Church under investigation for allegedly holding down gay man to pray away sexuality
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A church is under investigation after a gay man said he was ambushed and held down by congregants who tried to pray away his sexuality.
Sean Cormie, 23, told KFOR-TV, NBC’s Oklahoma City affiliate , that his family had been urging him and his partner, Gary Garner, to attend services at First Assembly of God Church in Blackwell, Oklahoma, ever since Cormie came out as gay last spring. After months of persuasion, the pair attended services on Sept. 8.
“I wanted to go to church and make my mom proud,” Cormie said.
After the service, the pastor, Bill McKissick, began preaching about homosexuality and approximately 12 congregants gathered around the couple, according to Cormie.
"They hold me down, pin me down, and I’m crying, and the Holy Spirit just comes through me, and they keep speaking in tongues, praying over me," Cormie said. "I was just crying, 'Mercy, mercy.'"
Cormie said that Garner was pushed out of the church, but as Cormie attempted to leave, he was punched in the face and held down by the congregation. After leaving the church, Cormie filed a police report with the Blackwell Police Department. Police Chief Dwayne Wood confirmed to NBC News that the investigation is ongoing.
McKissick and his wife, Tami, who is also a pastor at the same Pentecostal church, issued a statement on Facebook about the incident, stating that the church’s congregation “is comprised of people from all different backgrounds.”
“In response to allegations that have been made, this incident began as a family matter that escalated. Our church would never condone restraint of any person unless they were engaged in violent activity,” the McKissicks wrote. “There is much more to this story, and we are cooperating fully with law enforcement to bring all of the facts to light as a rush to judgment is not in anyone's best interest.”
Cormie said that while he and Garner have been receiving threats from strangers instructing them to drop the investigation, he wants the congregation to be held accountable for its alleged actions.
“I love the pastors with all my heart, but what they did was totally wrong. I want some kind of consequences out of it,” he told KFOR-TV. “I want it to be heard and known because it really saddens my heart.”
Pray away the gay ...
I'd bet some of the male perps in this church are gaying the pray away the other 6 days of the week.
Well, they insist that will stop all mass shootings... Oh wait, it doesn't do that either.
Well... He's still gay but they've probably beaten the Christianity out of him.
Oh snap!
He was punched in the face? 'Man-handled' them both? What the ___? Not cool!
They had just heard their preacher quote the OT and use the 'abomination' language. So their religious authority figure and their source of divine morality (the Bible) was (in their minds) telling them that they were right. Indeed, if they had not developed some level of modern morality they would have been biblically justified to kill these men.
Yes, modern man has the 'luxury' to have a so-called, 'whole' bible to see, read, and comprehend. Are you aware that our modern bible was been 'formed' in antiquity and were not complete as it is today? We have that completeness going for us—that is, believers have it going for them. Still, manhandling another individual/s and assaulting the same is unacceptable.Those leaders and their people 'sound' fiendish.
And yet they behaved as they did. The 'whole' Bible is not doing them a great service is it?
'was been formed'? Are you trying to say that the Bible was a work in progress for about 1,000 years? If so, yes, I think most everyone knows that.
Do you recognize that these people acting per scripture are morally wrong?
I did write that.
Yes, I type and then correct, and sometimes there is some 'left over' hanging around; ". . .was formed. . ."
I say the church was wrong all around. You do not put your hands on people without there permission and a manner expected. Moreover, they had no right to 'kidnap' and enclose those men. The church can be sued if this happened the way explained.
Not just sued. There could be criminal charges, and if it happened as told, there should be. Those who unlawfully detained this man and assaulted him should be in jail.
Incorrect. Whatever else these people might be, they are not covenant Jews. Nothing in the Bible gives Christians a mandate to kill anyone. The harshest punishment a church can inflict is to put a member out of the church and even then that person must be allowed back if they repent.
If things happened as stated, there should be consequences. Especially for whoever threw the punch. This is simply unacceptable from any church.
God specifically commands its people to kill others in the bible.
I agree. They were following the moral guidelines of ancient men instead of using their modern knowledge and critical thinking skills.
Christians have adopted the OT as part of the Christian Bible. Christians hold that the words in Deuteronomy and Leviticus came from God and thus express God's moral position. That is, if God (even if restricted to Hebrew priests by the way) deems homosexual acts to be an abomination then it takes no brain power for Christians following the Bible as the divine word of God to conclude 'homosexuality is an abomination per God'. Further, the preacher could have also read from the NT with likely the same effect:
Plenty of source material in the Bible to work people into a frenzy.
The Bible (including the OT) is taken as the word of God, Leviticus 20:13 has been used as justification for killing homosexuals by Muslims and Christians:
God deeming the death penalty for a homosexual act, even if it applies only to ancient Hebrews by virtue of being drawn from the Torah, now applies to all of Islam and Christianity because both categories of religion include the Pentateuch as part of their holy books and religious views. Including the Pentateuch as part of a religion and excluding it at the same time is obviously not going to work.
Per Enoch, even ancient Hebrews did not actually follow the Torah's punishments as written. They were far more reserved. So 'God' commanded death and human beings with a stronger moral compass moderated God's will . Makes one think that they knew that these words were not ' really ' the word of God but rather the words of ancient (even to them) men, and certainly more primitive/naive men.
In modern times most religions abide by societal law which is substantially more sensible and moral than that of biblical law. But the moral basis of the Christian religions, the Bible, remains untouched and unqualified ready for churches like this one to have their preacher include Leviticus 20:13 in his sermon and trigger some of the members to treat these two homosexual members as abominations .
Which is pretty much all your claim is based on. If it's in the Bible then it applies to Christians in some way. Not going to bother with trying to argue with you as the Bible is going to say whatever you want it to say and that will be the basis of any argument from you. Still, there is no mandate in Christianity for killing people, Quite the opposite, really.
So now you're saying the Bible does NOT apply to Christians.
Very bizarre.
Hell, the bible tells you to stone your kids to death if they misbehave.
No. I'm saying it doesn't apply the way you appear to think it applies to us. That OT Jews had a mandate for the death penalty for certain violations is not a mandate for Christians. Especially since we are not covered by that covenant. Christ did not come to condemn the world but to save it. Our mandate is to be his instruments in that, not to take life under the guise of a covenant that doesn't apply to us. Is that hard to believe?
Well, yes, if something is in the Bible then it certainly applies to Christians in some way.
That allegation is the exact opposite of what happens. I typically quote scripture directly and you supply clever reinterpretations of the words.
I agree that there is no mandate in Christianity to kill people. I never said there was. What I stated is that the Bible establishes a moral principle that homosexuality is an abomination with a death sentence (OT) and a shameful act (NT).
No Christian is mandated to kill people and if you read what I wrote I noted that per Enoch even ancient Hebrew did not routinely kill homosexuals. But the Bible gives some truly crappy moral lessons which can be used as justification for some truly crappy acts. Reread TiG @2.1.9.
Bottom line: the OT is part of the Christian Bible. Because of that, some Christians have and will likely continue to justify their positions and acts 'because it is in the Bible'. Just like this church did after their pastor read from Leviticus.
See?
I agree. The people who staged this so-called, "intervention," crossed the line, and the City might have standing to file charges on behalf of these two men. I, get an impression, the individual doing the most talking is not taking this as serious. But they were treated foully—in and out of the legal realm.
Nothing in the Bible gives Christians a mandate to kill anyone.
Er, they were following their own activity, it got out of hand and ended up in an uncharged assault!
This can not a blanket condemnation of the Bible, TiG.
Each 'tub' in the modern era has to sit on its own bottom now. This church leadership, no other, committed this act and furthermore it has not been established that the activity taking place is approved by the Assemblies of God Churches. To stage so called, " Interventions ." This incident is limited in scope.
And yes, I am saddened that these men's inadequate and lack of understanding of the New Testament led them to ignore an important area of scripture:
A small and powerful verse that could have saved harm being done!
This is what you said that I responded to. They would not have been Biblically justified to kill these men. This is a false statement. Nothing you've said so far changes it into a true statement.
Yes, Drakk, I said biblically justified. I made no claim of a mandate.
You do not think that people have used Leviticus 20:13 to justify the murder of homosexuals? The phrase 'biblically justified' means that they can point to the Bible to justify their acts. It does not mean that their acts are moral or even correct; it means that they can use the Bible as justification based on the words contained therein.
You don't seem to understand that being a Christian means a specific thing. You can't say Christians can Biblically justify a thing simply because it appears in the Bible if that thing goes against what it means to be Christian.
No, I do not. I think people have used it as an excuse, but their attempt at using it doesn't justify their actions.
Not the way you are using it, it doesn't. In any case, there's a world of difference between stating...
… and
In the first one, you are claiming that the Bible mandates, authorizes or whatever term you wish to use, supports the act of a Christian murdering homosexuals. It is stating that murdering homosexuals is part of what it means to be Christian.
In the second, you are referring to what an individual does in order to justify their actions.
These are not saying the same thing. So far, your only basis for such a position is that for the Jewish society to which it referenced appears in the Bible. You do so because you don't really have any idea about Christianity. To you it is all a bunch of nonsense devoid of critical thinking so the difference doesn't actually register with you.
People and periods change. It is all in accordance with. For instance. The Bible talks about 'seasons,' 'appointed times,' "times when knowledge would increase," and of course, "end times." Even Jesus did not come until "in the fullness of time." So God has not yet revealed all there is to come - or know - about this world not even today.
People, with agendas and confusions otherwise, and individuals looking to pump themselves up, do a lot of backward looking into the Bible. It is their arrogance that is the problem. Then, pride which won't permit correction. And biblical writers recognized that such would be the case,
It did not take long for mankind to process that God was not 'hovering' over God's message to attend everything man might say or do concerning it. Fear of correctdion escaped and much foolishness enjoined the good as The Message was left to strive with humanit y.
How do you get from this ...
... to a blanket condemnation of the Bible?
The closest thing you will find in my comments regarding the Bible as a whole is that, based on the evidence, it is errant and clearly not divine. My comment was about the mores of ancient men and how inappropriate it is for modern human beings to adopt those mores as if they were objective mores from God.
Which mores would those be? To take care of the widow and the orphan? To love justice? To treat others as you'd like to be treated? To love mercy?
Your argument is basically 'no true Christian' and you get to define what it means to be a 'true' Christian. Okay, here is how I would modify my comment using 'true' Christians:
But a 'true' Christian would reject scripture that contradicts the 'love thy neighbor' teachings of Jesus. A 'true' Christian would selectively disagree with the moral guidance of God and, in this particular case, would deem God's labeling homosexual acts as an abomination to be wrong and thus His death penalty will be ignored.
Or, as you might phrase it, a 'true' Christian would reject scripture that goes against how the person defines 'true' Christian.
Seems to me a 'true' Christian necessarily must reject parts of the Bible (especially in the OT) as incorrect (not really God's word) or hold it divine and consider God to be wrong.
Using the Bible as an excuse is precisely what I am talking about Drakk. Some use it to justify [ rationalize as correct] [ as an excuse for ] their actions. Some people use the BIble as an excuse for bad behavior from bigotry (as in this case) to enslavement. ' It is okay to enslave these people because the Bible shows that it is morally okay to own other people as property. ' There is no denying this.
'True' Christian or 'fake' Christian, the fact remains that the Bible contains passages —ostensibly the word of God— such as Leviticus 20:13, that is used to justify (as an excuse for, as a rationalization for) bigotry against homosexuals. The church in this seed may not be 'true' Christians to you (or me) but they certainly can point to several verses in the Bible that support their actions. I have quoted you one from the OT and one from the NT. Do you deny that?
In the first one, you are claiming that the Bible mandates, authorizes or whatever term you wish to use, supports the act of a Christian murdering homosexuals. It is stating that murdering homosexuals is part of what it means to be Christian.
Spinning is intellectually dishonest. I wrote that the Christian Bible includes the OT and the NT (right?). I also noted that this means Christians believe that God has offered rules such as this:
I then noted that given Christians hold this as the word of God (will you deny this?) they understand this to be God's moral judgement on homosexual acts. This means that the Bible provides an excuse (justification as I was using the word) for people (who you would deem as not ' true ' Christians) to engage in everything from bigotry to murdering homosexuals.
You spin this into ' oh you are arguing that murdering homosexuals is part of what it means to be Christian '. No, not even close.
Did you not read these two quotes?:
Those illustrate the mores of which I wrote. This seed is about how some react to homosexuality based on their biblical teaching. So clearly I am speaking of mores related to homosexuality. There is plenty more to provide from the Bible if this is unclear.
The term I used was 'justify' (and, in the context in which I used it, that means 'serve as an excuse for').
Words matter. When you insert your own words for mine you change the meaning. Discourse is very difficult if you are going to substitute your own meaning and claim it to be my position. It becomes impossible if after I have corrected your wrong meaning, you argue that I really meant what you thought (as if you are the authority on my positions).
There I took away the 'offensive' sentence. Now, are we okay?
Yes it is very sad that people act this way.
Where do Christians go to find the 'true' Christian Bible? The one that omits (or at least marks) all scripture from the OT that is to be ignored?
How do you know if the men in your comment received any type of mores from God or not? I'm curious to understand.
I personally do not believe the ancient writers of the Bible received any mores from God. They wrote passages which have God directly making moral edicts. Either this came from God or they were not being truthful. What do you think happened?
My comment goes to the common belief that the Bible is the divine word of God. I was referring to that belief.
Your opinion is only valid to you, in that case. What a studied Christian does NOT do is leave context out of the whole totality of his or her reading.
For example, I added this @ 2.1.17
TTe same Paul who wrote Romans 1 - wrote Romans 12 ( adding to the believers knowledge)! In Romans 1 there is no message of death to homosexuals! In comparing Romans 12:18 the believer importantly is told to seek peace with how many—everyone as far as he or she can!
The Old Testament was superseded by the New Testament. After all, it is double-minded to try to OPERATE TWO testaments simultaneously. Surely, the 'Council of Nicea' thought it important to add foundational books Old Testament books. The books of the OT tell how God dealt with Israel as a burgeoning nation, mostly with God 'dwelling' in their midst and speaking through Moses and the Prophets.
There are little to no prophets in the The New Testament as the terminology shifts to "Apostles" signifying a change and as Jesus put it:
It is a new concept UNHEARD OF AND UNFAMILIAR TO ISRAEL for the children borne of Abraham DWELLED wIth God in their midst; the Church is IN-DWELL by the Spirit of God. God was doing a "New Thing." (New to us - not new to God.)
TiG, there is much information about being Christian which you never touch on in your comments. However, we, believers, do not have the 'luxury' to ignore the totality of the written books and letters of the the New Testament, specifically .
Often you have reminded us that "belief" is not a word you use for yourself preferring, "accept." I will use "accept" per your past stated condition.
I know you don't accept that the ancient writers were in contact with God - you tell us this in regular, routine, comments. You do not have any acceptable way to know if God spoke to prophets and apostles, . . . but, why do you attack what you can not accept, but others can accept?
I believe God's Spirit inspired these men to write in books what they were supplied from above.
That is where I saw Drakk's logic heading.
Most Christians are not 'studied Christians'. So given they have the Bible including both OT and NT why does it surprise you that people will use passages such as Leviticus 20:13 to justify (serve as an excuse for) their bigotry against homosexuals?
In this case the word 'believe' is exactly correct. I remind you that belief is not evidence. I also remind you that one should not believe science but rather accept (or reject) particular findings of science. I have not suggested that we do away with the word 'believe'.
Does God (in the OT) consider homosexual acts to be an abomination punishable by death?
I don't. And, "most Christians" to use your words, can be wrong. You know that. Perhaps, we can teach them better together from the Bible, yes?
Seeing that I have never been and can not function like a bigot, I am not the one to properly explain their tendencies. Sorry. I get along with most groups of people by my nature.
Yes. Now how does that apply to the modern world we are in? Please proceed. . . .
Yes I most definitely know this. And it remains a key problem because the Bible contains quite a bit of unChristian passages. The fact that the OT is included as part of the Christian Bible has been problematic for centuries. Ergo we have behavior such as described in this seed.
Yes because God is, if one holds the belief, still God. God is, per the belief, perfect. Thus if God in the OT holds homosexual acts to be an abomination punishable by death then He still is of this position. Do you need me to explain why?
It applies to modern world in a very substantial way. If the OT is true then God has a real problem with homosexuals.
( Indeed, if the NT is true God has a lesser but rather significant problem with homosexuals. )
But that God is "unknowable" and so vast that we'll never fully grasp what he wanted or why he told his chosen people to stone to death disobedient children, not eat shellfish or not wear clothing woven of two different fabrics. This omniscient being lives outside of time and space so what it thought then is what it thinks now except it also regretted making man, cried tears of blood praying to itself "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." and then after killing itself and then resurrecting itself, it changed its mind and said "Hey, you know all those kids I had you stone to death, and those homosexuals I told you to kill, and the whole no eating pork or shellfish or the two fabrics thing, all that stuff's not really important. It was a fun joke, and it was hilarious, don't you think? But seriously, no one needs to die for not following those old rules anymore. So to all you who were killed by my hilarious comedy and random whims... whoops! My bad, er not really, everything I do is good, even when I regret it. As one of my favorite dead dudes once said 'Well, when God does it, that means that it is not illegal', or something like that, I'm paraphrasing of course, except if I said it and can't lie, that means those are actually the words ol' tricky Dick used, yep, must have been cause I simply can't be wrong, ever"...
Christian literally means "one who follows Christ". That means that in order for an action to be justified as a Christian, it has to be in line with what Christ did and said. It means to make one part of Christ's mission, which was salvation.
No. That implies that the OT was something outside of Christianity that was brought inside. Something that wasn't indigenous to the faith. What is fact is that the NT was a progression of God's plan that predicted in the OT. It wasn't something that had to be adopted. It was always a part of it.
Um, possibly, but I think it would be more accurate to state that those books had more to do with how His people would be required to relate to Him more than it had to do with morality. There is no inherent immorality in eating shellfish, for instance, unless God has commanded them not to. Then the immorality rests in the disobedience, not the shellfish itself.
Again, true. What in that justifies the murder of homosexuals by Christians?
Completely false. There isn't a way that this is true. You seem not to understand that someone can, on the basis of God's declarations concerning the subject, hold that homosexuality is worthy of death, yet also understand that the way we respond to it doesn't include killing them.
Nor do Christians "selectively disagree" with God's moral guidance. There aren't things we accept and some we reject. We understand that we are not OT Jews, living in a theocracy in which God is the head. We understand that because of what Jesus did for us, the demands of the old law do not apply to us in the manner it did them.
But probably most important, we understand the period of time we live in. That period covers from the time Jesus ascended into heaven until the time of his return. In this time, the Christian's mission is to bring as many to Christ as will listen, through the gospel. There is no mission of condemnation or persecution of those who reject Jesus. There is no implied duty that we must execute people who break the old law, a law they don't even recognize.
Nope. Not at all how I would put it. Not even in the ballpark. I completely accept that homosexuality is worthy of death. I completely accept God's position on the subject. I also accept that everything that is a rejection of God or His holiness is also worthy of death.
What you do not understand is that just because God has declared homosexuality an abomination doesn't mean there is only one way to deal with it. You appear to think because God told Old Covenant Jews to execute homosexuals that it necessarily means that Christians must also execute homosexuals in order to obey God. Not true.
Before Christ's death on the cross, there wasn't real forgiveness of sins. The closest there was were the temple sacrifices for sins committed in ignorance. With Christ's death for the forgiveness of our sins, God has essentially created a period of time where we can either accept or reject that. It isn't a choice that is forced on anyone. Jesus, whom we follow, didn't do it so neither do we. It's that simple.
Unsurprising. This is because you don't understand Christianity or God.
Yes, they do. That isn't the same as saying the Bible justifies their actions as Christians. In order to do that, you have to show where Jesus, in either word or deed, supports such actions.
Um, yes, there is no denying this. You don't agree because your thinking on the subject is superficial. You appear incapable of understanding how God can be against slavery but still allow it because it serves His purpose.
Bigotry
By that definition, which is the first one that came up, everyone who disagrees with anyone else's viewpoint is a bigot. That makes you a bigot.
Regardless, in order to make your case, you necessarily have to either assume that there really isn't a God or that if there is, His morality isn't superior to ours. That is, in order to take the position you do, you must assume that you are equally capable of or greater that God in determining what is moral. Are you claiming such? If not, and there really is a God, calling us bigots because we stand against homosexuality (not homosexuals) is about the same as calling those who are against pedophilia bigots.
Yes, I deny that. The reason is because for their actions to be supported it requires more than something appearing in the Bible. In order for those verses to support what they did, it would have to conform to what Jesus said and did while he was with us. Remember, Christian means one who follows Christ. If one takes action outside the spirit of what Jesus did and said, it cannot be supported. It really is that simple.
This, incidentally, is why Dominionists are wrong. If Dominionism was what Jesus was after when he was here, he certainly would not have failed. Jesus came to bring salvation to those who would listen. We Christians are supposed to still be about that mission, not trying to force Jesus to return through our actions. Dominionists think they can do this if they subdue the world in God's name. Totally not our mission.
It's strange that you accuse me of spinning but it is you trying to convince me that "excuse" and "justification" mean the same thing.
My argument has been that one who claims to be Christian cannot use anything in the Bible as justification for killing anyone. It goes against what it means to be a Christian. It goes against what Jesus charged us to do until his return. You claimed they could be justified simply by picking a verse out of the Bible. That is a false idea. Period. It doesn't mean that people don't do exactly that because they do, but they cannot justify it in accordance with what being Christian means.
The Old Testament is there to reference or refer back to, but that some pastors and teaches use it as some sort of "supplement" to enhance their sermons, without cautioning their members and congregants often enough as standard practice that the Old Testament was a tutor for Israel, and that Christians are under faith.
Still, that said, believers can take what wisdom we can (and do) from the examples of how God dealt with Israel. Even though, it is not necessarily how God deals with us believers.
Other than that, as I stated above, there are false apostles, confidence men, motivators, and 'under-developed' charismatic individuals packed into ministries-in every religion population-across the planet.
That is not what I was implying. The OT is part of Christianity. Right? The Christian Bible includes the OT. Right? Religious services in most Christian churches make selective references to the OT. Right? Clearly we both know that the OT is part of Christianity so why engage in pointless semantics on extremely unlikely wrong interpretations of my words?
Possibly? Drakk, if God deemed a homosexual act an 'abomination' with a penalty of death you have to be playing some impressive mental games to not recognize the moral statement. Even if it was meant only to apply to ancient Hebrews to ensure they lead a purer life than the rest of humanity, it clearly makes a cogent moral statement on homosexuality. Blatant denial of the obvious.
A perfect example of 'nuh uh' reasoning. You have God demanding the death penalty for a homosexual act and you flat out ignore the moral implications and pretend that the only immorality would be disobeying God. Per you shellfish analogy, note that there is no death penalty.
Have you read Leviticus 18?:
Per your reasoning none of these reflect the moral position of God. You abstract all of these into a single moral position of: 'the only moral statement from God is that it is immoral to disobey God'.
It amazes me that you can read all sorts of wrong (typically the most extreme negative) meaning into even a single word I write, yet entire passages of the Bible are abstracted into a single fluffy thought ('only means it is immoral to disobey God') and dismissed.
Yes, and the OT is the source of the 10 commandments, the creation story, Noah's ark, etc. So it is a pretty important component of Christian teachings.
And Christians should be cautioned that Mosaic Law was intended for ancient Hebrews. But here is the critical factor that you continue to ignore. Even if God was deeming homosexual acts as abominations / detestable with a penalty of death only for ancient Hebrews, He still by that declaration is making a moral statement on homosexual acts. Unless of course you adopt a bizarre interpretation such as:
'God thinks it perfectly good for non Hebrew men to engage in homosexual acts, but for Hebrew men the acts are an abomination and detestable and the men must be put to death.'
Okay if you want to pretend obtuseness I will break down the obvious:
'Justify' here is 'personal justification'; an excuse that the individual (Billy) uses to make it okay to break his mom's rule. Now apply this to what we are discussing.
Some bigots decide to beat the crap out of a homosexual. They personally justify their actions because they believe 'God hates fags'. They can even go to the OT and see where God is demanding the death penalty for a homosexual act and calling it an abomination and despicable. They can go to the NT where homosexual acts are called shameful.
It takes no real effort for these bullies to justify their bigotry to themselves because the words in the holy Bible - the word of the perfect God - clearly shows (to them) that 'God hates fags'.
You tell me how you cannot comprehend how these bigots are using the Bible as an excuse for their actions - as personal justification for their acts.
Similarly, you should find it easy to see how slavers justified their acts (as in an excuse that makes it okay for them to enslave) by reading the Bible and seeing that the Bible not only never condemns owning a human being as property, but actually condones it and makes rules for proper enslavement.
Yet another example of you deflecting into pointless semantic sidebars to avoid dealing directly with the facts.
I agree. But that begs the question, does that mean no organized religion actually has the supposed creator of the universes endorsement? If one did, wouldn't you think such an all powerful all knowing being would be able to keep the many wolves in sheep's clothing out of its flock? Or do you believe like I was taught, that God allows the wolves to test its flocks faith and punish those who stray too far?
It just seems pretty haughty to me for anyone from any religion to claim "This is not only the right religion and right God, but the right denomination among the thousands of variants, because our interpretation of this ancient religious writing is the right one, and I believe that wholly on faith and personal feelings about personal anecdotal experiences".
For the words in blue, are you treating these as applying the same intensity? Because if not, then you are demonstrating a shift (change) in position. Please clarify.
Let's set the record straight. They were not acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
I comment specifically as a pastor and theologian and under authority from God to judge their actions.
1. it is NEVER appropriate to force someone in pray or to restrain them physically for that purpose. The only time physical restraint would be acceptable would be in an incident where they were acting in a manner that demonstrated they were an immediate threat to harm themselves or others (that is also consistent with our secular laws).
2. You CANNOT force homosexual desires out of an individual. As the Bible has taught all the way back to the days of Noah, and was clearly taught by Jesus and the Apostles, homosexual behavior is a sin choice of the individual. It only changes with a willing change of heart in the individual
3. the Laws of Moses apply ONLY TO JEWS. Non Jewish, non Christians are judged by God apart from the Law of Moses and whether they received Christ. Christians live to holiness far above and beyond the requirements of the Law.
Jesus who is God most certainly made clear what is acceptable and not acceptable affirmed in Matthew 19 that when He created Adam and Eve, He established marriage as consisting of a man and a woman. Jesus who is God most certainly made clear what is acceptable and not acceptable. His teaching on morality and especially sexual morality has NEVER changed. Not when He gave the Noahidic Law to Noah, not when He gave the Levitical Laws to Moses, not when He taught when He appeared as Jesus, Not in the teachings He gave to the Apostles (which they repeated), and Not in His revelation to John (book of Revelation). He addressed specifically that sexual sins including homosexuality defiles you in Matthew 15:18-20
“But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.
Fornication (pornea) as defined by the law of Mose that Jesus gave to Moses was any sexual relations outside of the marriage of a man and a woman. Orthodox Judaism restricts sexual activity to a legally permissible marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. A man and women are even prohibited from being in a closed room alone together if they are not married, a law called yichud, nor are they allowed to have physical contact (a law referred to as negiah).
From every reading of Talmud, this was clearly the understanding at the time Jesus taught.
This clear teaching on moral behavior given by Jesus was repeated at the Council of Jerusalem in 48 AD by the Apostles who made this declaration
“Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we should write them a letter telling them to (1) abstain from things defiled by idols and (2) from sexual immorality and (3) from what has been strangled and (4) from blood. For Moses has had those who (5) proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Acts 15:19-21
the same greek word pornea is used for sexual immorality and fornication (see below)
Pornea as used in the Greek Septuagint text of the Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament -Sexual immorality which includes homosexuality is clearly part of that definition and no amount of twisting words can change that.
All of these fell under the definition of fornication at the time of Jesus and the Apostles
"...against [a man] having union with his mother."
"...against [a man] having union with his sister."
"...against [a man] having union with the wife of his father."
"...against [a man] having union with another man's wife."
"...against [a man] copulating with a beast."
"...against a woman copulating with a beast."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with a male."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with his father."
"...against [a man] lying carnally with his father's brother."
"...against engaging in erotic conduct that may lead to a prohibited union. [That is, petting by persons whose marriage would be illicit.]"
Is this not obvious? In the OT God harshly deals with homosexuality (including the death penalty). In the NT, homosexuality is deemed shameful and sinful (no death penalty). You know this, why ask such an obvious question?
I agree, their actions go against the net teachings of Jesus. Their actions were likely triggered by the pastor calling homosexuality an abomination and that comes from the OT.
Agreed.
Agreed. But the laws also reflect God's positions on issues such as homosexuality. So even though the death penalty only applied to Hebrew males, the fact that God labeled homosexual acts an abomination / despicable and deemed the act worthy of the death penalty speaks rather clearly as to God's position on homosexuality.
So what point are you trying to make? If your point is encapsulated in your opening sentence (quoted above) then we agree on something. My point is that the OT (and the NT) contains some pretty awful language that makes it very easy for believers to think that taking actions against homosexuals is following the word of God. You see that, right?
The OT is part of the Christian Bible, not as our moral rule maker, but to point to WHY it was necessary and prophecied for God to come in the person of Jesus and provide a permanent remedy for sin and the impossibility of man to be perfect in holiness on our own efforts..
Jesus tells us that the OT scriptures testify of HIM
"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." John 5:39
Secondly, the OT covenant with Israel is obsolete because of the NEW Covenant of Grace in and through Jesus the Christ
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
Jesus “The law and the prophets had their role until the coming of John the Baptist. Since John’s arrival, the good news of the kingdom of God has been taught while people are clamoring to enter it “ Luke 16:16
“Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” Galatians 3:24-25
Third, it provides a historicial background to what happens when people choose to either follow and serve God or go their own ways.
The writer of the Book of Hebrews states that we look backwards at the history of Israel as an EXAMPLE.
“I don’t want you to forget, dear brothers and sisters, about our ancestors in the wilderness long ago. All of them were guided by a cloud that moved ahead of them, and all of them walked through the sea on dry ground. 2 In the cloud and in the sea, all of them were baptized as followers of Moses. 3 All of them ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all of them drank the same spiritual water. For they drank from the spiritual rock that traveled with them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Yet God was not pleased with most of them, and their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 These things happened as a warning to us, so that we would not crave evil things as they did, 7 or worship idols as some of them did. As the Scriptures say, “The people celebrated with feasting and drinking, and they indulged in pagan revelry.” 8 And we must not engage in sexual immorality as some of them did, causing 23,000 of them to die in one day.
9 Nor should we put Christ to the test, as some of them did and then died from snakebites. 10 And don’t grumble as some of them did, and then were destroyed by the angel of death. 11 These things happened to them as examples for us. They were written down to warn us who live at the end of the age.
12 If you think you are standing strong, be careful not to fall. 13 The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.
14 So, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. 1 Corinthians 10:1-14
Jesus and subsequently the Apostles make it clear that homosexual behavior puts one in a state of abomination with God.
However, unlike under the laws of Moses, Christianity leaves this judgment solely to God to carry out. Our role is to warn people of the dangerous consequences of the behaviors and that Jesus offers an alternative to these consequences
Therefore, there are NO actions that a Christian can take physically against another individual based upon their sin choices that would be approved of by God.
Nobody can change their sexual orientation by having a "willing change of heart." It doesn't work that way. That's the kind of thinking that leads to this gay conversion bullshit. If they really wanted to change, they could - and that is total bullshit.
there is no such thing as "sexual orientation". ALL sexual activity unless someone is raped is a choice. We either have moral discipline which is our primary reason for being created in the image of God, or we are animals who lack ability to make moral decisions. If that was the case we would murder, rape, or steal,, engaging in whatever actions we impulsively respond to like animals. That would also mean that there could be no laws preventing such actions because we are just animals lacking the capability of understanding and acting with moral discipline.
He also came not to abolish the law but to uphold it.
No, it is correctly translated as fulfill or complete, meaning to fulfill the requirements of the law. That's precisely why He stated that He was implementing a NEW COVENANT with mankind.
Matthew 5:17-18
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Greek text is pleroo defined in Vines New Testament Dictionary as "to fulfill, to complete, carry out to the full" (as well as to fill), is translated "perfect" in Rev 3:2 , AV; RV, "I have found no works of thine fulfilled before My God;" "accomplish" in Luk 9:31 .
If God is so opposed to gays, why does he/she keep creating them?
So all Christians should ignore all rules in the OT?
We've had this discussion before. God has never created a single person as a homosexual. That is purely a result of poor or no moral discipline on the part of an individual.
our requirements of holiness EXCEED that of the OT. We are called to walk in the perfection of Holiness in Christ.
Matthew 5:20
"For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
You cannot live in the worldly desires of the flesh and be acceptable to God
2 Corinthians 7:1, "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
Ephesians 4:17-24 "So I tell you and encourage you in the Lord’s name not to live any longer like other people in the world. Their minds are set on worthless things. They can’t understand because they are in the dark. They are excluded from the life that God approves of because of their ignorance and stubbornness. Since they no longer have any sense of shame, they have become promiscuous. They practice every kind of sexual perversion with a constant desire for more.
But that is not what you learned from Christ’s teachings. You have certainly heard his message and have been taught his ways. The truth is in Jesus. You were taught to change the way you were living. The person you used to be will ruin you through desires that deceive you. However, you were taught to have a new attitude. You were also taught to become a new person created to be like God, with a life that truely has God’s approval and is holy."
1 Peter 1:14-16 "Be like obedient children as you put aside the desires you used to pursue when you didn’t know better. Since the One who called you is holy, be holy in all you do. For the Scripture says, “You are to be holy, for I am holy.”
I agree that in the spirit of Christianity it would not be correct for people to act upon other individuals. This includes everything from murder through beatings all the way to verbal or written bigotry.
My point, however, is that since the OT is part of the Christian Bible it is easy for people to see passages such as Leviticus 20:13, etc. and come to the (obvious) conclusion that God disapproves of homosexuality (to put it lightly). Do you recognize this or do you wish to claim that God has changed His mind?
The problem then is that bigots are armed with the notion typified by the Westboro Baptist Church: 'God hates fags'. Even if softened to 'God thinks homosexuality is shameful, a sin' that sentiment is all the excuse a bigot needs to act negatively against homosexuals. Do you recognize this?
Are you answering my question?:
Is your answer: 'yes'?
Well I wonder what CB has to say on this. My guess is that he would find that his sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with his moral discipline. If so, he and I would find rare agreement on a point.
No, it is not easy to see people engage in such actions if they are truly Christians who follow the New Covenant teachings.
I have never considered any church that operates outside of the New Covenant as a Christian church. I go by the standards set by Jesus
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
John 8:31 “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free"
Paul stressed that this discipleship would be marked by our imitating the character and moral perfection of Jesus
Paul stressed in his letters imitating him even as he imitates Christ
1 Corinthians 4:15-17 "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church."
1 Corinthians 11:1 "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ."
We truly come to understand what Jesus meant about the command to the church in Matthew 28 to go out to all the world and make disciples by understanding what it meant to be a disciple at the time of Jesus teaching this
In Hebrew a disciple is Talmid Chacham singular tamidim pl
They are disciplined followers of a teacher and his teaching.
“The principles with which the Talmid Chacham must live are enumerated in the first chapter of the work rabbi Derekh Eretz Zutta, opening with the following sentence: "The way of the wise is to be modest, humble, alert, and intelligent; to endure injustice; to make himself beloved of men; to be gracious in his interactions even with subordinates; to avoid wrong-doing; to judge each man according to his deeds; to act according to the motto 'I take no pleasure in the good things of this world, seeing that life here below is not my portion.' Wrapped in his mantle, he sits at the feet of the wise; no one can detect anything unseemly in him; he puts relevant questions, and gives suitable answers."
the question is wrong. we are called as I said to go far beyond the law of Moses. We have NO involvement with the laws of Moses as believers. What it gives us is a baseline understanding of what the perfection of holiness involves. But we have ZERO connection to living our lives as believers following jot and tittle of the law including it's penalties.
There are no offerings and sacrifices in the New Covenant for failing in the laws of Moses as it requires.
We are called to live sinless lives of holiness through being born again as new people and living in and through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.
yes, he and I disagree on the concept of sexual orientation which I contend the Bible makes clear doesn't exist.
I have to go out on errands, will return in about 1 1/2 hours.
LFOD? How do you know that God has not created homosexuals? What gives you the right to make this claim on behalf of God? Did God create everything; and, without God nothing that is created exist?
But then the opposite would be true as well, God has never created a heterosexual either.
Did God create sin? Did God create murder? Did God create stealing or rape? God doesn't create that which He forbids.
I make this statement because it's what God has stated. Do you think that Jesus was deceived or a liar? Jesus condemned ALL sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman
Wrong. He said He created man and woman and for them to become one flesh which includes their sexual lives as husband and wife.
Yes.
Sure He did. There really is no escaping the logic here. If you hold that God is the singular omniscient and omnipotent creator then everything that exists is directly or indirectly God's will.
We subjectively call taking the life of another human "murder" even though nature has been finding ways to kill humans for eons. We consider it "bad" because it's "us" and we wouldn't want that for ourselves or our loved ones. "Sin" is purely subjective, there is no such thing without humans defining it as such. Animals in the wild often fight over reproductive rights and take the females by strength, fighting off or even killing any perspective challengers. When done among humans we call it murder and rape. All these things existed in nature long before humans were self aware and started defining what was good and bad for themselves as a species. And of course it's much easier for those strongest among humans who first started inventing laws to claim that the laws were passed down to them from a higher power. It had much longer staying power to have laws based on something that supposedly lives on after the former heads of the village passed away.
Human morality, good and bad, have all evolved as our society has evolved. They are not objective "universal" truths about the universe, they are human definitions of things they don't like happening to themselves or their loved ones.
But if you insist on believing in a God and believing it created all humans, than you would have to agree that God must have made homosexuals. Homosexual behavior is found in over 1500 different species, including humans. Because they exist and clearly say they never made a choice about their sexual orientation, they just are what they are, then it would seem to indicate that if God made humans, then it made homosexuals too. You can't have it both ways, either you believe your God made all of humans as they are, or humans just are what they are and your God didn't have anything to do with their creation.
Right. I don't know why I bother with you. You make a statement and when I point out why it is wrong, we end up going down some rabbit hole in your attempt to find some way to be right. Then, blame it on me.
Since you were referring to specific people who claim Christianity, this statement is simply wrong. I don't have to read anything into it. I just have to read what it says. What it says is that the Bible justifies Christians killing homosexuals. That is untrue. Rather than admit that you apparently misspoke, you instead try to talk your way out of it.
I think this is because your intent was to show some sort of contradiction within the Bible, therefore (to your mind) showing it to be less than the word of God, or as you have stated often enough, simply the work of man.
Now you've got livefreeordie attempting to tell you the same thing I am and you want to argue with him. Go figure.
no, God did not create sin. Sin is an act of rebellion against God. God doesn't create rebellion against Himself.
Hardly. Didn't have to be willed into existence by God, either directly or indirectly. Evil isn't a thing in and of itself. Evil is simply anything outside God's perfect will. God did not have to create everything that is. There are some things that weren't created that necessarily exist because something else was created. Dark didn't have to be created. Light did. Dark is simply the absence of light. Not a thing created, as light was. In the same way, evil wasn't created because evil isn't a thing. You can't put a gram of evil under a microscope. You can't measure it's properties. It is simply potentiality possible by beings with free will.
Yeah. Let's hear that.
Wow, DP. You packed so much into that that I feel 'smothered' to unpack it—so I won't. I conclude it won't be worth my investment of time in straightening it all out. (It would remain a crumbled mess to those who like it as it is anyway.)
What I will say is this: God the Entity is being expressed in human terms because our minds are puny and well, we use words to communicate ideas to one another and across great spaces. The mere statement that God is eternity is humanity's first clue that God is not comparable to itself. That's all.
So he only created things you agree with. Weird how that works.. Over 1500 different species on Earth engage in homosexual behavior, humans are one of them. Can your bible explain that? Of course not.
That's just another way of saying the same thing all my evangelical teachers did when faced with the many contradictions to be found if one is willing to look. I've heard all the excuses, "God is a mystery", "Human minds can't comprehend the magnitude of a universal creator", I even had my own brother tell me that faith and belief aren't even really necessary, just "fake it till you make it" believing as long as I just shut up and followed the prescribed traditions I would eventually forget my doubts.
My comment above was of course a sarcastic take on all those who have tried to claim that none of those flaws in logic matter. That God can of course be the angry, vindictive jealous Hebrew God who literally opened up the earth to swallow disobedient Jews, condoned slavery, and commanded his followers to invade foreign neighbors and murder even the women and children of some cities, while at the same time being the turn the other cheek and even using his healing powers to heal those who came to take him away to be executed, Christ. And not only that, but many believers today think that the ancient Hebrew God, the holy spirit and Jesus triune God figure is perfect and never makes mistakes while at the same time believes Genesis that says God regretted making humans and gave the Israelites many onerous laws which had death as the penalty for breaking them, but now doesn't care a whit about all those things he seemed very keen on just two to three thousand years ago. It is said that for the Hebrew God a thousand years is as a day, so why such a dramatic change from what was allowed 3 days ago (according to God) and now? But I get it, if you want to believe, you'll find ways to gloss over any cracks in the logic.
They say "possession in nine tenths of the law", well in this case I believe "desire" is nine tenths of faith. If humans want to believe something, they will almost always find a way to justify doing what they want, logic and reason be damned. But the fact remains, claiming that some unproven external force is just outside of our ability to understand is a very weak argument for belief. Trying to rationalize the irrational is, as you say, a waste of your "investment in time".
Is your God surprised by what its creations do?
To avoid the rabbit hole, refrain from spinning my words into extreme negative interpretations that you can then debate. Just take my words at face value. If you are not sure of my meaning then just ask me and I will explain. I do not appreciate this spinning tactic and my reaction should have made that clear.
The statement you reference is this:
The key phrase is 'biblically justified'. Note how I lead up to this:
Their preacher (their religious authority figure) used 'abomination' language which pretty clearly points to Leviticus 20:13 wherein God deems homosexual acts an abomination with a death penalty. They can find this in their Bible. So in their minds God is definitely against homosexual acts and had deemed the death penalty for same.
You can argue that these were not 'true' Christians or that their acts violated the tenets of being a Christian (and I would agree with you on that point), but that does not change the point that I made. These people consider themselves Christian; whether or not you do. My point is that the moral guidance established in the OT regarding homosexual acts is that the participants should be killed. That is what the scripture actually says.
But these people certainly had no intention of killing these men. As I noted, they do not hold to the mores of the ancient men who wrote the Bible but rather have a more modern morality that rejects such acts. They could point to the NT and see that homosexuality is considered shameful and a sin (which certainly gives them the excuse to do what they did do to these men) but can also see in the OT that the God they worship was very harsh on homosexual acts and made a profoundly clear moral statement by deeming the act punishable by death.
Here you go again insisting you know my meaning better than me; after I have corrected you several times. I spend my time trying to correct your spin and instead of accepting what I say you insist that your faulty interpretation is correct. When you write: 'the Bible justifies Christians killing homosexuals' you mean (based on what you have written) that the Bible mandates or (softer) encourages or (softer still) allows Christians to kill homosexuals.
My meaning is that the Bible provides an excuse for bigots to kill homosexuals. A bigot can personally justify killing a homosexual because it is 'in the Bible'. And this is not limited to Christians. In various Islamic sects homosexuals are killed because the Qur'an is, like the NT, rooted in the Pentateuch and thus ancient Mosaic law.
So, real simple, sans modern mores a bigot can justify their actions (personally) by Leviticus 20:13 alone (and as I have quoted in this seed, there are plenty more supporting verses in the OT and the NT).
For reference, what I wrote:
How can anything be outside of God's perfect will if God is omnipotent (can do anything that is possible to do) and omniscient (knows everything that is knowable). To be outside of God's perfect will then evil must not be known to God or God is incapable of engineering things so that all is within his perfect will.
Yes, and those are the indirect result of God's will.
If God did not exist, would darkness exist? If you answer 'yes' than I will ask how you can find anything to exist without God. If you say 'no' you tacitly admit that darkness came from God. If darkness came from God the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence make darkness a result of his will.
Evil is a label that we assign to things. It exists in the same way the notion of color exists. These are labels with meaning to us. So it is true that labels cannot be placed under a microscope, but they refer to things that do indeed exist. We can point to acts and deem them to fall under the category of evil. The acts are committed by physical entities in a physical world with all sorts of details defining the act of evil.
If you hold that God created human beings and gave them free will (another debate) which enables them to act in a manner that is outside of God's perfect will then God created the circumstances that enable the acts we call evil.
Bottom line. If God is the first cause, is omnipotent and omniscient, there is no escaping the logic that everything is directly or indirectly God's will.
If God is perfect ("God is, per the belief, perfect.") and omniscient then God would never change His moral position on a particular manner (e.g. homosexuality). His position is perfect by definition, so how do you improve on perfection? If He deems something to be objectively moral and later deems it to be objectively immoral then which declaration of moral truth was perfect and which was less than perfect?
So if God deems homosexuality immoral and then later deems homosexuality moral, one of those declarations was God being imperfect and that is not allowed.
Um, no. The statement I referenced is this:
All the rest of what you say doesn't change what this statement says. It says that, had they killed this guy, they would have been biblically justified to do so. That's total crap and no amount of "clarifying" on your part will change that. This is obvious, so instead, you try to sell it as some version of "in their minds they would have been Biblically justified" is what your statement stated. Nope. I can parse a sentence as well as you can. That is not what this statement says. What it says is that Christians would be justified in killing homosexuals per the Bible. That is simply not true.
I believe your point was actually something like, this is what you get when you put your faith in the Bible.
I can't say what these people have in their minds but considering what they did, I doubt they reject those mores as much as you think they have. In any case, I doubt you would find any serious Christian who would disagree that homosexuality is worthy of death. But then, they'd probably tell you that all our rebellious acts toward God are worthy of death. Homosexuality is just one thing in a multitude of sins we commit that are worthy of death.
Here's the deal, TiG. Christianity is, among other things, about recognizing that God created us for His purpose, not ours. It is recognizing that we are lost as far as what is right and good and that our hearts are so corrupted by sin that only God can make us right again. Faith in Jesus is what makes us right and righteous in God's eyes. Not what we ourselves do. We can't make ourselves acceptable to Him. Only Jesus can do that for us. Our job as Christians is to tell others of this. It isn't to pass judgement on others, and by judgement I mean killing homosexuals for homosexual acts.
I don't care about what you meant. I care about what you said. You said these people would have been justified Biblically had they killed this person. What good does it do to claim that what that means is that, in their minds they would have been justified? That's a completely different thing! On the one hand, you stated the Bible would justify their action and on the other you state that regardless of what the Bible says, they would have taken what it says as justification. Why not simply agree that I was right and then reword what you actually meant to say?
What spin??
What need of spin do I have in this statement? This statement literally says that, had these people killed this kid, their action would have been justified by the Bible. Your basis for saying so is simply that a command that God gave a specific set of people must apply to Christians, too, simply because it's in the Bible. It totally ignores that the command was given to a specific people under a specific covenant and ignores that Christians are under an entirely different covenant.
What? Where have I written anything like this?
No, it doesn't. In order for you to say this, one has to ignore all it means to be Christian. In order to take such a position, one simply is relying on the fact that something appears in the Bible without any other consideration. Without critical thinking. I think you take such a position because your true intent is to show how foolish it is (in your mind) to put any stock in what the Bible says.
Actually, the most correct way to say what you're trying to say is that a person can convince themselves that killing a homosexual is right because the Bible commanded covenant Jews to do so.
In the final analysis, no Christian can use anything in the Bible to justify harming, let alone killing a homosexual simply because they are a practicing homosexual. That some attempt to does not justify it. As you say, words have meaning. Justify has meaning. Being justified and convincing oneself is justified is not the same thing.
Sorry, but you'll need to expand on this. Why would evil be outside God's perfect will? Why would it not be known to God? Why do you think God would not be capable of incorporating evil into His will?
In order to help you understand what I am asking I will tell you how I see it. God knew that Satan, and later, we would rebel. Such had to be possible if we were to have the ability to choose or reject Him. I don't see why God could not incorporate such knowledge into His plan.
Perhaps you feel that we fell away shows some imperfection in God's designs?
Okay. So you see that as God being responsible for evil? That's going to be a hard sell because it would mean simply by God's existing, evil exists, at least potentially. This is because if there is a good, there must be a bad, even if only potentially.
If God didn't exist, nothing would exist. Not even nothing.
True, hence my statement that not even nothing would exist.
If it pleases you to think so. My position is that darkness isn't something that had to be created. It's like saying nothing had to be created. Darkness isn't an actual thing. You can't make a darklight in the manner you can create a flashlight. The word "laser" is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. You can't do the same with darkness. It isn't a wave. It isn't a particle. It is simply the absence of something else.
In the same way, evil didn't have to be created. It isn't as if evil is only possible because God created evil.
My argument isn't that evil doesn't exist. It is that it isn't something that had to be created. It isn't God's will that evil should exist but it isn't something He can magically eliminate with creatures who He has granted free will. That is, the ability to choose Him or not.
True, although it seems to me such phrasing puts the blame for evil on God. The circumstances you speak of is the ability we have to obey His call or not. He cannot be blamed for what we choose to do with our will.
If I understand what you're saying here, it seems that you hold that whatever happens to any particular individual, it is ultimately because God willed it to be so. If so, I disagree. Such a statement eliminates free will. Or did you mean something else?
And that statement is right there in the quote. Take a little time to read what I write.
And 'biblically justified' means they could turn to the Bible and see that God deemed homosexuality a moral offense worthy of death. Thus the Bible gives bigots an excuse to kill homosexuals. And with that, Drakk, I am done explaining this to you. I will note now that it is beyond arrogant to argue with someone about the meaning of their words after those words have been repeatedly explained to you in further detail. I am okay with someone honestly misreading my words but when I tell you repeatedly my meaning and you profess to know my meaning better than I do it is clear that your only interest is to perpetuate your strawman. I am done repeating myself.
While I can see making that argument, that is not the argument I am making here. You can pretend that passages such as Leviticus 20:13 do not provide biblical justification (i.e. the ability of a bigot to personally justify -excuse- his/her actions against a homosexual) but that would be incredibly naive. You can pretend that the killing of homosexuals in the 1960's for example by Christians (even if you do not consider them Christians) did not involve references to versus such as these:
You can pretend that these passages do not even exist. But your pretending that people did not and do not use the Bible as personal justification (excuses) for immoral acts is not credible. Do you also pretend that the Westboro Baptist Church mantra of ' God Hates Fags ' has nothing to do with the Bible?
No 'true' Christian you mean. A 'true' Christian could not be a practicing homosexual either by your definition of 'true Christian', right? Can a practicing homosexual be a 'true Christian' as you define that term?
Yes and when I have repeatedly stated 'personal justification' / 'excuse' to provide additional information, those words have meaning too. The fact that you repeatedly ignore my correction of your misinterpretation proves to me that you are simply spinning. Not your finest hour Drakk.
You are confused. Read what I wrote.
Here is what you wrote:
Here is what you quoted from me in reply:
Now carefully read each word, assemble them into sentences and tell me what you think I wrote. Based on prior comments, you could literally take my words to mean anything. So let's hear it. What, precisely, do you think those quoted words mean? I am not going to spend any time on this until you clarify upfront exactly what you think I mean. You might have to clarify what on Earth you were trying to say @2.1.76.
Continuing with the rest ...
If God is responsible for everything, then God is responsible for evil. God is also responsible for little children dying before they are old enough for kindergarten. With infinite power comes infinite responsibility; the buck stops at God.
WTF does that mean? Nothing = non-existence.
Thus you agree that evil could not exist without God. How do you then claim that evil is not directly or indirectly a result of God's will? God does things and ... evil emerges. Who do you think is ultimately responsible for evil if not God?
You are deflecting. Without God, would darkness exist?
If there is free will and, in your belief system, God created free will, then God indirectly is responsible for that which results from free will. The grandest possible entity cannot blame anyone else; everything that exists (per your belief) is a result of the will of the singular, omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything.
I've just gotten back to this and its late. You can do all the rationalizing about someone's else beliefs that you want to and it will not change the fact that you are standing on the outside, 'throwing' whatever it is you are-for whatever purposes (agenda) you are serving. To use a New Testament reference from the Book of Acts—those activities which made rational sense to Saul before he became Paul made him deeply sorry afterwards. (Were God's Spirit to enter your person tonight - by next week you would find yourself deeply 'troubled ' by your unending past comments. I'm just saying—some of us have gone through the remorse one time or another in our journey.)
Now that I got that off my chest, moving on. . . .
God's plan for Israel was to take a people stiffed in 400 years of slavery and grow them into something good for the world:
Tig, you ought to read through to the end of Chapter 8. It is too long to drop in a comment. But, it continues the theme that God was making a nation out of one man and, as you can imagine, it would not be an easy task for the men and women, boys and girls, involved. And, like any good builder, God wanted to clear the 'ground' to work. That 'men who lie with men like they do with women' or as you are using the more modern world, homosexuals, did not make the cut - is just one of those things God chose to do.
Now then, in the New Testament, God has opened up the Gospel message and brought in Jesus, and well, as you can see Jesus gave some commandments of his own!
It's late - good night.
Those are pick-and-choose leviticans. They'll throw around a football, they'll pair cotton denims with a silk shirt, they'll trim their beards, they'll eat lobster and shrimp, they'll lie ... other abominations.
and then there are these abominations:
So the pick-and-choose leviticans cannot be trusted, they are unjust and arrogant, and they haven't an ounce of credibility. Why don't they trust their god? Frankly, since their god sent his only son to die for the sins of others (thus wiping the slate clean, so to speak) then stating we must not judge one another, then only their god can punish the 'offender' when the 'offender's' time comes. They don't trust their god to do his job. They, in essence, say 'fuck you' to their god. THEY'LL be judge, they say.
Pick-and-choose leviticans are pandering to bullshit.
I'm going into the handbasket business.
Your reply has nothing to do with my comment.
If there is a god one can only hope it is not that which is defined in the OT. It remains remarkable that people can learn about this petty, vengeful, megalomaniacal god character defined by the OT and somehow think this is a god worthy of worship. This character, among many other lesser but despicable acts, ostensibly wiped out all life on the planet spare Noah, et. al. and this act is portrayed as a positive children's story while normalizing a planet-wide multi-species massacre. Beyond that, the story has no supporting evidence and is full of logical errors (Why kill all land animals and spare those of the sea? How did species such as the Australian marsupials get from the ark to Australia? How could a wooden ship be built much less survive the dynamics of sea travel for almost a year full of animals, food, etc.?). The flood story is brutal, unevidenced and replete with logical flaws yet this is all swept under the rug with cliche excuses such as 'the Lord works in mysterious ways'. Sorry. Not buying it.
You believe an ancient errant book is the divine word of a perfect God. Okay. Here is how I see things. There might be a sentient creator. If there is, nobody seems to know anything about this entity. The non-arrogant, objective way to operate is to admit that we do not know anything about a sentient creator. We do not know why it created us, what plans (if any) it has for us, what rules we are to follow (if any), etc. We can (and demonstrably have and do) make up all sorts of speculative stories, but we do not know. And for those who believe that such an entity exists, then the very best they can do to learn about this entity is to explore and analyze the incredible things it created: our universe from the grand scale of cosmology to the extremely small and mysterious scale of particle physics.
I find they are saying "fuck you" to us, their fellow beings, as they pompously set themselves up to control our lives from cradle to grave using a religion as justification to do so. This has been done throughout the history of the Abrahamic religion. People, who resisted their control, were punished, tortured or slaughtered.
Christianity is not, and never has been. a religion of love. Actions speak louder than words. Christianity was spread at the point of sword because some people can't and won't take no for an answer.
If the Abrahamic god was real, it is a petty being filled with rage, hatred, jealousy, and sexual frustration. I tend to believe that barbaric religions were created by sadistic men who enjoyed tormenting others. There is no reason to allow them to continue to frighten and control others via the goatherders' guide to existence when The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the true text to all of the whys, what ifs, personal conduct, social conduct, present bliss, eternal bliss, etc.
Okay. I'm tired of arguing this with you. You go ahead and believe what you will.
That God created evil, murder and all the rest.
Seems to say just what it says, but with you, it's difficult to be sure. What I don't understand is why evil would have to be unknown to God?
Or He has a perfectly rational and good reason for doing it the way He does.
Yeah. It's all God's fault. Don't think we need to go any further.
You take this from me:
... and extract a mere claim " That God created evil, murder and all the rest. ". That quote is not simply a claim, it also makes an argument as to why everything that exists is necessarily a direct or indirect result of God's will.
That is answered in the sentence you quoted. The sentence in question is conditional:
This sentence is predicated on the notion that God is omnipotent and omniscient (see the sentence before that in the quote). I am saying that in order for evil to be outside of (omniscient) God's perfect will it must not be known to God. If God knows of evil and God chooses to allow evil to exist then evil is God's will. The only way that evil can exist and not be at the least allowed by God is if God was not aware that evil does or will exist as a result of His actions. In short: if God allows something to happen it is His will. And if God is omniscient then He knows all. Ergo, everything is God's will (directly or indirectly).
If God has a perfectly rational and good reason for doing something then that something he is doing is His will. ( This should be obvious . )
Not 'fault', 'will'. If you define a god that is omniscient, omnipotent and perfect and deem this God to be the first cause of existence (everything that exists owes its existence to God) then the buck stops with God. All the good and all the bad exists only because God allows it to exist.
If you do not want the buck to stop with God then define a god that is not infinitely powerful, knowledgeable and perfect.
Did God stop the excruciating death of Jesus? Does God stop any of the painful deaths which occur all around us throughout world history? Obviously, in God's economy death occurs all the time (see world statistics). This planet is one big birthing and dying 'facility.' Sometimes looking at the numbers, one could be forgiven for wondering how any are allowed to get old here! Just goes to the point of how many people there are here. Death does not frighten or come as a shock to God to beings decree to be temporary in form anyway.
We were warned about the false prophets and the like by the Apostles (you know this I think). The problem is the churches themselves who put such people on pedestals and diases and installed to higher positions over time. I, like you, can only watch what good people do when they follow a charismatic bad leader.
God allows much, including God's spirit to be in the world. Also, 'one day' even the Spirit will be removed and we'll see what becomes of mankind when such a world-emcompassing peace is taken away. I know, atheists will succeed where religion will have failed. At least, that is the humanist plan for mankind.
I ASK this because you have an "identity" problem. If A is A (Law of Identity) then both the OT and the NT must deal with homosexuality in the EXACT same manner. The 'covenants' do not deal with homosexuality the same. At an appointed time, God has changed how homosexuality is dealt with. Can you see it now?
Point of clarification desired: You are using the word, "homosexual," here to mean, fornication, and/or, "same sex marriage"?
I ask because you deployed both terms above in a comment and I want to know if you are applying one or both meanings in your comment (here).
I gave your comment a vote for its Paragraphs two and three. Check!
Do you recognize that my point has been about morality? Does the God of the OT consider homosexual acts to be immoral? (The answer is yes by virtue of the abomination language and the death penalty.)
Does the God of the NT consider homosexual acts to be immoral? Not so clear given Jesus at worst labeled homosexuality a sin. Paul, however, deemed it shameful. So if Paul is to be taken as representing the position of Jesus (and if not, why is Paul part of the Bible — the divine word of God?) that suggests that Jesus did indeed consider homosexuality immoral. Further, since Jesus came to fulfill (not abolish) the old laws (in the OT) and did not make any correction on the moral statement clearly offered by the God of the OT, that suggests Jesus is also of the immoral position.
The difference between the treatment ('dealt with') of homosexuality between the OT and the NT is quite clear. As I noted, the NT is certainly kinder and gentler. But on the question of morality the OT is crystal clear and the NT seems to agree that homosexuality is immoral.
So if God is consistent in His moral position then both the Father (Yahweh) and the Son (Jesus) agree that homosexuality is immoral. Although I disagree with that moral position, at least there is the consistency that must be there given a perfect God.
However, if Jesus does not consider homosexuality immoral and merely deems it a sin, then God (collectively) has changed his moral position. Homosexuality is either moral or immoral. Which God hypostasis is correct?
Um, no. You still think of evil as a thing in and of itself. Like it's some material thing that God can just get rid of. Not how it works. If an individual bears false witness, evil has been committed. God has said that He doesn't want us to bear false witness. That would be outside His will. The only way to eliminate that evil is to remove the ability of the individual to make choices. Admittedly, He could do that, but that would defeat the purpose of creating beings with free will. That the individual committed the evil doesn't make God responsible in any way. That would be like saying the store owner is ultimately responsible for being robbed because he had money in his till.
Still doesn't explain on your part how evil that is outside God's will could not be known to Him. You seem to be suggesting an omnipotent, omniscient God would not allow evil, which would be against His will, to exist, therefore any evil that did exist would be evil God didn't know about.
Alternatively, God does not want evil to exist but knows it's unavoidable in creatures with free will so, being omnipotent and omniscient, uses the evil His creatures commit in order to achieve His goals. This way, God gets to let his creatures have free will, taking the evil they commit and turning it into something good somewhere down the line.
Um, not going to bother with this one. It's so obviously wrong that it suggests that you just want this to be true. It must be so because it is easy enough, as I have already done above, to prove it wrong.
Yeah, it is, but I suspect you mean something more than what's written here.
Why? It isn't necessary. The problem here is that you don't accept that you are responsible for what you do, not God. Your argument is basically, I can't be blamed for whatever evil I do because God is the one who allowed me to do it. It's God's fault.
I am not thinking of evil as anything other than existing. Existence of evil is all I need to make my point.
Right here, ⇩ all laid out:
If God is aware of evil yet still allows it, then evil is part of God's will. The only way to not allow evil (and thus not have evil part of God's will) is for God to (somehow) not know of evil.
Of course you will ignore this; it is the critical point that you cannot accept. This is why it does not matter what I or anyone writes regarding this. You will simply ignore anything that goes against your belief.
Just noting that your comment about God having a good reason for something does not add much when discussing what is or is not his will.
The problem is that you refuse to accept the obvious fact that God (as you have defined God) is ultimately responsible for everything. Yes people are responsible for things within their control but ultimately the root cause of everything and thus final responsibility lies with God.
No that is not my argument. Not even remotely close. You presume way too much. My argument is that everything is God's will. Good, bad or otherwise, the buck ultimately stops at God (as you define God).
Whatever can I say? Your comment misses the 'mark.' You are taking your position which is inculcated in churches across this country, and attempting to place strictures on those outside the faith—specifically your denomination. If you do not know how to be anything but heterosexual (good for you as the majority), then allow others to find their 'path' to faith in God on their own terms. You can not tell homosexuals and the like to simply suffer in silence and oppression when they do not believe in your, our, God!
As I explained to a member above, whatever you feel (the joys/sorrows, highs/lows, passion/loss) with your significant other is exactly felt the same by a homosexual with or without a mate! Try to put understand what others are going through!
That makes zero sense. If a parent knows that their child will eventually disobey their will for them, your argument is that it is their parent's will that they disobey. That's really your argument?
First, allowing evil is not the same as evil being God's will. Second, you just state the rest of it without explaining how it is true. God obviously allows evil. What you consistently fail to do is explain how an omnipotent, omniscient God could only allow such, against His will, is if He is unaware of it.
This is easily dealt with. God creates free willed creatures in His image. He knew long before He created us that we would sin. Apparently He thinks His plan is worth it, in spite of that. For that plan to unfold, He would have to allow His creation to choose against Him. To choose evil. That hardly equates to God willing evil. It hardly equates to God willing that His creation choose against Him. It hardly equates to God not knowing about evil.
For crying out loud, TiG. Even among us mere humans this isn't true. Parents allow their children to make mistakes all the time. That hardly means it is their parents will that their children make those mistakes. That parents will that their children be allowed to make that mistake is hardly the same as saying the parents will is that those children make those mistakes.
Then show how this is true. So far, you've just stated it is. Not good enough.
Or the statement was so patently ridiculous that I didn't want to bother with it.
So, the fact that we sin is God's fault? He's responsible for my sin?
You must mean something entirely different than what you wrote, because immediately after denying what I said, you confirmed it. If not, what, exactly, do you mean by "Good, bad or otherwise, the buck ultimately stops at God (as you define God)."? How is one to read that other than God is responsible for everything we do?
You, we, should never fall into the trap of of answering a question with a basis. God created everything to do with mankind—including all choices.
How much is EVERYTHING? NOTHING remains left out.
Thus we can say that God in Jesus gave us everything we are. That includes, an ability to be 'creatures' of light or as contract be creatures of darkness. The ability to go-between the two states.
What I suggest you do not state is there are choices on Earth that are provided by someOne other than God.
sorry to barge in, and hpe you and TiG don't mind one comment...
If G-D is all everything and such, then he had to allow evil to exist, otherwise, how did and does it? It must be G-Ds Will, cause for The Grace of G-D , G-D was forced to create Will, and thus, you now have,
Will and Grace, unless you are stating Grace AND Evil , were created against G-Ds Will Power, cause sometimes i've found,
where there's a WILL, there's just NO WAY
ok, i apologize and i'm on my no way,
though, i must say, i do find your exchanges interesting now and then when i peer in on them. You guys remind me of the two leaders from the X-men, always playing Chess, now i've got to go and get a milkshake, from
Checkers
Brother LFOD, you are stating that ALL THAT reduces down to a homosexual plying through life as a heterosexual man or woman? The spiritually-led and the unbeliever alike?
I encourage you to imagine a life from cradle to grave at a 'grand' old age (such as your avatar seems to connote), and share with me, us, seconds, minutes hours, days, months, years, of denial of your fleshly nature, without power from the Spirit. Even Jesus stated and I paraphrase, 'without me, you can do nothing!'—John 15:4-6:
I don't mind in the least. Unfortunately, if there is a less poetic man than myself, I can't imagine who it would be. Translated, that means I have a hard time understanding the things you say. That isn't sarcasm.
That said, as I understand it, Satan challenged God. God accepted. Because of that, God allowed evil to be a possibility for His creation, man. The evil in us condemns us, but God, being merciful, created a way for us to be saved through Christ. The contest isn't about how many get saved. The contest, already won, is that in spite of the fact that we deserve condemnation, God defeats sin and death through Christ. It is about Satan's way, which leads to death, or God's, which leads to life.
Not sure if that relates to what you said. Sorry.
It supplies me with context, but i wish not to impose with my non serious, nonsensical, non two cents that might make change, in the serious debates and discussions you two partake in. As I wish to respect you both, but sometimes I wish to insert my advocacy into the details pulled by
Lew suffer ing
from gout, the disease of Kings, while simultaneously even taking the opposing side odd, even when i'm a Devil's Advocate,
for say
GoD,
just don't
for sake him...
.
You two young fine gentlemen, N Joy your evening and weekend
out
Well, "he" is a Christian-homosexual, or homosexual Christian comingled together. He has lived a life "in" the world and "in" the Spirit. He, also, understands that without the Spirit, a man or woman can do nothing in himself or herself to live in a Christian state. However, in the Spirit, it is possible.
That said, it is God who is faithful. It is God who judges. It is God who cleans. It is God who saves. It is God who:
Being in Jesus is to be in the father. The Law of Identity: "I and the Father are one." Those saved by Jesus have the 'seal of approval' of God and are protected from falling away by the power of God. We must understand what Paul asserted:
Thus, in this manner, the flesh will perish (all flesh must), but in Jesus the spirit of that one shall live! For it is God who justifies the man, woman, boy, and girl under Jesus' seal.
Jo hn 1: 3 Through [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made .
What remains after "all things" were made through him? Everything we are as humanity comes through Jesus, the Son. Though we can not process the 'how comes' and 'whys.' Thus, you can find Jesus declaring righteous the most unrighteous of the un righteous without permission from any higher authority than Himself!
As for same-sex marriage, you can not approve of it at this time. But you can leave it alone. Could it be that God has heard 'the cry' of oppressed people who all their lives have been cast out into the bushes and by-ways of every society?
LFOD, we may not understand everything God is doing in God's appointed times. What we do have is the ability to share what goodness we have and leave the 'hard work' of salvation to 'The Expert" Jesus.
Should God wish to save some in the homosexual community (a "remainder") for God's own wishes, then they are God's servants and God can honor their prayers and their alms according to God's own wishes. Our is to remain in love and peace. To trust God to know who and 'what' is fit for the kingdom. Also, God can prick any heart God wishes in order to save a soul.
Point me to the 'address' where Jesus condemned sex outside of a marriage of a man and a woman, please.
No, that is not my argument. But I do appreciate you asking for clarification this time. Now, I ask you to carefully read the answer I am going to give you:
You are comparing a parent (a mortal, fallible, limited human being) to the creator of everything. A parent did not create the world in which their child lives nor did the parent create the biology of their child. Parent's have, in actuality, very limited control (human beings have rather limited control over ourselves even). God, however, is omniscient and omnipotent (and perfect) and did indeed create everything (per your beliefs). Thus, everything that happens within that which God created is ultimately the will of God (remember the omniscient and omnipotent part). The buck stops at God because there is no higher authority and God's domain is everything.
Semantics. If God allows evil then God does not prevent evil. It is a choice made by God. If you do not want to call that 'will' then pick another word because I am not going to spend time debating the meaning of individual words with you anymore.
It is obvious what is going on now. You have this concept of ' against God's will ' as if it is possible for something to go against what God wants. I do not even consider that as a possibility in my explanation. If God is omnipotent , omniscient and perfect how could anything actually go against God's will? If God wants something to happen God makes it happen. If God allows something really bad to happen his act of allowance is per his will. He chooses to allow it.
Think about this and let's see if we can make progress.
Again, it is a mistake to compare human beings to God. Just a note, continuing ...
I agree with what you wrote, but you are oddly running around the point. A parent no doubt would prefer to magically make it impossible for their child to make a mistake. But since that is not possible, a parent will allow a child to make mistakes in order to learn . In this case the parent wants their child to learn from their mistakes more than they want their child to not make mistakes (e.g. by attempting to shelter the child for life). Because the parent knows, in reality, that mistakes are inevitable (except in sterile conditions) the parent does indeed want their child to make mistakes so that they can learn to not make mistakes. The parent is not God and has no power to prevent their child from making mistakes in life; the parent works within her limitations.
You quoted my summary. I typed a superfluous 'not' in my summary, note the correction above. Instead of the summary read my original answer (which I was trying to summarize):
In particular read the sentence in blue (above) : " The only way that evil can exist and not be at the least allowed by God is if God was not aware that evil does or will exist as a result of His actions." Consider this more detailed, scenario-oriented description.
God's will to me means ' what God wants given the pros and cons of alternate choices '. Implicitly God is making a choice, taking a fork in a road, to have certain things happen and thus have certain thing not happen. Hopefully you are with me thus far.
Now imagine that God wants to give human beings free will. This is a fork in the road. At this fork God knows that by giving free will his creations will be able to choose to act in ways that God considers to be against good (aka evil). If God chooses free will anyway, then God has created a reality in which good and evil exist, not just good. It is God's choice to allow evil to exist.
Now, imagine instead that God is creating away and discovers that somehow evil exists. But God did not create or allow evil, it just exists. Surprise! Well where did evil come from? Clearly it had to come as a by-product of what God has done, but God really does not want evil and has never considered evil in his pro vs con fork in the road decisions.
If God does not allow evil (intentionally as a result of choices) yet evil somehow exists then God inadvertently made evil and the prerequisite for this inadvertent creation of evil is God not knowing evil would arise from His actions.
So you think it is normal for me to make patently ridiculous statements? You do not even give me the benefit of the doubt that I can provide logical reasoning for my statements?
Yes Drakk God (as you define Him) is ultimately responsible for everything! God could have created us as automatons who would always do exactly what God wants. No sin. Sin would be impossible. God could do this, right? But God (per your beliefs) chose to give human beings free will. That choice means God allows human beings to sin. Every sin is a result of God's executive decision.
But I do not use the word 'fault' because I am not blaming God . Rather, I am stating an objective fact of logic. If you create a video game for preschoolers that only allows different levels of kindness to be imparted on others, you have engineered a situation where one child cannot use the game to do anything other than good. However, if you create a game for high school students which allows them to virtually brutalize each other, you have allowed whatever brutality they choose. You may prefer they do good, but because of your choices to allow brutality, the worst possible outcomes are ultimately your responsibility. The buck stops with you. There is no higher authority. Same with God. Ultimate authority, the first cause, the uber sentient entity.
I guess the best thing for me to do is give you the benefit of the doubt that you truly, honestly do not understand what I write.
Okay, look at what you wrote:
So now read my answer (again):
This should make sense to you.
Well. God is a mystery. Because we assemble >here< often to discuss just as many points about the same, yes? I mean if we knew it all about God or lack of God: Mystery solved! And we could just nature stuff. Hoorway! That's sarcasm by the way.
I used to reason the same as you do now. Oh well, look at me now. Paul used to persecute Christians, then he died planting churches and becoming a monumental Christian.
You don't have to believe anything to suit me about God. It won't change anything that I am. At the end of the day. I serve - and - you do not.
"Blessed Be The Name of the Lord!"
Yes (dryly) a "mystery" to you it is.
You go over this so often do you simply copy and paste? Another "mystery" to me.
Here we go, off and running . . . BLAH! Why won't that mean old Spirit simply give us the Earth (we're running anyway) and leave us alone to run it?!
Your comment contained no thoughtful commentary. You simply went personal (yet again).
And your comment is not you lashing out? You inform me of what you ACCEPT about 'my' religion (nothing) by falling back on a set of 'stock' replies and somehow I am the one who went 'dark'?
I am not a victim. I am not a victim. I am not a victim.
Nor, is this young man in the article. He is dealing with his problem/s - religious and otherwise.
No, it was not. Here, read the comment in its entirety:
TiG @2.1.91
I just gave you a ton of things upon which you could have made thoughtful commentary. Where do you find me lashing out at you or arguing that you are a victim?
If you cannot come up with a thoughtful response it is better to not respond at all rather than make up allegations.
Sure Tig (dryly). And now it's late and I don't feel like fighting over 'my' God anymore today with you. Maybe som' mo' some other time. Al'ight?
I would ask you do you ever get tired of well, this - but that would really be personal and so don't bother with it. Good night.
I'm going to be gone for the next ten days. I will not have time for this and I don't know if I will return to this argument.
I do understand what you write. That you disagree with what I say about what you write doesn't indicate misunderstanding. You seem to think that if I understood what you write I would not be able to disagree with it.
When I write something and you interpret it differently than my intended meaning then that is a misunderstanding. Not a problem. When I politely explain my meaning (which is the right thing to do since natural language is imprecise) and you come back with your original interpretation then the communication process is broken. But when you then repeatedly argue with me about my intended meaning and hold true to your original interpretation in spite of my objections and my repeated attempts to detail my meaning, I tend to think that the problem is refusal on your part to acknowledge my point.
Disagreement on logic or facts is cool (i.e. actual debate is cool). Disagreement on intended meaning, once explained, is not cool. In short ...
'no, that is not what you mean'
... (in effect) is never going to go well.
I am good with ending this. I do not enjoy quoting/repeating/paraphrasing what I write in increasing levels of detail.
Er' the medium used for destruction: water. So, the water population was "OKAY"?
Then, there is the whole SUPERNATURAL component which a naturalist can not allow into his or her sphere of discussion. All and all I do not plan to on on a "Ark" deflection odyssey with you today.
(The oldest happenings, stories, tales, in the Bible I leave in the realm of "anything is possible" with God as their mechanics are being expressed outside the realm of normal occurrences anyway.)
Seriously CB? You do not understand the absurdity of God killing all land and air animals (spare those on the ark) while sparing all the sea creatures? Were the land creatures sinful and the sea creatures without sin?
(By the way, fresh water creatures likely would have been wiped out. Did Noah have aquariums for them?)
This is what is most fascinating about religious belief. Even blatant absurdity is ignored. Critical thinking does not survive faith.
In other words, it is all magic so anything is possible.
No matter how ridiculous, you are good with it? (I think the answer is: 'yes')
I think (again) you have the 'luxury' of judging anything you want from the 'lap' of mostly faithlessness. We know you do not have faith in God. Therefore, you desperately try to formulate a complete picture by looking at component parts of the Bible one-by-one .
All you really hold in your hand are a set of open questions , which you try your best to squeeze out logic I don't bother doing that, because I presume their is information not available in the accounts. You should too. (Though, I doubt you will.) You seem to have some version of 'fun' pulling apart those early creation accounts and putting them back together again, and repeating.
Well, it's your life and our mind to do with as you please.
One last thing on that: When the Spirit of God changes the heart of a man or woman, it does not answer such question as Noah's Ark any differently, but it does render the "activity" you are involved in moot (no longer subject to debate, because there is not enough information known to render a decision).
The Bible never 'carries' itself as a science book, nor has it attempted to portray its message as all-inclusive of fact.
For example, I'd imagine you are having a hard time of it with this young homosexual in your article who went to church (in the first place) with his 'lover.' Why go? It is not LOGICAL to go. And, then all this talk by the young man about the, 'Holy Spirit entering him. . . . " Why would a homosexual care about that, when it is causing stress in his or her life. It is not LOGICAL. Just take the expedient route away from religion. . .instead of trying to steam through it, that's LOGICAL.
Faith is not critical thinking alone if that is what you mean. Faith is based on what one has faith in -from that foundational position one can reason. For example, husbands have faith in their wives commitment to them; parents have faith (trust) in their children; patients have faith in their doctors; sick people have faith in their pharmacists; and, rarely do we choose to put these people in our lives through our critical thinking 'filter' because if done - the read-out would be would have to extricate one or several of them from our lives.
What does that mean? It means that even you 'have faith" in somethings in life, and not even for you is a critical thinking purist. In my opinion, that is.
Forgive me. But you can not assert that. What does "perfection" mean to God anyway? None of us know. The word is a label that we assign to things and pour meaning into.
Is it how God means it? Doubtful. God, in the Old Testament when asked who are you responded, Exodus 3:14 "I am who I am." Vague by critical thinking standards for certain. But, it is what it is. We can extract all that we can from the expression and others like it to form a picture for ourselves, but ultimately the proper picture could be similar or not close at all in a face to face meeting.
Now then, God says about God: ' I am Alpha and Omega.' Knowing the end from the beginning. A concept our puny mind can only wrestle with, for we can only know what is past (in part) and what is present for sure.
It is proper for God to move 'players' around on the playboard of life according to God's plan—not our own plans (which by definition, are a myriad many). Thus, God's "perfection" can be anything God wants it to be as the model standing alone of it.
We, can only judge, even so, human perfection in a limited fashion.
In short: 'I just believe ... I do not care if it makes no sense and neither should you'.
My post did not even mention science, it was strictly logic. Rather obvious logic too.
That is a different usage of the word 'faith'. Trust is different than holding as truth that which is unevidenced.
Two examples of how the Christian understands God's 'change' or unveiling of God's plan:
______
Acts 10
_______
Now as a naturalist, you certainly will not accept the (supernatural) form of this information sharing, but that is not the point. The MESSAGE is transmitted:. God did something the human person was not expecting, as part of God's prerogative. That is, God's plan revealed at the APPOINTED time of God's choosing.
I am just repeating the religious attributes; they did not come from me. But you make a good point anyway. Indeed, how can anyone know anything about God? How can anyone interpret anything in the Bible? After all, when challenged with obvious logical problems the religious answer is equivocation ... effectively claiming that what seems to be an error is just our inability to comprehend the mind of God. Well, CB, I think that is valid so why not apply that principle? Why even attempt to understand anything in the Bible? It is impossible, right? Maybe best to just live a good life and not worry about what ancient men wrote (and rewrote) in a book of books.
So when an ancient book deems homosexuality immoral maybe the smart thing to do is set the book aside and just live one's life. Seems to me that if being a good person is not enough to be in the good graces of a creator then eternal life with said creator will likely be hell.
If that is what you 'draw' out of my comment, then you are mistaken. The real meaning is this: We are faithful because what the Spirit is doing in our individual lives. The biblical record is 'Old Testament' and set in stone. If we can not answer for the past it is because there is not enough information to fully 'vet' it (dead and gone witnesses). So, we leave for some 'future' answer if forthcoming.
Noah's Ark is not an article of faith-building. How can it be? It is not what brings or keeps people in the faithful.
As to your "different usage of faith" no it is not! Faith is faith. Any usage of faith is a usage of faith. {A is A. - Law of Identity.]
One have no evidence of anyone's lifelong commitment, a child won't one day ruin or destroy them, a doctor won't mistake them, or a pharmacist won't poison them. Logic would dictate that one should "watch and see" and respond accordingly to quickly remove such a member from their life without looking back in a instance of a rationale to do so. But, in practice, it does not happen this way. Does it?
It is, however, a prime example of biblical errancy.
The rules of English disagree with you. Words often have several usages (meanings) which depend on context. Dictionaries are structured in terms of usages. Faith is a word with several usages. You are simply incorrect.
There is plenty other considerations which go into the answer you are looking for. And, for the answer, you will have to read more of the 'book' than you are pulling out and dissecting. For instance: the marriage bed being undefiled (Hebrews 13:4); living in peace with all men as it lies within you (Romans 8:12); God is the righteous judge and even chose to save harlots and thieves (Joshua 2:1-24, Matthew 27:38).
As you can see if you peruse a variety from the book, God can save whomsoever God will:
The operative word is, belief, of the sincere variety. For God looks on the heart and not as man does on the flesh:
This last verse from Samuel is an Old Testament reference, and is acceptable to the New Testament believers because it provides information into the character of God!
Is that, equivocation, coming from you, TiG?! Oh my. Are you being clear as to your motive/s for wanting to be rid of "ancient writers" in the Bible? Do you wish to get rid of equally old writers like Aristotle and Epicurus?
We, who have a 'Gospel,' even when we can not keep it perfectly, are wise to look into the book and not be afraid to try to work out our soul salvation. It is not simply a matter of 'setting aside' anything, for is that was the case, more men would break from civilized society and lawlessness would reign supreme. Not just for atheist either. Good works come from a purpose (a set of goals; a direction).
Now then, there is the practical application or side of life, because it is hard as hell to be powerless to commit to change and be told every day to change anyway. This is the issue I have with people who fail to understand what hardships there are to live in a mixed society of all kinds of people and to tell people of a distinct type that their kind can exist legally, but without any value-added civil rights. I resist that notion as foolishness and a lie.
If a leader does not wish someone to attend their church or utilize their services, bar them form the membership; it is scriptural according to Paul. What the leader should not do is to chase those "someones" down politically to make their lives and value—worthless and dignity-less.
The time has come for the churches to learn a new way of dealing with societal and cultural issues and the solution involves the ENTIRETY of the words in the Bible not simply 'bits and pieces.'
IMO, there is no real answer to that question, CB. The Bible is just a collection of ancient books that contradict each other (and sometimes themselves due to editorial combining of different sources into a single book). God changing from OT to NT is certainly understandable given the changing times (thousands of years of differences) and the many changing authors.
Even so, your reply from a faith-based perspective that holds the Bible divine did not address the question I posed in any way. It talked completely around the question of whether God changed His moral position regarding homosexuality from OT to NT. (Not that I expected anything else.)
My guess is that you need to look up the meaning of the word 'equivocation'.
I think we should treat them all the same. I must have stated this to you a dozen times by now.
Although your greater comment has nothing to do with my comment (why even reply if you are not going to address that to which you have replied?), I agree with the above.
You should have no problem proving it, so go ahead do so.
I don't think like a 'one-trick' pony, Tig! More to the point, I am doing my part to remember that we have a topic here and not just an abstract discussion about the Old Testament and the New Testament: a young man was assaulted in a church by a group of people. Not many churches do that sort of thing.
Do keep that in the fore-front of your mind. At least, not the churches I associate myself with online, television, or in the real world.
The Old Testament is ABOUT the coming Messiah (the Son Jesus), Tig. (And, I am not surprised that you do not know that.)
Jesus is written about throughout the Old Testament as a prophetic figure and foreshadower. Do you know what to look for regarding Jesus in the OT?
First, that is a ridiculous exaggeration. The messianic portions of the OT are vague (tons of wiggle room) and are a tiny portion of the OT content. Clearly the OT is not " ABOUT" the Messiah; it includes references as part of its greater content. Second, Jesus of the NT is not considered to be the Messiah per the OT per Judaism (note: the OT is the Hebrew Bible) or Islam (drawn from the OT) — this is purely a Christian invention. Finally, it really takes no effort for the NT writers to tie the NT back to the OT (given it existed); the Qur’an did likewise. So why would you think it is remarkable (or even significant) that the NT tied Jesus to the messianic prophecy?
Also, you quoted me and offered a reply that had nothing to do with what you quoted:
Here I am making the point that it is no wonder the OT and the NT offer different views of God (in aggregate). The NT was written thousands of years later with authors who had different mores and values, a very different society and, presumably, a more sophisticated 'flock'. That easily explains why the God of the NT (Jesus) is kinder and gentler (God of Love) in contrast to the megalomaniac , illogical, emotional God of the OT (Yahweh). You completely ignored that and instead brought in the messianic prophecies out of thin air.
The OT repeatedly mentions the messiah (in very general terms) as a tiny subset of its aggregate content. The NT, written much later, deemed Jesus to be the messiah of the OT. This is no more of a fulfilled prediction than the sequel of a book continuing (and then expanding on) ideas established in the prior book.
CB,
The OT is definitely not about the Messiah. It's a group of 613 laws and parables about how to conduct one's life. It is about ethics. The Messiah is a tiny part of it. The Kaballa is about the Messiah and is not considered as important as the OT/Torah/ Talmud/ Mishna.
Hi Perrie! I supplied the New Testament scripture that speaks to the concern above. Also, I have gone through many of the references. Now then I have no impulse to want to do 'battle' over the verses. I get that Judaism does not have great respect for what the NT is or does (and that is okay with me), however the verses above speak for themselves. It is written on the page as such. And, again John wrote that Jesus stated this:
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
Quoting the NT does not do anything to support your claim:
The whole point of the Old Testament from the fall at Eden onward was to lead to the Messiah. The plan of salvation described to Adam and Eve right up through Isaiah and Daniel was to lead to the Messiah and salvation for man kind. Every single prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus.
Sigh. How can I put this nicely? Okay, in my opinion, you do not know what you are talking about. And following a normal routine, you won't let that statement stand. What remains for me to decide is how much time and energy (limited amounts for me, because I want to talk about other things today) to put forth on this, because frankly trying to overly share with a skeptic who does not respect the words of ancient writers about themselves and their periods can be gross mismanagement and a waste of daylight.
I am going to disregard your ridiculous insults about matters you clearly don't respect or care about and move on to this defaming remark:
This is typical skeptic rhetoric, and were I a Jewish person, I would call you out for your repeated disregard for my beliefs and its God.
Hi CB!
The question was if the OT was Messiah centric. It isn't. The NT has no bearing on what the OT says since it was the first book. It is not disrespect for the NT, it is the dividing point.
I do not understand what this sentence is conveying here:
?
Luke 24:
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Is the writer lying?. Let me share an important reference about the Messiah from an Old Testament named Isaiah . It remains to be discovered if Judaism sees it the same or a different way that Christianity:
Perrie! Do Jewish people consider this scripture to be about the Messiah?
Your comment was devoid of any information and basically just took things personal (again).
Nothing in the NT changes anything about the OT. The OT existed prior to the NT. All the NT can do is reinterpret the OT. So quoting the NT in an odd attempt to support your claim that the OT was ABOUT the Messiah (as in the OT is predominantly about the Messiah) is rather ridiculous.
Merely claiming that others are ignorant is not an argument. To support your claim of:
You need to go to the OT itself and show that it is ABOUT (as in the main focus) the coming of Jesus. Not the NT, not a bible-studies book, not your own mind, but the actual source about which you speak.
And, of course, you continue to sidestep the actual point I made:
You do realize that nobody has argued that there are no messianic portions in the OT. Quite the opposite, I think we all agree that the Messiah is mentioned repeatedly in the OT (albeit collectively a tiny subset of the overall OT content).
So if by ...
... you mean that the OT mentions a Messiah (and that does not necessarily mean Jesus by the way) then I think everyone will agree. Why that is significant would be another question.
Again you are speaking about things you do not understand, in my opinion. See @2.1.144 for starters.
And do not attempt to steer me onto a plateau of your lack of scriptural and spiritual basis. The NT is a fertile ground for referring back to the Old Testament, as a foundational set of books. You don't get to 'direct' this.
Seems to me the lack of understanding is with you. Your repeated claims of my ignorance coupled with a complete failure on your part to a) support your biblical claim of the OT and b) show my rebuttal to be wrong, support my current opinion.
So how about we focus on content and away from making this personal (yet again)?
This 'comment' does not deserve any attention. Who are you to ESTABLISH how God 'orders' the delivery of God's Word to various generations?
Of course, as a skeptic, you can throw up 'dust' and file (bogus) complains about God because you accept nothing of it as worthy anyway. Nothing new there. Typical skepticism.
Fascinating.
I don't know, TiG. Will you continue to 'flame' the on-going discussion with statements like this:
That seems offensive to me and probably should be concerning to Jewish members in some way or other too.
Waiting for some proof. . . .
CB, nobody's beliefs are so sacred that anyone should be expected to avoid criticizing them to avoid giving offense. The OT characterizes the Abrahamic god in this way. There is no good reason not to say as much.
Criticism of the Abrahamic god is not criticism of Jews as a group.
If you do not like to have your beliefs criticized, it is best not to discuss them with anyone who may disagree with them.
Sandy, please. The OT and the Jewish nation honors even the word, G-d. As to the rest of your . . statements, I agree to disagree.
And?
And; What, Sandy?
You seem compelled to point out that the OT, which is a collection of books about the Abrahamic god, honors that god. Um, ok? Was there a point to that statement? Or am I expected to honor that god? Or am I expected to honor a word?
Read through the comments, Sandy. Loads of sharing there. It can help you catch up!
None of which answer my question, Cal.
Chapter and verse were the term 'abomination' is connected to homosexual behavior. I'll wait.
Let's try something, Sandy: In your opinion;
You're answering my question with questions?
What do you hope to achieve?
Haven't we been in enough discussions together for you to not even need to ask question #3, in particular?
Epic fail. We're done here. . .
>>>> Um, ok? OK, I guess.
Was there a point to that statement? Yes. Ancient Israel honored God.
Or am I expected to honor that god? Respect given is respect received.
Or am I expected to honor a word? Honor given is honor received.<<<<
. . . Deflection to irrelevant questions is a waste of valuable time.
Yes, we know that.
Can that which likely does not exist return respect?
How can a word in and of itself give or withhold honor?
Hmmmmm.
It is obvious (probably to everyone) that you avoid all challenges by answering questions not asked or deflecting focus elsewhere. In other words, do you think these tactics are fooling anyone?
Yeah (dryly). Is that like Trump's expression, "Many people say. . . .?" Moreso, here it comes (again) like a broken record repeating itself: Victim-hood.
And, that coming from an 'author' who writes and seeds church-related articles only to damn those who are religious. It is like a driver repeating driving each new car into an 'irresistible boulder!
Here is a thought: Tig, say something nice about the Church one or twice. Go for it!
Let's try something, Sandy: In your opinion;
Tig what do you say?
Backtrack much?
You won't give credit to Jesus. You won't give credit to God. So who is surprised as your equivocation throughout nearly everything you write? Stand behind the meaning of your words, I say. You spend an inordinate about of 'brain-drain' on attacking the Christian faith, and working to dilute religion. At the least, you could admit the agenda as you like to put to others: 'the tactics are not fooling people.' They should not fool people unless they want to be fooled.
This is exactly why if theres a thing to fear, its them!
Are you kidding us, CB? Christian's are always cherrypicking their way around their bible to justify their own abominations when its convenient. NT is no exception but it's very blatant here and even in this string. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds and is why I trust very few Christians.
With that said, let me tell you, I don't care what it takes anyone to get through the night, but I do care when they use their superstitions as weapons to harm others Which is exactly what this is about. It is no surprise to see those hypocrites here using their indoctrination as a weapon to hate and harm. I honestly don't understand how any of you square any of this with fact and reality.
Seems to me that I remember quite a bit of 'the wrath of God' coming down on Israel in the OT.
Still waiting for your bible references where that whole 'abomination' thingy was made clear LFOD.
So he didn't 'create' the forbidden tree? Where did it come from?
Let me diffuse the 'ticking time bomb' right away. Some Christians, just like some others who want to live separate and disciplined lives, can get a book with many concepts involved wrong, especially when it spans thousands of years and a number of languages. That said, this is spirituality we are speaking about. To "some", loosely used, this is easy enough - just drop the book. Not so easy for those who are 'called' to wear the label, "Christian."
If you are a Christian-you are compelled to follow and use the 'Book.' (New Testament specifically.)
Christianity has many liberties. Having left the OT law, the Christians, have not been in that law environment for 2000 plus years! They live by faith in God with a 'book' foundation of Old Testament references and NT letters. There are not of moving parts that need 'ordering.' More on this later.
I have often found this to be a mysterious statement: Verse 8 is my focus - that which come before is for context only:
However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth ?” I have often wondered at this statement, because it seems to indicate a long passage of time taking place such that 'stress problems' can appear in the Faithful. And, the spiritual 'realm' grinding against some in the natural realm . Though, there really is no battle necessary to be had - it is 'put-up' job, in this case, by "parties" on both sides. More on this later, if it comes up.
Lastly, this entire article, from @ 2 "He was punched in the face? 'Man-handled' them both? What the ___? Not cool!" I have stated my open disapproval of what this individual church and its leaders have done.
Your inclusion of my position lumped in with anyone else in defense of this church is well, IN ERROR!
Yes, that happened in context of a a lot of other dynamics in time. (Smile.) As any one can imagine, living up to a set standard of 'perfection' as biological creatures with individual (and differing) emotions, physical conditions, and basis for understanding why can be hard. So Israel got it wrong a lot. (As it is written the burgeoning nation would.)
No one should mistake this point: The universe is a hard place and likewise God is not under any requirement to make life, 'super-easy' for people. Especially, when the 'larger' plan for the universe does not call for it. (Smile.)
Almost comical. You quote something I wrote all by itself in a comment and you get voted up while I get 'zip' for stating it. Unbelievably laughable. Could it be, it sounds better coming from you? I doubt it. But, what else could cause this?!! (Smile.)
It's appreciation for irony. While you're saying that deflection to pointless questions is a waste of time, your questions are time-wasting deflections.
You mean these questions:
How you coming on your answer?
This speaks volumes. Simple questions delivered point-blank without 'chaser.' And, you balk.
That kid has more class and more compassion than those who abused him. Personally, I would make all of them sleep with the dogs, but it wouldn't be fair to the dogs.
Can't touch that, Paula. (Smile.)
All of this could've been prevented-- if he had been carrying, for example if he had an AK-47 with him when he went to church-- none of this would've happened!
I "heart" you Krishna, but come on now. We do a great many articles and comments where we insist that reactions should be proportional. It seems the young man wants "some kind of consequences out of it," in which case not retaliating in a negative manner frees him and his companion up to ask for the maximum relief possible through lawyers.
AK-47 in church indeed. Krishna- you 'naughty' man! (Smile.)
" and the Holy Spirit just comes through me, "
what did the Holy Spirit do? did it tell him anything?
These people are lunatics and should be committed. And arrested. Anyone else who claims to hear voices is considered insane - but if you're religious, you're supposed to get a pass?
It's just another form of lunacy.
Yeah. It told him to get a lawyer and take them for everything they have and let god have what ever is left to deal with.
Now that's the Holy Spirit I want to meet!
Praise Jebus!
Yeah. "Dude, cut out the transfats. You should see the shit clogging up those arteries!!"
Am I the only one that thought..holding him down and speaking with tongues sounded a little kinky...
Omigawd. You're right. Yikes ...
Hold your horses, Ender. It is nothing as 'severe' or "thrilling'" as you propose. The young man is stating that something akin to a spiritual 'moment' is occurring in his being and it that of those folks around him. (Get your mind up 'here!') (Smile.)
Perhaps the 'Holy Spirit' was telling him not to listen to the lunatics holding him down and that he is loved just as he is.
The 'process' of praying for someone or a group of people is fine, in my opinion. The 'set-up' i s not fine .That the one young man was pushed out seems to indicate that the focus is on Sean Cormie and my question becomes, by whom?
It seems Sean's family set him up for this, rather they knew the 'format' of it or not! That is manifest error. The fighting is wrong. The removal of the partner is wrong. The "hands on" Sean is wrong. This is deeply disturbing to me. I wish some churches would go deeper into the Word they profess and not build doctrine along the shallow surface of the Message. Practically speaking, a church does not have to allow anybody in that they do not desire to associate with; but, to permit a person in and then to try and shame or cause physical contact with them about who they are. . . Not ever cool!
If this scenario happened anywhere other than a 'house of worship', the police would have arrested the attackers the minute it was reported.
The more religious sects are allowed to think that their 'right to practice' is sacrosanct, this kind of crap will go on.
Good point, indeed. For the assault someone (or the entire twelve) should have been arrested, in my opinion. Keep in mind, it is the officer who answers the call - call, nevertheless. Not the 'perps' or the victim. I am not going to defend these church people involved in this.
I can understand why the family would be concerned and want to do anything to help their child. The rate of STDs in the gay community, especially males, is dangerously high. So much so that the CDC has issued warnings. I think it's funny how parents will worry about their children getting hurt playing football, but turn a blind eye to the dangers of homosexuality and safe sex.
Safe sex has dangers?
Lol sorry that was supposed to be unprotected sex. Either way, safe sex could still be very dangerous ;)
Yes-- that's why its referred to as safe!
Just keep these three gems of wisdom in mind:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Bliss.
(Repeat several times a day. And of course Go To Church. Read Bible. Carry an AK-47 or equivalent with you at all times. And you will be trotected from Evil!!!)
I figured it was a mistake in wording. That is why I asked.
An old girlfriend sprained her ankle on, "dismount" once.
HA!
If you had younger girlfriends, there wouldn't be as many sprains. Jes' sayin' ...
He could end up getting kinky in traction.
Her foot caught the edge of the bed frame and rolled her ankle. Not a big deal. It was a LONG time ago, I think she was in her early 20's, my age at the time.
Beyond funny actually-- its hysterically funny! Rolling On the Floor funny!
Especially when you consider the fact that while God-fearing Christian heterosexuals will never get STDS-- almost the entire gay population is infested with these horrendous diseases.
(Not surprising as they have rejected the Lord-- and as everyone knows, homosexuals do not practice safe sex).
Gay males are at a much higher risk. That's not me saying that, that's the CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm
Yes, let's help our children by holding them down and abusing them to pray the gay away....fuck that family and that church.
No I think that was wrong. The family would have been better to get him in therapy where he could be given dedicated attention and they could rationalize why he thinks he needs to be with other men. He must have had some kind of traumatic experience in his life to confuse him in that way. Leaving things like that untreated could lead to a very troubled life.
Therapy DOES NOT WORK...if you are gay you are gay, it's not a choice.
Sure, gay people CHOOSE to be gay with all the back lash and bullshit they have to deal with s/
Therapy??? To rationalize why he thinks he needs to be with other men?
I didn't realize people still thought this way
It's not normal. People try to normalize it, but it is not normal in nature. Society and experiences in life have a huge impact on people's sexual preference. Just like people in the trans communities. Many on them lose their desires as they get older and express regret for having underwent treatment. Maybe if their parents had tried to intervene they would not have destroyed their life at such a young age. A study done by the New Atlantis Journal called "Sexuality and Gender: Fidings from the biological Psychological and social sciences" found that many people changed their sexual and gender preferences as they got older.
It is normal, but some people can't handle the ick factor and try to use religious bullshit to hurt others.
Actually it is. Given people (and other animals) are born with various sexual orientations (including homosexuality) it is quite natural to be homosexual. You would not consider left-handedness (about 10%), red-hair (about 2%), etc. to be unnatural so why homosexuality (about 4+%)?
Realistically we all are born with traits and features that will be a minority. That does not make said traits and features unnatural. Would you consider geniuses like Einstein or Newton or da Vinci to be unnatural?
I'm not using religion here at all. Normal is what happens most of the time. Right? If not, than what metric are you basing "Normal" off of? Do you know what percentage of our population is gay? About 5%. I don't see how you can say that's normal. Seems like people normally prefer the opposite sex.
Yes people write to push their agendas.
( link )
Do you know anyone with green eyes (2%)? Are they abnormal? Are their eyes unnatural?
The new atlantis journal is not politically affiliated.
I did not suggest they were. Agendas are not limited to politics.
I myself have green eyes. No, they are not normal. Most people tend to have brown eyes. You seem to think "not normal" means bad. It literally just means its not normal. Im sorry if you struggle to understand that term. Natural is another story. Green eyes are natural, homosexuality is still up for discussion in my eyes. Show me a gene or genetic trait that makes someone homosexual. Until then its just something people choose for some reason or the other. Biologically we are designed to have sex with the opposite sex. That is what nature had in mind
Well then clear up your position. Do you consider homosexuality to be bad? Is it something that should be 'corrected'?
I consider it to be "bad", not from a moral or religious stanpoint, but from a societal standpoint. As i pointed out earlier they tend to spread more STDs plus they are biologically unable to produce naturally. Birthrates in western countries are already too low to encourage relationships that are unable to naturally reproduce.
The world is overpopulated as it is.
Then why all this talk about normal / natural if your point is really sociological?
Any practice that leads to STDs should use proper protection methods.
What should homosexuals do about this?
Are you arguing that sexual orientation is a choice? If so, please choose to be gay for 30 minutes. Explain to me how you pulled that off. A heterosexual choosing to be homosexual is as impossible as a homosexual choosing to heterosexual. If you cannot imagine yourself choosing to have sex with another man (presuming your gender) they why do you think homosexuals have some special power over their orientation?
It would be real nice if people would just come right and say it plainly instead of beating around the bush
... and then apply reason to see why homosexuals are no more capable of changing their orientation than are heterosexuals.
Oh well, gay people aren't going to change because you think they are bad and btw they can add to the birth rate via surrogate or artificial insemination.
So infertile people, women who have reached menopause, etc. shouldn't be encouraged to enter into relationships?
The last thing the Earth needs is more people.
Are your "Green eyes" envious ?
If you're anti - gay, cheer the fck up.
I am not gay, but that doesn't necessarily make me unhappy.
You, and those like you, 'Green eyed' that is, are different than others, just like gay people are different. WE R ALL DIFFERENT
thank G-D, or some other Spaghetti monster with a sausage link for Patti, don't you think...that is a rhetorical question, no reply required or desired, but i'm happy you have found a cause, just because, are you ?
I have pissed off many people with logic on this matter for some reason: To those that believe that sexuality is a choice, I stand firmly behind my belief that those same people are bisexual. For someone to think it's a choice, they must walk down the street, see a guy and think "wow ... I'd totally like a taste of that!" As they continue walking down the street, they see a woman and think "I'd totally tap that." I don't have a choice. I wish I did because I think I cut out 50% of the population with whom I would enjoy some time, but I don't have a choice. I crush on smart, funny, quick women, but I don't think of them sexually. If a person believes it's a choice, then they're bisexual. I say they should celebrate their ability to choose!! Huzzah! You're bi! Embrace the gay in them, I tell them.
i do; think of them sexually
i don;t ; happen to believe it's a choice
bisexual; don't wish to be discriminatory, but i apparently, have no choice, as em' i like being met by women in the middle, as where we meat, while my bread is buttered on both sides, yet discreet
now
have no inclination for a male menage le trois sensation , but thats not my, or a, choice cause i ain't bi in it or tryin it
and that IS what i choose
i don't know what 'Huzzah' means, but it reminds me of Hezbollah, and thats not good, nor does it give me wood
.
'Embrace the gay in them.' two women, Damn straight i ain't gay, but have NO problem , coming, between them !
And I have always found yours to be an excellent argument. Funny how people ignore that and continue on mumbling 'it is still a choice'.
Forgive me, but are you new to these type of discussions on Newstalkers? I ask because I am sure you can be caught up speedily. I'd just like to get a sense of how far back to begin, if you care to do so.
As a homosexual who is Christian, (I will share this disclaimer) I am going to go out on the edge of branch here and offer this visual: The same way sexual attraction works in you; the same way sexual attraction encompasses your spirit, is the same way sexual attraction works in every other individual's life. Only methods are are varied and differentiated. There is much to think on it that.
Solution: Heterosexual should keep having more and more sex. Maybe the government can encourage it with a 'family' holiday or 'family day a week' set of programs.
Maybe you should think of homosexuals as nature's birth control. Here's a kicker: All babies come from heterosexual activity. Oh-oh. Heterosexuals make everything you see in organic life possible! Including, homosexuals.
A small but needed clarification may need dropping into everybody's or some of our 'spirits' accordingly. Homosexuals can/do on occasion have meaningful relations with women - some resulting in children. In my younger days I did more than a few times. No children (that I know of stateside or abroad.) However, those activities were more "mechanical," or otherwise "manipulated" with me as a participant. Frankly, my mind and spirit was not "in to it." But the acts and any resultant outcomes can confuse onlookers about intent.
Carry on. . . . (Smile.)
Thank you, dear TG! We will get more out of these types of discussions if EVERYBODY who is 'tapping dancing' just lay it all out there plainly! These rooms are largely anonymous anyway! "To thy ownself be true."
Well that's pretty interesting from several angles.
A The record of homosexual activities, particularly of men, goes back 5,000 years in writing and works of art.
B As you noted elsewhere, some people do change as they grow older, I know several men who divorced their wives after the kids grew up and moved on, so those men could turn around and marry their boyfriend.
C If "nature" ( I assume you mean evolution ) had reproduction in mind, the "trait" would have been eliminated by natural selection millions of years ago. As it is, not even a millennia of global abuse, punishment and murder can eliminate this "trait".
D Ergo, as the great salesman Bill Porter said about his cerebal palsy, "God doesn't make mistakes..."
Not...necessarily (lol). Think about it....
is that a turkey baster/and/or test tube reference ?
Either/or
Wrong! Homosexuality has been observed in nature, including mammals. And the APA does not classify homosexuality as a disorder, abnormal, ect.. so your statement is both ignorant and erroneous.
Why should he go into therapy at all? The heart wants what the heart wants. Many great men and women in history were gay. We celebrate their accomplishments and don't ask....why didn't they get help. I am reminded of a line from Billy Crystal from an old show called SOAP.
Man - Are you a practicing homosexual?
Jodie (Billy Crystal) - "I don't have to practice. I am very good at it already."
Utter nonsense. ALL moral decisions are a choice. using your logical fallacy, everyone is both a murderer and a nonmurderer, or a thief and a non thief at the same time.
[deleted]
So you chose to be straight because you thought it was the moral thing to do?
Well then I applaud you for resisting your natural urges and choosing to be straight. You are a hero of Christian morality for resisting the desire to kiss and make love to other bearded bears and men you've lusted after all your life. You are to be celebrated for your willingness to suffer through sex with the apparently undesirable females so that you can support human procreation regardless of how you feel about them. To simply refuse to listen to your feelings about who you were attracted to as a young man and to choose to do the right thing, the moral thing, must have been so difficult. /s
I "choose" (your words) to be straight because it's how God created men and women and to do otherwise is to rebel against God. The same way that God created us to not murder each other just because we are attracted to the notion of getting rid of someone we don't like.
What a piece of nonsense- no one should be applauded for simply living naturally as God created us to live (and NO ONE was created homosexual).
the rest of your comments are so ludicrous as to offend anyone of a ratiional mind.
as defined by God. Jesus is God and is the Truth as He stated.
I don't damn anyone. People damn themselves when they rebel against God.
I have not called for punishing anyone in this life for how they behave including the sin of homosexual behavior.
You do realize that you are basically saying you could choose to be gay yet don't because it is against your religion.
God supposedly created man in his own image so that would include gays.
And, what about the women who are gay?
Good one! You know what I mean - (male sperm and female egg, a "mama" and a "papa"). LOL!. In the words of Samantha Stevens: "Well."
That's purely your own personal opinion and carries no weight with anyone else. Unless you were born gay you can't really speak for those who were or say they don't exist even though so many have come out admitting this was how they felt since before they can remember and that it wasn't any sort of conscious choice, exactly how straight people talk about how they knew they were straight, they just were.
So the long and short of it is that you and millions of other believers have yet to prove anyone was created let alone created straight. To claim the moral high ground you must first empirically prove your God exists and is the true God and that you know what that God thinks is good and bad. Until then you're speaking for yourself, no different than the rantings of some nut in an asylum who thinks he's Abraham Lincoln.
My comment was a sarcastic take on your claim that all moral decisions were a "choice". Obviously, who a person chooses to be in a relationship with is a choice, but their sexual orientation was not. I was just assuming that if you believe it was a choice, then might those have been your feelings that you had to "choose" to decline, to "choose" to be straight because some ancient book told you that's what an invisible wizard in the sky thinks is moral. Of course, I'm sure the truth is you never even gave a thought to being anything but straight because that's how you were born, just like those who aren't born straight, they just are what they are. Being gay should be viewed no differently than being left handed, blue eyed or of any different skin color. Discriminating, hating, persecuting and attacking those born gay is really just more a reaction to an irrational fear of something "other" than yourself, no different than race based prejudice. And just like the widespread race based discrimination and hate in the past, many religious conservatives try and use their faith as an excuse to justify their hate.
God did not create anyone as a homosexual. God doesn't create that which He condemns and forbids.
What did God tell you about humans judging each other's morality ?
god created gay people to help us determine the difference, by their words and deeds, between true believers and hypocritical born again scum.
to judge righteously
Yet there are MILLIONS of them. If God created all, he created homosexuals too. Deal with it.
They don't exist. It's nothing more than an excuse to act without morals, then they can tell themselves that God forgave them. And is there a limit on how often they can do this? No. They can be, "born again" multiple times a day if need be which means that being, "born again" is completely worthless.
On this we can agree given that it's proven fact that god didn't create anyone (that whole evolution silliness)
If you're wearing clothing made with differing fabrics, that's an abomination. It seems you trim your beard. Abomination. Go to Red Lobster? Abomination!
Hope no one does the deed with their wives while it's her time of the month ... cuz you'll be going straight to hell if you do. Abomination!
By the way ... menstruation jokes are not funny! Period!
.
Exactly. These folks most likely did not have much of a conscience to begin with.
The most harmful aspect of all of this "forgiveness" is the demand that their victims, who they have robbed, raped, molested, or harmed in some way, AND society have to "forgive" them. Blanket demands, of this caliber, are not acceptable.
Oh. And I suppose if I told you I had colon surgery, you'd respond with:
;
:
³And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
⁴They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
⁵Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
⁶This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
⁷So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Moral compass isn't derived from religion, its derived from primordial instinct.
... and from societal evolution. Societies evolve and instill mores and values into the next generation.
Exactly! Good to read you! I actually do read you more than I I've logged in to reply. Sometimes its weeks or even months between when I do a flyover. Busy year, crazy year. Hoping to exhale a wee bit again one day soon.
As long as you are enjoying your career all is good. Best to you Robin!
I do love my career, but my age old saying is:
"Some days, real estate!"
Probably applies to most professions.
Please take unsubstantiated fake 'studies' by pseudo-science 'journals' elsewhere.
Touche! 😜
Bingo. Well said and 100% spot on.
What are the dangers of homosexuality?
Skid marks on the sheets ?
Well, plenty of straight people have that same issue!
My sheets are "Clean".
How's yours ?
I'm exit only
Lots of straight people engage in anal sex.
Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex.
Is that like "Lots of folks aren't insured" ?
What is "Lots" anyway !
"Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. "
Are you sure ?
I've seen movies dontchyaknow.
"Some" guys just "Slap and Tickle" ?
Which parts of
Lots of straight people engage in anal sex
Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex
Didn't you understand?
Both !
I NEED details.
Were they rated G
for GAY ?
For "Got Mine" !
i agree, too much info, and not just from , it is me
True.
There is no need to belabor the point, It is Me. Some homosexuals do not care for anal sex, even find it gross, while others adore the act of 'pleasuring' another person in that manner. It is similar in heterosexuals. Some homosexuals do not care for wearing leather chaps without pants—even in private.
It depends on the individuals. Indeed, when one individual's intimate nature is not met by another person's intimate nature - they move on. . . .
'Ok one time but I needed the money.'
That was funny MUVA.
Why is it too much info.? It's true.
It's not my cup of tea though.
Why do people even belabor the point of sex in any relationship? It can be part of a great relationship, definitely. But sex isn't everything. Sex isn't the only basis for a relationship either.
Did you ever see the movie In And Out. You would like the locker room scene about "in holes" and "out holes".
Can't say that I have.
I don't know, Tessylo, I really do not. Sex definitely is not the basis for relationship in aggressive capitalist society like ours!
It is a great movie with Kevin Klein and Tom Selleck.
Those that care what two (or more, I guess) consenting adults do behind closed doors is farrrrrrr too involved. The guy who makes a big deal out of it, Mr. Holier Than Thou, has gay porn in his trunk and in the back of his closet. When he peruses it while alone, he turns into Mr. Hornier Than Thou.
I reiterate. I have never known a sexually secure man to give an iota of shit what two guys do behind closed doors. Never ever.
Why cant the superstitious stay out of other people's bedroom and bodies?
They're not in to it.
I'm watching Farm Aid tonight and wondering why the hell I've spent years trying to help out farmers who always vote republican.! Yet we are to help the family farmers from our liberal artists to those who support organic farming. And wonder why socialism for trade wars is an acceptable form of socialismyey nothingelse is.. Their trade war plan is costing the real farmers their land. Stolen by the locust oligarchs whose whole intent is to rape the forests, and their farm lands in the name of jobs!
I want you to know, I've always loved your form of prose! You are a favorite of mine! Hail to the gods of Martinis and Tequila cures as living through this nightmare!
I love you! Am always so pleased to see/read you. I feel ya, man!
that's fine , of coarse and off course cause i permit without licensing, hunting for those i prey upon like images i never imagined, in a nation that has a mal-formed image ,
as due, to the acceptance of an image failing to be the exception, as our altered nation, is not
just mine, as it is stripped, to find the element that fell off the table, of contents,
not containing
enuff to quell at night, the daze, of
restricted
imagination
, or just a purple haze, but whiter
I don't know you "Jungkonservativ111, but you would have been safe to have ended here.
Barring any spiritual 'power' to control sexual desire and drive, normally all males have high sex drives (as I understand it). So when you tell homosexuals that they should not cull their sexual attraction and desire and activities, because it is "better for them" I am not sure you do these men/boys-women/girls a good service.
Has it ever crossed your mind that the way you feel about your sexual attraction/desire/ and activities is close to the same for every other passionate person?
Homosexuals come out of a sub-culture which relatively recently got strong support in the latter portion of the 20th century leading into this one. What homosexuals have a long track record of is forced debauchery. It became a hybrid for of status and longing for what one could never get: a normal life.
It will take centuries (or longer) to 'mainstream' an entire subculture which must unlearn a great many 'rituals' and whatever works to get you through life. Today's homosexuals, those not on a spiritual journey, are a slow build, 'Work in progress.'
Peace.
Where the heck are these people going to church ?
I've gone to church off and on for over 40 years, and not once have I ever seen what get's reported.
Find a New church for gosh sakes ! Sheeeeesh !
So it's the victim's fault for going to that church??
Could be !
Of course it is, Silly!
So you're blaming the victim... Wow.
People have legs and feet for a reason. Either for "Standing Around" and taking it, "Walking Away", or "Getting the Hell outa there by running" !
Sounds like this person just laid down and "Something" seems to have happened to him..... "I’m crying, and the Holy Spirit just comes through me ."
Now, what was it about that Blame thing again ?
Perhaps you should read the article. Also, it's a fucking church, not a Fight Club. If you can't feel safe in a church, you can't really feel safe anywhere I guess.
Utimately, it will be there fault if they continue to go. The church is either "settled" or "conflicted" on his/their manner of living. The only thing that should have happened in that meeting (as it stood) were the membership board should have explained why their association with the church was ending. Maybe supply a referral to another amenable (faith alone) church in the community. Keep their hands to themselves, however!
He adored the pastoral team, too. So he had/has affection for those people.
I did !
"Also, it's a fucking church, not a Fight Club."
Weird people are weird people, no matter where they are.
I doubt he knew about their hidden agenda until it was too late.
Exactly.
It's called grooming.
Hi NV-Robin6! In what sense is church 'grooming'? I ask this question, because many people, even so when holding authority positions and they get something in their doctrines wrong, are desperately trying to be decent people. A caveat: I can not apply that false prophets, false teacher, and false laypersons who are in "it" for what the Bible labels, "filthy lucre."
They always do!
How in the world does a flock turn their backs when facts are presented to them? Every day. By eery major religious leader?
Hey there CB, grooming is a word for predation. Predatory actions. In other words, let us indoctrinate you so we can bully you, beat you, abuse you into our view of righteousness.
I realize this isn't the intent by most churches or most church leaders. It was with this one.
I don't follow your meaning, sorry. Don't take this the wrong way, but by 'eery' do you mean, "every"? (We are new to each other online sharing. Give it a minute.)
I am familiar with the term, 'grooming.' It has a 'history' in the homosexual community going a long way back. "Indoctrination" does too - coming from atheist community about religious people.
(Thank you for being on topic, I am trying to get back to it myself!)
This church in my opinion, may have been trying to encourage and support a parent or two behind the scenes (speculation on my part) and got in a 'situation' that got out of hand. The leaders lost control in church, a place people go expecting to find prayer, a sermon, and peace.
I don't fair well typing from my phone. Auto complete has a mind of it's own.
Organized religion is a cancer on humanity.
I know many Christians who go to places of the world where people suffer, and they give their time and money and put themselves at risk to help those people. They go to provide medicine, help with construction projects, and teaching not just the gospel but education in general. How many homosexual organizations are there that show that type of altruism? All you do is focus on the negative when the same can be done on any group.
As this article proves, "not all that glitters is gold".
How many homosexual organizations are there out there that go door to door asking people to be gay? Works both ways. I used to get bible beaters on my porch twice a week telling me I will burn in a lake of fire if I don't go their church.
The problem I can see with your comment is gay people are not really a group.
They are everyday people living their lives and just want to be treated like everyone else.
Most LBGT orgs spend their time fighting for equal rights and/or making lives better through understanding and acceptance.
I haven't had one in a while. Apparently, word gets around that my dog will pee on their shoes. Or anybody's shoes, really.
But I went for a walk at lunch today, and a Jehovah's Witness had an "informational" kiosk set up in front of our courthouse. I was talking on my cell as I walked, so she left me alone, fortunately.
I just went full monty on the last group of church ladies, (2 older gals), they didn't come back. That was.....4 months ago?
Too bad you didn't have the dog with you
Why? My house my property my rules. Nothing illegal about being naked i my own home. Thats forgetting the two no trespassing signs these two ladies walked by in the first place.
Often they are only willing to do that if they get to preach and try to brainwash people.
Think of how many people were killed by missionaries who spread disease, not giving a crap about that as long as they could push their religion.
i njoy Sabbath at max my old stereo will push
94.5 DECIBELS
and the ole Klipsch handle it well
.
Bible Thumpers, not so much
I spoke too soon. Some stopped by yesterday morning. I'm fairly sure the ones here bring their kids with them so that they won't be yelled at. And this woman actually pissed me off a bit, so I considered being rude, but I wasn't.
She asked if I'd like for them to come in and share some reading from the Bible with me. I said no, thanks. "You're not interested in our message, or you're not interested in the Bible!?", said in a tone that implied that it would be awful if I weren't interested in the Bible. I wanted to tell her that it was stupid to assume somebody in an overwhelmingly Christian area didn't have access to a Bible, and insulting to assume that that same person couldn't read, but I just said "Neither, thanks." and shut the door.
The dog was in his kennel, so no shoes were harmed.
They can be fairly aggressive in delivering their message. I tried for years to be polite and do what you did, just tell them that I am not interested and even after I told them, (politely), to not come back, they did anyway. That's why I decided to do what I did and It worked. A friend of mine bought a pentagram and hung it on his door, that worked too.
Parishioner: Please God. Make my son straight.
God: Bitch, please! I got starving children, people murdering, people torturing, people thieving, people raping, people dying of cancer, people killing for sport, and all sorts of diseases and deaths from other other shit. Don't waste my time asking me to fix something that ain't broken!
Not to mention, Giggles needs a haircut and I gotta make sure that bitch keeps her appointment tonite!
I'm too busy to turn a gay man straight, dammit!
you should look into call waiting
room for unhappy gay people, considering eating and or blowing , the opposite sex,
cause when some women be bad, they deserve a good lickin,
while , when some men be bad, that just Blows
Best posting yet.
It's all their own faults, dontcha know! Free will and al .
Lots happening in here (good!). I will be 'off and on' here all day!
I too, will be "in and out", lol.
Do we need any more proof that the "church" is a cancer?
The true Church that follows the Bible alone and keeps the commandments of Jesus is the instrument that leads to the ultimate cure for all the ills that affect us.
There is no such thing as a church that follows the bible. Not. A. Single. One. And arent the "commandments" are OT? Yes, they are.
The only "cure" is the removal of these terrorist centers and use the building and property for something that will benefit the neighborhoods they infest.