.

That was not out of context. That was a good proportion of the entire book of Romans.

Accept the truth.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:23:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:57:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Did you read anything you just posted?

Gays are gay because God gave them up to their passions. He condemns that sin like any other sin. He does not accept homosexuality.

God forced people to sin, then condemns them for it?

What a frightening interpretation.

That's not what it said at all. It literally said that it judges people based on what is in their hearts, whether or not they abide by any specific law. Every man lives the life of a sinner, but not every man has a good heart.

A man's and a woman's sexuality is one very minor nuance of his or her lifestyle.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:32:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:21:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.

Lmfao, out of context?

Those were quotes through three chapters, and I did not skip a word.

That was not out of context. That was a good proportion of the entire book of Romans.

Accept the truth.

Common man... Moby... 'Dick' is a porn novel. You saying its not? That was so clearly porn. The author is one sick puppy. You are a freak for supporting him.

All day long man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:39:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:32:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:21:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.

Lmfao, out of context?

Those were quotes through three chapters, and I did not skip a word.

That was not out of context. That was a good proportion of the entire book of Romans.

Accept the truth.

Common man... Moby... 'Dick' is a porn novel. You saying its not? That was so clearly porn. The author is one sick puppy. You are a freak for supporting him.

All day long man.

You gave me a single paragraph from a book about a sperm whale, making it apparent that it as supposed to be artful subtext. In that regard, someone reading that wouldn't necessarily be misinterpreting what it's saying.

That isn't to say that one can take a single verse from the Bible and use it to misconstrue Christianity. However, that is to say that you're simply equivocating a large proportion of an entire book of the Bible to part of a paragraph from a piece of literature, which goes to show how you really feel about the Bible deep inside, in addition to the fact that you have absolutely nothing of substance with which to refute my points, and have resorted to a weak diversion.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:53:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:39:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:32:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:21:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.

Lmfao, out of context?

Those were quotes through three chapters, and I did not skip a word.

That was not out of context. That was a good proportion of the entire book of Romans.

Accept the truth.

Common man... Moby... 'Dick' is a porn novel. You saying its not? That was so clearly porn. The author is one sick puppy. You are a freak for supporting him.

All day long man.

You gave me a single paragraph from a book about a sperm whale, making it apparent that it as supposed to be artful subtext. In that regard, someone reading that wouldn't necessarily be misinterpreting what it's saying.

That isn't to say that one can take a single verse from the Bible and use it to misconstrue Christianity. However, that is to say that you're simply equivocating a large proportion of an entire book of the Bible to part of a paragraph from a piece of literature, which goes to show how you really feel about the Bible deep inside, in addition to the fact that you have absolutely nothing of substance with which to refute my points, and have resorted to a weak diversion.

Dude.
You have no room to complain.

Comon it is not a single paragraph! It is a 'telling' paragraph!
I also cited the tiiiitle! Moby....'Dick'?

It was obviously talking about a massive sperm and male orgy. DO NOT tell me you missed it!

Now concerning the Bible. Those paragraphs from various different books throughout history....
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 10:28:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:23:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:57:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Did you read anything you just posted?

Gays are gay because God gave them up to their passions. He condemns that sin like any other sin. He does not accept homosexuality.

God forced people to sin, then condemns them for it?

What a frightening interpretation.

That's not what it said at all. It literally said that it judges people based on what is in their hearts, whether or not they abide by any specific law. Every man lives the life of a sinner, but not every man has a good heart.

A man's and a woman's sexuality is one very minor nuance of his or her lifestyle.

God does not force anyone to sin. Obviously you have no understanding of anything you just posted.

God will turn His back on you if you turn your back on Him. He turned his back on the sinners and left them to their own passions.

Yes you can be condemned for that. You're the one who's scared not me. I know my God and I know I'm saved.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 10:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 10:28:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

God will turn His back on you if you turn your back on Him. He turned his back on the sinners and left them to their own passions.


Hmmmm....

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 11:04:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:23:49 PM, Ren wrote:
However, he spits on those who condemn others, for they are hypocrites.

So she's condemning others for condemning others. I see.
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:04:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 11:04:14 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:23:49 PM, Ren wrote:
However, he spits on those who condemn others, for they are hypocrites.

So she's condemning others for condemning others. I see.

Lol, well, yes.

The condemnation being that condemnation can only be initiated by God.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:14:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:53:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:39:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:32:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:21:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.

Lmfao, out of context?

Those were quotes through three chapters, and I did not skip a word.

That was not out of context. That was a good proportion of the entire book of Romans.

Accept the truth.

Common man... Moby... 'Dick' is a porn novel. You saying its not? That was so clearly porn. The author is one sick puppy. You are a freak for supporting him.

All day long man.

You gave me a single paragraph from a book about a sperm whale, making it apparent that it as supposed to be artful subtext. In that regard, someone reading that wouldn't necessarily be misinterpreting what it's saying.

That isn't to say that one can take a single verse from the Bible and use it to misconstrue Christianity. However, that is to say that you're simply equivocating a large proportion of an entire book of the Bible to part of a paragraph from a piece of literature, which goes to show how you really feel about the Bible deep inside, in addition to the fact that you have absolutely nothing of substance with which to refute my points, and have resorted to a weak diversion.

Dude.
You have no room to complain.

Comon it is not a single paragraph! It is a 'telling' paragraph!
I also cited the tiiiitle! Moby....'Dick'?

Yes, and from that alone, I can infer that the passage, being about a man hunting a sperm whale in general, that the paragraph was meant to be a double entenre, and I'd be right.

That does not approach what I posited in any way. It avoids my arguments entirely, attempting to distract me with a silly equivocation.

No, I'm not shocked or thrilled, because I'm not 12 or 14, and homosexuality is not a really big deal to me. I'm a grown man that understands that sexuality is a diverse and amorphous thing, and much nastier things often happen in the bedroom than simply two men having sex in and of itself.

Therefore, that excerpt doesn't mean any more to me than Melville intended, which was for it to be a double entendre for what Ahab was experiencing during that particular sequence.

So, kindly, approach my post with a shred of intellectual honesty in a way that actually exerts a degree of confidence in your beliefs.

It was obviously talking about a massive sperm and male orgy. DO NOT tell me you missed it!

Now concerning the Bible. Those paragraphs from various different books throughout history....
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:18:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 10:28:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:23:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:57:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Did you read anything you just posted?

Gays are gay because God gave them up to their passions. He condemns that sin like any other sin. He does not accept homosexuality.

God forced people to sin, then condemns them for it?

What a frightening interpretation.

That's not what it said at all. It literally said that it judges people based on what is in their hearts, whether or not they abide by any specific law. Every man lives the life of a sinner, but not every man has a good heart.

A man's and a woman's sexuality is one very minor nuance of his or her lifestyle.

God does not force anyone to sin. Obviously you have no understanding of anything you just posted.

And you and your theology degree do, though, right?

God will turn His back on you if you turn your back on Him. He turned his back on the sinners and left them to their own passions.

Lol. Quote specifically from where you got that interpretation.

Because, to me, it clearly states that God was displeased that they worshiped idols that looked like men, birds, and reptiles, and punished them by making them gay.

Yes you can be condemned for that. You're the one who's scared not me. I know my God and I know I'm saved.

Lol, oh, I'm scared, am I?

No one is challenging your faith. Curious, though, that you feel challenged.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 8:49:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I neglected to approach this, it appears (I didn't notice, sorry), and that sure is something, because this has one of the best responses yet:

At 5/7/2012 9:07:50 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

"God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity"

He 'gave them up' 'in the lusts of their hearts.' This says their hearts were already impure. God didn't give them these impurities. This was something already inside of them. Again, this is a statement of submission.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a hardnosed Christian arguing that homosexuality is inherent (in one way or another). As everyone is inclined to sin, man in general is inclined to homosexuality.

I think your interpretation is just as good as mine, bud. ^_^

But, in any case, no; it was rather specific. It didn't say that God just let them be who they are. That's preposterous -- clearly, He was already allowing them to be ho they are, and He was displeased with how they turned out. So, he made them gay.

Clear as day.

You can go on ahead and believe your interpretation, though -- I'd say it's every bit as beneficial, for all intents and purposes.

To me, the interpretation that "God made them homoseual" doesn't translate from this.

If I say I "gave myself up in the guilt of my crimes to the police." That doesn't mean "I forced myself to go to jail." It means I allowed it to happen.

You know, in pondering this further, I came to this supposition:

Perhaps, you're right, and God did simply give up; in making a man and a woman, and in establishing heterosexual procreation, God sort of set parameters that did not allow room for alternative ideas and interests like homo and bisexuality. Nonetheless, given their free will, men and women practice it anyway, and perhaps at this point, God just threw up his hands and conceded to the queerness of humanity.

That's a really funny way of putting it, but perhaps it makes sense.

I don't know how this puts Christian condemnaion to rest at all since it seems to say homosexuality is wrong.

Actually, it claims that homosexuality is rather depraved, but it was something inflicted upon them by God. It was far worse, apparently, to dishonor and mock God.

I'd like to know your specific logic on this interpretation. This is a passage commonly used to condemn homosexuals, so I'm interested in your insight because I don't see it personally.

It's truly as clear as day. They did things that displeased God, so God (did one thing or another described as "giving them up to") which resulted in them becoming outright homosexuals. The men no longer had any interest in the women, and slept with one another. That's not just some, Sodomite-like rampant sexual depravity, what with orgies and bisexuality and the like. No, this was outright, strictly dickly gaybears and the whole Calypso harem.

They didn't become anything else. They were already everything else. The verses practically tried to list everything you can do wrong, from disobeying your parents to being violent. However, homosexuality in this case was distinct. It was something that wasn't already among these people. Instead, it was something that God inflicted upon them.

It makes complete sense that it would be used against homosexuals by the detestable hypocrites of this world, as therefore, homosexuals would be more likely to avoid the short book of Romans and the truth it reveals about themselves as it applies to Christianity, and the detestable behavior of the Church that vilifies them.

This simply says people should hold themselves accountable for what they hold others accountable for. If you accuse someone of being gay and it being wrong, then you should not be gay as well. I think that's fair.

You're really going to pretend as though you didn't see it say, right there in your face, that you should never judge anyone under any circumstances?

"Therefore, you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself,"

You have no excuse for your beliefs.

"when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself"

That is clearly referring to holding yourself accountable and hypocritical judgment. It's the exact same logic as in Matthew 7 I believe.

Lol, it does not say it.

It says when you judge someone else, you are condemning yourself. It does not say anything about judgment being specifically hypocritical, nor does it say anything about holding yourself accountable for anything.

You are lying to yourself.

Stop worshiping men and their ignorant interpretations. The Book is right here for you to see. Open your mind and become educated. If we're to have religion, it's going to need to stop being so atavistic.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 8:55:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:07:50 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

I make it my business when it affects society, and it spills over to affecting my family and the messages given to my niece. I take particular offense whether or not it is right.

Lol, you, a sinner, are a hypocrite. You are teaching your niece to judge others rather than to lead herself and others? I think another, more open-minded read of the Bible is in order for you, bud.

All judgment is hypocritical judgment.

I'm not a homosexual, I have not been sexually promiscuous with men. That makes me not a hypocrite when talking about homosexuality.

Lol, so, you think that God considers homosexuality special or something?

All sin is sin. It's a pretty pervasive theme throughout the Bible that God considers all sin generally the same. So, if you have sinned, then condemning others for being homosexuals is hypocritical on your part.

I have no problem with you, but God probably does.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 9:23:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 8:55:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Lol, you, a sinner, are a hypocrite. You are teaching your niece to judge others rather than to lead herself and others?
Those things are not mutually exclusive.

I think another, more open-minded read of the Bible is in order for you, bud.
So people should keep reading it until they see YOUR point of view?

Lol, so, you think that God considers homosexuality special or something?
What does this even mean?

All sin is sin. It's a pretty pervasive theme throughout the Bible that God considers all sin generally the same. So, if you have sinned, then condemning others for being homosexuals is hypocritical on your part.
So, because no one is perfect then no one should strive for perfection. Because everyone has failed at some point or another, no one should try to succeed. Brilliant!

If one has no standards, then one cannot fail. I rather be a hypocrite: at least I have standards.

I have no problem with you, but God probably does.
God has a problem with anyone that espouses "relative morality" because only God has the authority to determine morality; consequently, those that believe in relative morality think themselves to be God. Do you believe that morality is relative?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 9:52:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 9:23:21 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/8/2012 8:55:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Lol, you, a sinner, are a hypocrite. You are teaching your niece to judge others rather than to lead herself and others?
Those things are not mutually exclusive.

You're right.

I think another, more open-minded read of the Bible is in order for you, bud.
So people should keep reading it until they see YOUR point of view?

No.

He should keep reading until he's comfortable acknowledging what's clearly written there.

What I'm referring to didn't leave much to interpretation. It's very clearly stated.

Lol, so, you think that God considers homosexuality special or something?
What does this even mean?

All sin is sin. It's a pretty pervasive theme throughout the Bible that God considers all sin generally the same. So, if you have sinned, then condemning others for being homosexuals is hypocritical on your part.
So, because no one is perfect then no one should strive for perfection. Because everyone has failed at some point or another, no one should try to succeed. Brilliant!

No.

Because no one is perfect, no one should condemn others. They should instead strive for perfection within themselves.

If one has no standards, then one cannot fail. I rather be a hypocrite: at least I have standards.

Lol. Well, first, you might want to me be sure you're interpreting what I'm saying correctly. xD

I have no problem with you, but God probably does.
God has a problem with anyone that espouses "relative morality" because only God has the authority to determine morality; consequently, those that believe in relative morality think themselves to be God. Do you believe that morality is relative?

Lol, actually, I don't.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 9:58:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 12:14:05 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:53:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:39:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:32:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:21:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.

Lmfao, out of context?

Those were quotes through three chapters, and I did not skip a word.

That was not out of context. That was a good proportion of the entire book of Romans.

Accept the truth.

Common man... Moby... 'Dick' is a porn novel. You saying its not? That was so clearly porn. The author is one sick puppy. You are a freak for supporting him.

All day long man.

You gave me a single paragraph from a book about a sperm whale, making it apparent that it as supposed to be artful subtext. In that regard, someone reading that wouldn't necessarily be misinterpreting what it's saying.

That isn't to say that one can take a single verse from the Bible and use it to misconstrue Christianity. However, that is to say that you're simply equivocating a large proportion of an entire book of the Bible to part of a paragraph from a piece of literature, which goes to show how you really feel about the Bible deep inside, in addition to the fact that you have absolutely nothing of substance with which to refute my points, and have resorted to a weak diversion.

Dude.
You have no room to complain.

Comon it is not a single paragraph! It is a 'telling' paragraph!
I also cited the tiiiitle! Moby....'Dick'?

Yes, and from that alone, I can infer that the passage, being about a man hunting a sperm whale in general, that the paragraph was meant to be a double entenre, and I'd be right.

That does not approach what I posited in any way. It avoids my arguments entirely, attempting to distract me with a silly equivocation.

No, I'm not shocked or thrilled, because I'm not 12 or 14, and homosexuality is not a really big deal to me. I'm a grown man that understands that sexuality is a diverse and amorphous thing, and much nastier things often happen in the bedroom than simply two men having sex in and of itself.

Therefore, that excerpt doesn't mean any more to me than Melville intended, which was for it to be a double entendre for what Ahab was experiencing during that particular sequence.

So, kindly, approach my post with a shred of intellectual honesty in a way that actually exerts a degree of confidence in your beliefs.

It was obviously talking about a massive sperm and male orgy. DO NOT tell me you missed it!

Now concerning the Bible. Those paragraphs from various different books throughout history....

So you get to reinterpret scriptures from the OBVIOUS and Scholastic interpretations but I am wrong to do so with Moby Dick?
Hypocrite much?

It would be morally wrong to respond to your appeal to ridicule as though it had validity. It is a logical argument to perform a reductio ad absurdum to show your reasoning and actions as highly flawed.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 10:09:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 9:58:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/8/2012 12:14:05 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:53:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:39:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:32:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:21:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Wow, out of context quotations.

You said profound. That was not profound but INCREDIBLY commonplace. You should try a new approach.

Wait! Let me try it.

From chapter 94 'Moby Dick'. Oh yeah baby a porn quote!

"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers' hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."

Yeppers you guessed it. Entirely about whaling.
http://nocenslupus.wordpress.com...

I can make any thing say whatever I want to the uneducated and ignorant.

Read more. Read harder.

Lmfao, out of context?

Those were quotes through three chapters, and I did not skip a word.

That was not out of context. That was a good proportion of the entire book of Romans.

Accept the truth.

Common man... Moby... 'Dick' is a porn novel. You saying its not? That was so clearly porn. The author is one sick puppy. You are a freak for supporting him.

All day long man.

You gave me a single paragraph from a book about a sperm whale, making it apparent that it as supposed to be artful subtext. In that regard, someone reading that wouldn't necessarily be misinterpreting what it's saying.

That isn't to say that one can take a single verse from the Bible and use it to misconstrue Christianity. However, that is to say that you're simply equivocating a large proportion of an entire book of the Bible to part of a paragraph from a piece of literature, which goes to show how you really feel about the Bible deep inside, in addition to the fact that you have absolutely nothing of substance with which to refute my points, and have resorted to a weak diversion.

Dude.
You have no room to complain.

Comon it is not a single paragraph! It is a 'telling' paragraph!
I also cited the tiiiitle! Moby....'Dick'?

Yes, and from that alone, I can infer that the passage, being about a man hunting a sperm whale in general, that the paragraph was meant to be a double entenre, and I'd be right.

That does not approach what I posited in any way. It avoids my arguments entirely, attempting to distract me with a silly equivocation.

No, I'm not shocked or thrilled, because I'm not 12 or 14, and homosexuality is not a really big deal to me. I'm a grown man that understands that sexuality is a diverse and amorphous thing, and much nastier things often happen in the bedroom than simply two men having sex in and of itself.

Therefore, that excerpt doesn't mean any more to me than Melville intended, which was for it to be a double entendre for what Ahab was experiencing during that particular sequence.

So, kindly, approach my post with a shred of intellectual honesty in a way that actually exerts a degree of confidence in your beliefs.

It was obviously talking about a massive sperm and male orgy. DO NOT tell me you missed it!

Now concerning the Bible. Those paragraphs from various different books throughout history....

So you get to reinterpret scriptures from the OBVIOUS and Scholastic interpretations but I am wrong to do so with Moby Dick?
Hypocrite much?

It would be morally wrong to respond to your appeal to ridicule as though it had validity. It is a logical argument to perform a reductio ad absurdum to show your reasoning and actions as highly flawed.

I'm not ridiculing you.

Sigh. Look. Seriously. Show me how it "should" have been interpreted.

I mean, really, are you truly a teacher? Are you truly a leader of the blind? Are you really a light in the darkness?

Then preach on, brother. How is it, then?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 10:20:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 10:09:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/8/2012 9:58:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:

So you get to reinterpret scriptures from the OBVIOUS and Scholastic interpretations but I am wrong to do so with Moby Dick?
Hypocrite much?

It would be morally wrong to respond to your appeal to ridicule as though it had validity. It is a logical argument to perform a reductio ad absurdum to show your reasoning and actions as highly flawed.

I'm not ridiculing you.

Sigh. Look. Seriously. Show me how it "should" have been interpreted.

I mean, really, are you truly a teacher? Are you truly a leader of the blind? Are you really a light in the darkness?

Then preach on, brother. How is it, then?

Statements like this:
"They got... well, lol, God forgive me, but they got buttfvcked under God for being stupid. Continuing... "

Comes across as obvious ridicule and not one scholar would interpret the text as such.
I clearly showed your petulant and false reasoning with Moby Dick.

If you have actual genuine concerns or questions then by all means start another post with them, and show respect to scholasticism, reason and logic.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 10:30:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 10:20:12 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/8/2012 10:09:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/8/2012 9:58:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:

So you get to reinterpret scriptures from the OBVIOUS and Scholastic interpretations but I am wrong to do so with Moby Dick?
Hypocrite much?

It would be morally wrong to respond to your appeal to ridicule as though it had validity. It is a logical argument to perform a reductio ad absurdum to show your reasoning and actions as highly flawed.

I'm not ridiculing you.

Sigh. Look. Seriously. Show me how it "should" have been interpreted.

I mean, really, are you truly a teacher? Are you truly a leader of the blind? Are you really a light in the darkness?

Then preach on, brother. How is it, then?

Statements like this:
"They got... well, lol, God forgive me, but they got buttfvcked under God for being stupid. Continuing... "

Comes across as obvious ridicule and not one scholar would interpret the text as such.
I clearly showed your petulant and false reasoning with Moby Dick.

If you have actual genuine concerns or questions then by all means start another post with them, and show respect to scholasticism, reason and logic.

Nono -- watch this:

"Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...God gave them up to dishonorable passions...men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Literally, under God, these men received in their own persons -- they were buttfvcked.

I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but it's true, and the way that I've worded it does not make it any less "academic" or valid.

In any case, I'm not going to make a whole other thread for little old you. I typed that whole thing out, as it occurred to me while I was reading the Bible and I typed it from my Bible. That doesn't really make a difference, though, because I wouldn't make a whole other thread just for you because you didn't like my wording, even if my post was three sentences long. The point is that given the circumstances, the request is outright outrageous.

I wouldn't expect you to have an answer to this, anyway. It's so sad, how attached many Christians are to hatred and condemnation.

However, as my excerpt said, it is because of you that the Gentiles curse God.

You make Him look bad, you shameful thing. ^_^
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 10:41:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 9:52:43 AM, Ren wrote:
No.

He should keep reading until he's comfortable acknowledging what's clearly written there.

What I'm referring to didn't leave much to interpretation. It's very clearly stated.
Most of the time, it's not so clear. There are many a Biblical scholar.

No.

Because no one is perfect, no one should condemn others. They should instead strive for perfection within themselves.
So I shouldn't condemn murderers, pedophiles, and rapists: I should only strive not to be one. What a grand SOCIETY that'd be!

If one has no standards, then one cannot fail. I rather be a hypocrite: at least I have standards.
Lol. Well, first, you might want to me be sure you're interpreting what I'm saying correctly. xD
Don't think I was that far off: see above.

Lol, actually, I don't.
Don't what, think morality is relative?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 11:30:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 10:30:18 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/8/2012 10:20:12 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/8/2012 10:09:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/8/2012 9:58:08 AM, Gileandos wrote:

So you get to reinterpret scriptures from the OBVIOUS and Scholastic interpretations but I am wrong to do so with Moby Dick?
Hypocrite much?

It would be morally wrong to respond to your appeal to ridicule as though it had validity. It is a logical argument to perform a reductio ad absurdum to show your reasoning and actions as highly flawed.

I'm not ridiculing you.

Sigh. Look. Seriously. Show me how it "should" have been interpreted.

I mean, really, are you truly a teacher? Are you truly a leader of the blind? Are you really a light in the darkness?

Then preach on, brother. How is it, then?

Statements like this:
"They got... well, lol, God forgive me, but they got buttfvcked under God for being stupid. Continuing... "

Comes across as obvious ridicule and not one scholar would interpret the text as such.
I clearly showed your petulant and false reasoning with Moby Dick.

If you have actual genuine concerns or questions then by all means start another post with them, and show respect to scholasticism, reason and logic.

Nono -- watch this:

"Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...God gave them up to dishonorable passions...men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Literally, under God, these men received in their own persons -- they were buttfvcked.

I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but it's true, and the way that I've worded it does not make it any less "academic" or valid.

In any case, I'm not going to make a whole other thread for little old you. I typed that whole thing out, as it occurred to me while I was reading the Bible and I typed it from my Bible. That doesn't really make a difference, though, because I wouldn't make a whole other thread just for you because you didn't like my wording, even if my post was three sentences long. The point is that given the circumstances, the request is outright outrageous.

I wouldn't expect you to have an answer to this, anyway. It's so sad, how attached many Christians are to hatred and condemnation.

However, as my excerpt said, it is because of you that the Gentiles curse God.

You make Him look bad, you shameful thing. ^_^

As an aside, you might want to pull up your pants... the 'source' of your intellect is showing... who knows what God might allow to happen to you.

First, not one scholar would suggest what you are suggesting.
Second, the penalty of their error is not the act itself identified as the error. That is moronic. No actually that is idiotic.

My reductio ad absurdum still stands.

A further point. Language bias is also a fallacy of misleading vividness and adds zero weight to create a valid argument. Good luck man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 11:45:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 12:04:04 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 11:04:14 PM, Danielle wrote:
So she's condemning others for condemning others. I see.

Lol, well, yes.

The condemnation being that condemnation can only be initiated by God.

Seems hypocritical.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:01:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol, you, a sinner, are a hypocrite. You are teaching your niece to judge others rather than to lead herself and others? I think another, more open-minded read of the Bible is in order for you, bud.

I'm not condemning sin in general, just a particular one. I think that's within my right. If I were saying "Sinner, you're going to hell for your wrngdoing!" That wouuld encompass your point.

I am only judging one particular sin.

I don't claim to be correct in my interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I could be wrong. I'm just glad that, in this country, my point is the one that wins at the moment. I can only hope it stays like that.

Lol, so, you think that God considers homosexuality special or something?

All sin is sin. It's a pretty pervasive theme throughout the Bible that God considers all sin generally the same. So, if you have sinned, then condemning others for being homosexuals is hypocritical on your part.

I'm not claiming any sin is special, but every sin is particular. There are different ways to sin. I believe it's our job to hold each other as well as ourselves accountable for all sins individually. If we see someone doing something sinful, we have the obligation to help that person if we truly want to act out of love.

I have no problem with you, but God probably does.

I'll leave that for God to decide.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:26:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a hardnosed Christian arguing that homosexuality is inherent (in one way or another). As everyone is inclined to sin, man in general is inclined to homosexuality.

Sexual desire is inherent even before we understand our feelings sometimes. When we first become erect, we don't always understand why at first, but our bodies do. After we decide how we are supposed to satisfy that pleasure, we then acquire a target.

This is where sexual orientation comes into play. Now, you can have a sexual orientation toward anything: animals, humans, your own sex, children, yourself, inanimate objects --all kinds of things!

No, sexual orientation is not inherent. It's learned.

I think your interpretation is just as good as mine, bud. ^_^

I said nothing to the contrary. I do think that our interpretations are going to just be circular because one of us is reading the words dfferently than the other, so I am just going to let my point on Romans stand. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see it your way, and I don't know of many who do.

To me, the interpretation that "God made them homoseual" doesn't translate from this.

If I say I "gave myself up in the guilt of my crimes to the police." That doesn't mean "I forced myself to go to jail." It means I allowed it to happen.

You know, in pondering this further, I came to this supposition:

Perhaps, you're right, and God did simply give up; in making a man and a woman, and in establishing heterosexual procreation, God sort of set parameters that did not allow room for alternative ideas and interests like homo and bisexuality. Nonetheless, given their free will, men and women practice it anyway, and perhaps at this point, God just threw up his hands and conceded to the queerness of humanity.
That's a really funny way of putting it, but perhaps it makes sense.

You're right.

God has a purpose for everything. But, God also gave man free will. Therefore, man can use and abuse what God gave us, such as sexual desire. Homosexuality comes from the simulation of sexuality. When you make someone erect and climax, you are simulating what is meant to be for heterosexuals, the entering of the vagina.

Exploiting glitches in the system causes our brains to be confused, and we develop dependencies on a particular kind of stimulation, be it through men, women, children, animals ourselves, or inanimate objects.

Not a perfect analogy, but I think the police thing says enough about how I interpret things.

It's truly as clear as day. They did things that displeased God, so God (did one thing or another described as "giving them up to") which resulted in them becoming outright homosexuals. The men no longer had any interest in the women, and slept with one another. That's not just some, Sodomite-like rampant sexual depravity, what with orgies and bisexuality and the like. No, this was outright, strictly dickly gaybears and the whole Calypso harem.

The big problem with the Bible is the ability to twist its words. When men and women "become" something, it doesn't mean "god did it." When God "gives you up to X" it doesn't mean that God forced this upon you. It means "You're on your way to a sinful path, and I'm allowing it to happen" or "You chose to become gay, and I'm not going to stop it."

Allowing something to take its course is not forcing to me.

They didn't become anything else. They were already everything else. The verses practically tried to list everything you can do wrong, from disobeying your parents to being violent. However, homosexuality in this case was distinct. It was something that wasn't already among these people. Instead, it was something that God inflicted upon them.

God didn't say what they were prior to the lusts in their hearts or the gayness of their minds. I think it implies that their thoughts are the result of what lead to those thoughts, and God isn't going to mettle in it if that's how people wanted to end up.

It makes complete sense that it would be used against homosexuals by the detestable hypocrites of this world, as therefore, homosexuals would be more likely to avoid the short book of Romans and the truth it reveals about themselves as it applies to Christianity, and the detestable behavior of the Church that vilifies them.

I think more is made of it than really should be, even including the condemnation of homosexuals. I don't think homosexuality is wrong in itself, but the implication of homosexuality is what makes it wrong -- lust without the desire for family creation or natural love chemistry by doing that which is not natural.

Lol, it does not say it.

It says when you judge someone else, you are condemning yourself. It does not say anything about judgment being specifically hypocritical, nor does it say anything about holding yourself accountable for anything.

You are lying to yourself.

Stop worshiping men and their ignorant interpretations. The Book is right here for you to see. Open your mind and become educated. If we're to have religion, it's going to need to stop being so atavistic.

Once again, we are reading things in different ways. The judgment vs hypocritical judgment will likely go on until the cows come home.

Whereas to you, it refers to all sin in general. To me,it refers to the same action upon which is judged. Again, because we read things differently, this is just going to be circular, so my interpretation stands in it referring to a particular action and self-accountability.

I don't use other interpretations. I use my own. Others have given me insight, but what I see in the words is based on my own analysis. I may be right or wrong in that analysis, but I've studied this sort of thing too long to not have my own take, word-for-word, on these things.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman