Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Myth of Homosexuality as a Sin/Christians

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.

So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"

"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother with it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 12:36:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

What the bible does not say is ban slavery. Instead of criticizing homosexuals who are what they are because of genetic reasons, the bible should have done something which does damage to the interests of people who want to rule others and enslave them. But why would they do that , when religion itself was created by people who want to enslave others. If according to you God does not like homosexuals then he should not have made them this way.

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Once again God approves of forcible rape.

I think that the bible should not be believed to be word of God. It is just human creation.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 12:53:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother with it.

The bible promotes slavery

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 12:55:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 12:53:06 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother with it.

The bible promotes slavery

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Then go start a thread on it, cuz this ain't it. By the way, you forget to supply endless links to rotten sources.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:08:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 12:55:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/24/2014 12:53:06 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother with it.

The bible promotes slavery

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Then go start a thread on it, cuz this ain't it. By the way, you forget to supply endless links to rotten sources.

Here is a source.
I don't know how you can call it rotten.

http://mobile.biblegateway.com...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:13:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:08:23 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/24/2014 12:55:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/24/2014 12:53:06 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother with it.

The bible promotes slavery

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Then go start a thread on it, cuz this ain't it. By the way, you forget to supply endless links to rotten sources.

Here is a source.
I don't know how you can call it rotten.

http://mobile.biblegateway.com...

The OP is solely concerning homosexuality and the Bible, particularly the NT.

For the vast majority of human history, slavery has not been considered to be immoral, nor do I consider it to be a particularly immoral system now.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:22:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:13:38 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/24/2014 1:08:23 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/24/2014 12:55:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/24/2014 12:53:06 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother with it.

The bible promotes slavery

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Then go start a thread on it, cuz this ain't it. By the way, you forget to supply endless links to rotten sources.

Here is a source.
I don't know how you can call it rotten.

http://mobile.biblegateway.com...

The OP is solely concerning homosexuality and the Bible, particularly the NT.

For the vast majority of human history, slavery has not been considered to be immoral, nor do I consider it to be a particularly immoral system now.

You don't consider slavery immoral but you consider homosexuality immoral. Double standard is the word to describe it. Because slavery provides benefit to unethical business , why would you consider it immoral. As far homosexuals are concerned, you want to persecute them because they are not powerful.

Leave this post here . So that everybody can see what kind of sick thinking religion promotes. And you say atheists are immoral.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 5:06:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That scary thougjt when one imagines reasoning like this being used to support incest, necrophilia etc BTW, Krauss has stated in a talk (with Islamic scholar, Hamza Tsortis) that he sees nothing wrong with incest.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 5:14:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 5:06:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
That scary thougjt when one imagines reasoning like this being used to support incest, necrophilia etc BTW, Krauss has stated in a talk (with Islamic scholar, Hamza Tsortis) that he sees nothing wrong with incest.
Why do the religious use the rights of homosexual couples to support their calls for paedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:47:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:13:38 AM, annanicole wrote:

For the vast majority of human history, slavery has not been considered to be immoral, nor do I consider it to be a particularly immoral system now.

You don't believe slavery to be "a particularly immoral system now" ?!?
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:57:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Religious Christians who think Christianity is about obedience to religious rules and dogmas aren't really Christians, anyway. They're just religious authoritarians pretending to be followers of Christ. If they really understood the message and promise of Christ, they'd drop their religion and change their lives.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:38:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother

The NT doesn't condemn it. The OT does to a degree. Paul is just providing tips to being a better Christian. Not rules. If so, then we should also follow the rules of Muhammed who claimed to be the next prophet.

You don't think slavery is immoral? Well then I guess you support the Jews being slaves to Pharoah. -claps- Oh give yourself a pat on the back for this.

I'll trust the bible if its from Jesus, John, Peter, Matthew, ect., but Paul is not someone who knew Christ's real message. The people against gays think in the testament, Jesus or God said being gay is a sin, but it was only Paul.

So those Christians don't even read their bible correctly. Paul's words are letters, not scripture. They were letters sent to the churchs or other christians because he wanted to spread the gospel to everywhere. I like Paul, but he shouldn't have the worthiness of holy scripture in his words since he never met or heard Jesus speak in the flesh.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:46:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 5:06:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
That scary thougjt when one imagines reasoning like this being used to support incest, necrophilia etc BTW, Krauss has stated in a talk (with Islamic scholar, Hamza Tsortis) that he sees nothing wrong with incest.

True, but the Old Testament does see incest and necro as a sin and unhealthy. What does an incest baby look like? Deformed and unhealthy looking. Necro is just....... Wow. Talk about a fleshy sex doll.

Homosexuality however is more about love then it is sex. Some gays don't even have sex. We have been tricked into thinking that because of the media like SNL, In Living Color and other shows. It's never even at times who's a Girly gay. It is all what is known as a stereotype. Not science.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 10:05:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:57:07 AM, PureX wrote:
Religious Christians who think Christianity is about obedience to religious rules and dogmas aren't really Christians, anyway. They're just religious authoritarians pretending to be followers of Christ. If they really understood the message and promise of Christ, they'd drop their religion and change their lives.

Don't confuse legalism with obedience.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:47:38 AM, stubs wrote:
At 5/24/2014 1:13:38 AM, annanicole wrote:

For the vast majority of human history, slavery has not been considered to be immoral, nor do I consider it to be a particularly immoral system now.

You don't believe slavery to be "a particularly immoral system now" ?!?

Not unless one believes in changing morals.

No, slavery as a politico-economic system is not now nor has it ever been "immoral." It does, however, provide an atmosphere which is more conducive to immoral behavior than, say, a dictatorship, but not by much.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:21:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 9:38:08 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother

The NT doesn't condemn it. The OT does to a degree. Paul is just providing tips to being a better Christian. Not rules. If so, then we should also follow the rules of Muhammed who claimed to be the next prophet.

Do you understand the basic concept that Jesus Christ did not ... n-o-t ... guide his followers into "all truth" and that the reason was that they were not able to bear it? It wasn't that He didn't know it. Nonetheless, before His death, He promised his disciples another Comforter, Advocate, Paraclete, or whatever who would guide them into all truth. This commenced on Pentecost.

Paul did not simply provide "tips" on becoming a better Christian.

You don't think slavery is immoral?

No, I do not.

Well then I guess you support the Jews being slaves to Pharoah. -claps-

No, I do not..

I'll trust the bible if its from Jesus, John, Peter, Matthew, ect., but Paul is not someone who knew Christ's real message. The people against gays think in the testament, Jesus or God said being gay is a sin, but it was only Paul.

"Paul is not someone who knew Christ's real message"

Oh, boy. So you decided to throw away about half the NT, mostly on the basis that you just do not like some of the things Paul said.

So those Christians don't even read their bible correctly. Paul's words are letters, not scripture. They were letters sent to the churchs or other christians because he wanted to spread the gospel to everywhere. I like Paul, but he shouldn't have the worthiness of holy scripture in his words since he never met or heard Jesus speak in the flesh.

Thus you are basically in favor of just removing the writings of Paul, or at least demoting them from the level of "Holy Scripture".

Remove:

Romans
I Cor
II Cor
Galatians
Ephesians
Phillipians
Colossians
I Tim
II Tim
I Thess
II Thess
Titus
Philemon
Probably Hebrews

What else would you remove? I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, Jude, James
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:28:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.

Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:31:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:22:38 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/24/2014 1:13:38 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/24/2014 1:08:23 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/24/2014 12:55:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/24/2014 12:53:06 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:16:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 11:02:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:54:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in homosexual activity?

Does the NT condemn or condone participating in fornication/adultery?

It's gotta be one or the other. Which is it?

The NT doesn't condemn homosexual activity (what the hell is that anyways)?

Fornication is condemned as well as adultery. But plenty of Christians do it. This is why Jesus died for our sins. Saved by grace. We are imperfect of trying to stay away from sin so he allowed us to be able to be saved and go to heaven over and over again.

You do not know what sexual activity is? I guess not, else you'd know what "homosexual activity" is. For the record, I'd say "homosexual activity" would be "sexual acts performed with a person of the same sex."

You have stated, "Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's because he took it for granted that everyone would know such a thing was wrong. He never said a word against child molesters, either. In fact, he never said a word against beastiality. Whether we are to love them or not is immaterial. I can love a thief, a liar, or whatever. That doesn't make their behavior correct.

Go back and answer the first question without acting as if you don't understand what it is:

"Does the NT condemn or condone participating in sexual acts with or among persons of the same sex?"


"If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh."

The above is a ridiculous statement.

(1) Paul was an apostle
(2) The apostles, including Paul, had the baptism of the Holy Spirit
(3) Jesus had promised them the baptismal measure of the Spirit for two purposes:
a. To guide them into all truth
b. To bring all things to their remembrance that Christ had spoken to them

You are basically doing as an old (now deceased) semi-literate fella that I knew once did. He went through the NT trying to read the words in red. If they weren't in red, he didn't bother with it.

The bible promotes slavery

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Then go start a thread on it, cuz this ain't it. By the way, you forget to supply endless links to rotten sources.

Here is a source.
I don't know how you can call it rotten.

http://mobile.biblegateway.com...

The OP is solely concerning homosexuality and the Bible, particularly the NT.

For the vast majority of human history, slavery has not been considered to be immoral, nor do I consider it to be a particularly immoral system now.

You don't consider slavery immoral but you consider homosexuality immoral. Double standard is the word to describe it. Because slavery provides benefit to unethical business , why would you consider it immoral. As far homosexuals are concerned, you want to persecute them because they are not powerful.

Point #1 is that I do not want to persecute anyone. Point #2 is that slavery vs homosexuality isn't even in the same league. Homosexuality is in a league with adultery, fornication, beastiality, and the like.


Leave this post here . So that everybody can see what kind of sick thinking religion promotes. And you say atheists are immoral.

Really? Then find the quote. You can't. I've never once said "atheists are immoral" or anything close to it. Remember that. You just blurt out whatever sounds good to you at the moment.

I have said that adultery, fornication, homosexuality, beastiality, and the like are sins. So what? They are. What would be "hateful" would be to tell people that they aren't, knowing full well that they are.

I have repeatedly said that the institution of slavery in and of itself is not immoral. Neither is the system of segregation which followed it. Neither is the integration which followed segregation. None of the three have a thing in the world to do with "morality". Politico-economic systems are neither moral nor immoral.

That's a far cry from claiming that slavery is desirable. A dictatorship likewise is not immoral. That doesn't means that a dictatorship is the best sy
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:42:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

If the Bible DIDN"T actually mean to say that homosexuality was sinful, how come it never clarified this? And what sin(s) was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for?
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 2:30:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 10:05:30 AM, stubs wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:57:07 AM, PureX wrote:
Religious Christians who think Christianity is about obedience to religious rules and dogmas aren't really Christians, anyway. They're just religious authoritarians pretending to be followers of Christ. If they really understood the message and promise of Christ, they'd drop their religion and change their lives.

Don't confuse legalism with obedience.

They're pretty much hand-in-hand. It's still all about getting it right, doing it right, being right, and righteousness-mongering.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 2:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The NT doesn't condemn it. The OT does to a degree. Paul is just providing tips to being a better Christian. Not rules. If so, then we should also follow the rules of Muhammed who claimed to be the next prophet.

Do you understand the basic concept that Jesus Christ did not ... n-o-t ... guide his followers into "all truth" and that the reason was that they were not able to bear it? It wasn't that He didn't know it. Nonetheless, before His death, He promised his disciples another Comforter, Advocate, Paraclete, or whatever who would guide them into all truth. This commenced on Pentecost.

Paul did not simply provide "tips" on becoming a better Christian.

You don't think slavery is immoral?

No, I do not.

Well then I guess you support the Jews being slaves to Pharoah. -claps-

No, I do not..

I'll trust the bible if its from Jesus, John, Peter, Matthew, ect., but Paul is not someone who knew Christ's real message. The people against gays think in the testament, Jesus or God said being gay is a sin, but it was only Paul.

"Paul is not someone who knew Christ's real message"

Oh, boy. So you decided to throw away about half the NT, mostly on the basis that you just do not like some of the things Paul said.

So those Christians don't even read their bible correctly. Paul's words are letters, not scripture. They were letters sent to the churchs or other christians because he wanted to spread the gospel to everywhere. I like Paul, but he shouldn't have the worthiness of holy scripture in his words since he never met or heard Jesus speak in the flesh.

Thus you are basically in favor of just removing the writings of Paul, or at least demoting them from the level of "Holy Scripture".

Remove:

Romans
I Cor
II Cor
Galatians
Ephesians
Phillipians
Colossians
I Tim
II Tim
I Thess
II Thess
Titus
Philemon
Probably Hebrews

What else would you remove? I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, Jude, James

I would not remove I and II Peter or anything from the bible. The last ones you've stated are ones from James and Peter, Jesus' close disciples. I won't remove the letters of Paul because they provide a guide to Christians who need to know they are saved by Grace and that others are saved by Grace. If you think that I don't take anything from Paul's words, your wrong. I take the idea of Grace from Romans. I like the advice he gives, but some of the stuff he says are not applying to a 21st century modern world. Things were different and you can't say you know what the world is like unless you have a good understanding of history, science and reason.

This is why I don't like the Pentecostals or any denomination since it is the warning Jesus provided about false pastors. Like women in Pentecostal churches believe it's a sin to cut your hair. I look and haven't found that in the bible. Not because of a pastor, but by me and God alone looking into the bible.

But once again, I'm not throwing away half of the new testament.

And if you don't think slavery is evil, then you would vote for the law to bring back slavery. An uprising of the confederate fascists?
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 2:43:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:28:37 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.

Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

This verse was about marriage and divorce. Not gays. He was quoting Genesis. And very well since he knew the story well of Adam and Eve. That is a failed attempt by many Christians who believe Jesus was against gays.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 2:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:42:48 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

If the Bible DIDN"T actually mean to say that homosexuality was sinful, how come it never clarified this? And what sin(s) was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for?

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because they sinned all kinds of sins. The thing that the men said to Lot about the angels, was something weird. The cities were greedy and made a law forbidding citizens to entertain guests that would come into their homes. If you did entertain the guests, the guests were to be gang banged so that they would learn their place. This was a very common tactic that was used in cities and war in those times. In war, men would be gang raped if defeated and the women would be raped in the villages.

It wasn't clarified in modern day languages and cultures. Unless you were highly knowledgeable of those times or born in those days, you'd know that there were no gay couples or gays that want to be in a relationship to soon be married. There were only lustful beings. Lustful beings that slept with both men and women. I actually did research about this and so have other heterosexual Christians who believe being gay isn't a sin.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 3:06:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 2:54:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/24/2014 1:42:48 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
You cannot provide a lick of evidence that proves gay people are going to burn in a burning fire of torment and that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

The points

1. The verses about God saying men laying with another men was an abomination, doesn't mean the modern day version of our society where it means vile and wicked. Scholars and historians say that this word meant in those times and areas, that it was outside of ritual or norms. So in other words, two men having sex was not a social norm in those days. Just like eating shellfish and pork. Just like planting two different seeds in the same hole. Just like using two different fabrics for one outfit.

2. The verse where it says their blood is upon them, is not a command to enforce a law, but it is a command of help. Nobody knew about Anal being one of the cases for AIDS (especially since we didn't invent condoms), and whenever anal sex was committed, a man will surely die in those days of AIDS. So it was a warning and not an act of law.

3. The Apostle Paul wrote the verses involving lusts of same sex people, but was talking about lust in general. He wasn't trying to call them beasts like Phil Robertson does. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to help Christians if they wish to pursue their own stronger version of their own faith. If you look up to Paul's words as scripture and holy words, then you are a Christian who commits the sin of idoltry since Paul was an a Apostle, but did not speak the words of Jesus Christ since he never met him when he was alive in the flesh.

4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.


So with these four points stated, I encourage any fellow Christians (or atheists if they think this is BS) to do more research and challenge me on this.

If the Bible DIDN"T actually mean to say that homosexuality was sinful, how come it never clarified this? And what sin(s) was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for?

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because they sinned all kinds of sins. The thing that the men said to Lot about the angels, was something weird. The cities were greedy and made a law forbidding citizens to entertain guests that would come into their homes. If you did entertain the guests, the guests were to be gang banged so that they would learn their place. This was a very common tactic that was used in cities and war in those times. In war, men would be gang raped if defeated and the women would be raped in the villages.

It wasn't clarified in modern day languages and cultures. Unless you were highly knowledgeable of those times or born in those days, you'd know that there were no gay couples or gays that want to be in a relationship to soon be married. There were only lustful beings. Lustful beings that slept with both men and women. I actually did research about this and so have other heterosexual Christians who believe being gay isn't a sin.

Correction: there were no open homosexuals. But they still existed. In fact, a village in Israel was once guilty of this! (Book of Judges, I think.) If not, then homosexuality is indeed a choice, so you'd have to admit there were homosexuals back then.
And, considering that there were adulterers at the time (and during all other times after the Fall), it's reasonable to assume there were secret homosexual couples on the loose in Israel.
So, you say that the negative references about homosexuality in scripture weren't referring to homosexuality at all, yet there wasn't a single positive reference to it! I think it's easier to assume the Bible condemns homosexuality rather than approving of it.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 4:14:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 2:43:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/24/2014 1:28:37 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.

Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

This verse was about marriage and divorce. Not gays. He was quoting Genesis. And very well since he knew the story well of Adam and Eve. That is a failed attempt by many Christians who believe Jesus was against gays.

Case closed. Christian marriage is between a man and a woman and sex outside of it is adultery, a sin.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:14:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:28:37 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/23/2014 10:45:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
4. Jesus (The foundation upon Christianity), never said one word against gays. In fact, he said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said everybody is welcome to the gospel. The only thing Jesus was really against was those who preferred sin, the corrupt, the greedy, and the selfish. And usually these are the televangelists or Christian businessmen that you support when they become hypocrites. Even the Conservatives who say Prayer should be in the public and forced onto people are going against Jesus. Jesus has said do not pray like the hypocrites who like to stand in the streets and synogagues, for they only want to be seen. Pray in your closet and keep it confidential.

Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Who are you quoting here?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:19:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 2:41:19 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
The NT doesn't condemn it. The OT does to a degree. Paul is just providing tips to being a better Christian. Not rules. If so, then we should also follow the rules of Muhammed who claimed to be the next prophet.

Do you understand the basic concept that Jesus Christ did not ... n-o-t ... guide his followers into "all truth" and that the reason was that they were not able to bear it? It wasn't that He didn't know it. Nonetheless, before His death, He promised his disciples another Comforter, Advocate, Paraclete, or whatever who would guide them into all truth. This commenced on Pentecost.

Paul did not simply provide "tips" on becoming a better Christian.

You don't think slavery is immoral?

No, I do not.

Well then I guess you support the Jews being slaves to Pharoah. -claps-

No, I do not..

I'll trust the bible if its from Jesus, John, Peter, Matthew, ect., but Paul is not someone who knew Christ's real message. The people against gays think in the testament, Jesus or God said being gay is a sin, but it was only Paul.

"Paul is not someone who knew Christ's real message"

Oh, boy. So you decided to throw away about half the NT, mostly on the basis that you just do not like some of the things Paul said.

So those Christians don't even read their bible correctly. Paul's words are letters, not scripture. They were letters sent to the churchs or other christians because he wanted to spread the gospel to everywhere. I like Paul, but he shouldn't have the worthiness of holy scripture in his words since he never met or heard Jesus speak in the flesh.

Thus you are basically in favor of just removing the writings of Paul, or at least demoting them from the level of "Holy Scripture".

Remove:

Romans
I Cor
II Cor
Galatians
Ephesians
Phillipians
Colossians
I Tim
II Tim
I Thess
II Thess
Titus
Philemon
Probably Hebrews

What else would you remove? I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, Jude, James

I would not remove I and II Peter or anything from the bible. The last ones you've stated are ones from James and Peter, Jesus' close disciples. I won't remove the letters of Paul because they provide a guide to Christians who need to know they are saved by Grace and that others are saved by Grace. If you think that I don't take anything from Paul's words, your wrong. I take the idea of Grace from Romans. I like the advice he gives, but some of the stuff he says are not applying to a 21st century modern world. Things were different and you can't say you know what the world is like unless you have a good understanding of history, science and reason.

This is why I don't like the Pentecostals or any denomination since it is the warning Jesus provided about false pastors. Like women in Pentecostal churches believe it's a sin to cut your hair. I look and haven't found that in the bible. Not because of a pastor, but by me and God alone looking into the bible.

But once again, I'm not throwing away half of the new testament.

And if you don't think slavery is evil, then you would vote for the law to bring back slavery.

Once again, you make an idiotic statement. How old are you? I never said slavery was a good system. I never said it was desirable. I never said that I endorsed it. I said one thing: in and of itself, it is not immoral. Period.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."