A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 12:07 AM
A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 11:10 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 03:48 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  A person can be gay and be a Christian. He simply cannot participate in homosexual acts which are sinful.

First let me indulge my inner grammarian here. The phrase "homosexual acts which are sinful" is ambiguous, since it's not clear whether you intend a restrictive or non-restrictive interpretation.

NON-RESTRICTIVE: "homosexual acts, which are sinful" (Note the comma!) That is, homosexual acts, all of which are sinful.

RESTRICTIVE: "homosexual acts that are sinful" That is, some homosexual acts are sinful, some are not. You're just talking about the sinful ones.

I assume you intended the non-restrictive interpretation.

So . . . let me ask you a question I've always wanted to ask a Christian.

What about blow jobs?

Those are rather common (although some would say not common enough) in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts.

Is oral sex sinful? Is it OK if it's between a husband and wife? Does God think a female mouth on a penis is fine and dandy but a male mouth is a no-no? (I assume Catholics are against any kind of sex that doesn't allow the possibility of procreation, right?)

Just wondering.

Oh! Or, could a celibate man choose to identify himself as gay so he can have workout buddies and drinking partners? He wouldn't be committing homosexual acts and it's possible he could even develop a nice sense of fashion. That person wouldn't be sinning, right? I mean, not that I've ever thought about it. Ok, so I've thought about it, but not more than 10 or 12 times.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
22-08-2012, 12:34 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Or could one admit that the deity got it wrong?

Seriously. What kind of half assed insecure God cares about what his monkey creations get up to between themselves?

What kind of nitwit super being cares that I, the monkey being, think that he doesn't exist? If he does exist, how absurd, to get upset because without any evidence I refuse to believe.

I think it's the *purveyors of bullshit* who care. Any God worth following would never be so ridiculous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
22-08-2012, 12:45 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 10:10 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  God created humans despite the fact that he knew they would fall, their free will would result ultimate good which is a relationship with good. God didn't want robots.
I know someone who disagrees with that. Angel

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Vosur's post
22-08-2012, 01:10 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
You know what? When I started reading this thread, it was 16 pages... now who knows what it'll be when I'm finished, (hopefully still 19).

When (somebody, can't remember who first) brought up homosexuality I had a thought "This guy is going to say 'it's bad" or something like that... I was more or less correct in that guess. SO I have a question for you Mr. TrueReason.

You have made it abundantly clear that you dislike the act(s) of homosexuality and probably find them condemnable, due it their nature as a "sin", but have little to no problem with homosexuals themselves, so long as then do not partake in said acts, correct?

That made me wonder; "Does this guy also condemn people who have (and act on) a confectionery affinity toward shellfish?"

So that is ONE of the many questions I had, please go a head and riddle me this my fair automaton; Is eating shellfish a condemnable act?

(I know, it might seem pointlessly semantic but who the hell cares, I'm here now and I'm here for the lulz damnit!)

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
22-08-2012, 05:06 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Freewill is debunked. Google neuroscience and freewill. Didn't Jeebus teach these people how to use search engines ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-08-2012, 06:21 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 02:50 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 06:21 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So true reason... It's genocide wrong?

Killing a massive amount of INNOCENT people is wrong. The nations God commanded to be destroyed in the Old Testament was due to the evil in their midst.
A bit shouty there. Did I touch a nerve?

(21-08-2012 02:50 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  God will one day punish all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The nations of the OT we justly punished, and they honestly received a punishment that you , I , and everybody deserves.

So again, yes genocide is wrong because it is the murder of innocent people. As humans, we do not possess the authority to take life. God is the ultimate judge and therefore his punishment of those nations was justifiable.

So... do you believe that every person killed under the command of God was evil? For example, were the killed babies evil? Were the 5 year olds evil? Were the 8 year olds? The 11 year olds?

Were there no adults not consumed with evildoing? Were there no little old ladies free from evildoing?

(21-08-2012 02:50 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  I don't expect you accept this response, but that is the truth if God exists.

If God doesn't exist, then I don't know how I could say genocide is wrong.

Read back over your post. I think you'll find it's not me who has a problem saying genocide is wrong. If I read you right then genocide and murder are only wrong if the victim is innocent. What the Lord giveth the Lord taketh away and all that.

So if you were confident that the voice in your head is God's, would you comfortable with the morality of following his command to murder and to commit genocide?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
22-08-2012, 06:28 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Hi TR.
I know you still have lots of catching up to do with such a bombardment of so many pages of truths and reasons but here's another question for you...

What value to society will your future role afford?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
22-08-2012, 06:30 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 06:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Hi TR.
I know you still have lots of catching up to do with such a bombardment of so many pages of truths and reasons but here's another question for you...

What value to society will your future role afford?

I like the way you think on that one.. but it is dark waters you tread I fear. Does indoctrination count?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 06:54 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 06:30 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 06:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Hi TR.
I know you still have lots of catching up to do with such a bombardment of so many pages of truths and reasons but here's another question for you...

What value to society will your future role afford?

I like the way you think on that one.. but it is dark waters you tread I fear. Does indoctrination count?

That might be the outcome but what is the value?

We all know this one, I guess:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower"


So what is the value to society of polishing the chain?
What is the value to society of pushing that drug?

I want answers damnit!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 07:25 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 10:26 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 07:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  So, you believe in a type of conditional election or a type of synergy with God. You don't believe in unconditional election.

My problem with your view is that it places restrictions on God. God is subjugated to free will... moreover, a human's free will. I think this is an affront to his omnipotence. If God is God then nothing can ever influence anything that has happened or will ever happen. We can have any type of choice even down to the smallest minutia. If we did, then God wouldn't be all powerful.

I'm not sure if you fully understand the concept of election and the magnitude of reformed theology. You say you believe in election and free will, which, I'm assuming you see election only as far as salvation goes and not in other things. Like I said above, you limit God's powers and subjugated God to our choices and actions no matter how small.

Man is not responsible for the fall. Man was already created as a sinful being. If man was created perfect, then he could not sin. Perfection cannot choose imperfection, if it could, then it was never perfect. Even if you say man had the propensity to sin, then that means that man wasn't perfect and was created sinful because of the aforementioned.

As far as the evil thing:

Lamentations 3:38
38 From the mouth of the Most High Go not forth the evils and the good.

Isaiah 45:7
7 Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'

These are the most accurate translations of the verses. Look at the Hebrew as well. There is no getting around the word. Modern translations have toned down the language, unfortunately.

Evil is a "thing" as it says God is creating it.

I believe in unconditional election and and irresistable grace. God in his mercy and grace chooses some out of no merit of their own to be the elect. Though their hearts are totally depraved and blind to the truth, God makes the blind to see and they are then able to see the truth of the Gospel and make the inevitable CHOICE to accept it.

Our differences reside in our understanding of irresistability. I see the Gospel as an irresistable offer whereas you might see the acceptance of the Gospel as being based on the irresistable force of the Holy Spirit. I have no problem with disagreeing, but that's simply my conclusion.

I disagree with your conclusion that the ability to choose to do wrong is an imperfection. Perfection is what will result at the return of Christ and the establishment of new kingdom when we will still be able to choose wrong, but simply won't choose it. I think that's the whole point. God's purpose was to create beings who have a free will to choose right or wrong, but who will choose to love and follow him. This will be brought to completion with the return of Christ.

I believe that in the context of these verses, the evil that is being spoken of is not of the ontological sort, but rather of the calamitous sort. If this is not the case, it would appear that Habbakuk 1:13 is a blatant contradiction "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor."

We can discuss this further if you'd like, but I'm spread kind of thin.

We'll bury the election thing for now. I'm burnt out on it anyway. Smile I know how you feel.

Real quickly though, you took Habbakuk 1:13 out of context and you didn't cite the entire verse. Read part B. Habbakuk is asking God questions, and in fact, asks why God approves evil.

Verse 13 in its entirety:

(NASB)
Your eyes are too pure to approve evil,
And You can not look on wickedness with favor.
Why do You look with favor
On those who deal treacherously?
Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up
Those more righteous than they?


(YLT)
Purer of eyes than to behold evil, To look on perverseness Thou art not able, Why dost Thou behold the treacherous? Thou keepest silent when the wicked Doth swallow the more righteous than he,

Bending verses for personal context doesn't work here.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: