- This topic has 883 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
WJ
Just to illustrate what I mean by moving goalposts, here are the questions you have asked in the last two pages. Each time you have replied denying that an answer was given, then you have proceeded to ask A DIFFERENT question while giving the impression that your new question had not PREVIOUSLY been answered:
Quote Do you see Judeo Christians killing gays? Quote When you can give me a NT example from which the word “Christians” was first spoken of the followers of Christ that commited any violence on humanity then you would have an argument. (That is a defacto question)
Quote Now show me where Jesus who introduced the New Covenant incited his followers to commit violence in any form against humanity? Then show us if any of his followers carried out any acts of violence! So, did you want examples of Jews or christians killing gays? You got three.
When you asked that question, it seems you MEANT to ask about where the NT shows that christians commited violence. One of the answers was that Paul blinded a man, amongst many other examples of violence in the NT which remain unanswered by your special exegesis.
OR, maybe ALL ALONG, you actually wanted to ask about JESUS requiring his followers to commit violence.
By the time you have finished redefining your question, you will be asking where exactly in Romans it is that Moses required Abraham to slay his nephew.
Deafening, that christian goalpost moving of yours.
By the way, don't you mean a drunk giving lessons on sobriety? It would be perfectly possible to be a teetotal paedophile, which would remove the meaning from the metaphor.
Stuart
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2009,20:34) Hi All Here is a site I ran across that spells out the gay agenda pretty well. Guess what, it is a gay site!
The Gay Agenda
…..
Later in the piece:Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will, be taken out of context, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions.
WJ,
In this thread, you have been arguing that the homosexual agenda is to “convert all others to homosexuality”. While you have not done an admirable job of backing this assertion, could I not also say that it is the agenda of the Christians (at least on this site) to condemn homosexuals?
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 09 2009,13:27) kejonn said: Quote Look at the homosexual threads. thethinker tries his best to get others to believe that homosexuals = predators, I said that homosexuality has predators. I was correcting Stu who has his head in the sand. Then I gave some historical facts to back it up.
Show where I said or implied that homosexuals = predators.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 06 2009,10:38) To our secularist friends: History proves and people today can testify that homosexuals are predators. Get your heads out of the sand! thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2009,00:27) There you have it, your morals are not derived from the same source as Judeo Christians. Ours are derived from the scriptures, hense “Moralphobe”, “Moralphobic” or “Moralphobia”, to all those who hate us. So make up your own words for your own derived sources for morality! “Moralphobe” would only work for someone who was opposed of all morals, not just a certain set derived from some religious text. Morality is dynamic, and changes with society. If this was not so, we would still have slavery, outright persecution of certain minorities, women not allowed to vote, etc.
Quote Does it make you feel better by showing so much love for your fellow man for calling them “desert nomads and ignorant fisherman”? Those “fellow men” are long dead. I do not refer to you, I refer to the authors of your holy book. That is exactly what they were.
Quote You only wish you were smart enough to right a book or books that would remain the most popular read throughout the world for 3300 years. Why would I want to do that? I am no authority, nor do I pretend to be. I would not like to write a set of rules to be statically followed for years to come regardless of how they would become outdated.
Quote So your point is circular, because you have the right to derive your morals from where you like and believe what you want and to even speak against the morals of Judeo Christians. Not all Christians adhere to their holy book as others do. In fact, very few in actuality do. This site just seems to draw a few legalists, who would like to live by biblical laws if they could. That is fine, as long as they confine this behavior to their own sects and do not try to force others to live by them.
Quote So again, how is it that you accuse Christians of hate for doing the same thing you are? Because it is obvious, from these few threads, that there are some Christians on here who do appear to despise homosexuals. I have already shown, in his own words, where thinker believes all homosexuals are predators. You seem to have a similar bent by starting threads that indicate a large percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles.
I oppose some of your views WJ, not you as a fellow human. If I can get you to stop and ponder your beliefs, you may end up a better citizen for it.
Quote So you believe that it is moral like they do to have sex with the same sex? I don't pretend to hold a moral highground. What people do in their own bedrooms as consenting adults is none of my business. If they are not infringing upon my own rights, I don't have a position. While I prefer the opposite sex, I do not hold it against them for preferring the same.
Quote Ok, but you are still making my point because, like you and them, we are preaching “what we believe” to be moral, we like you have that right, unless like the “moralphobic” group of gays and their cheer leaders, you wish to silence us for what we believe and force us to just shut up or else be called haters of men! Seems hypocritical to me. No, I want you to stop interfering with people for what they prefer to do as adults. It really is no different than the view on interracial relationships only a few decades ago. That was seen as “wrong” back then to (and still is to some extent).
If two men love each other, how does that hurt you? If it doesn't, why do you care?
Quote They have their own label and now I have mine! Moralphobe!
Thanks for listening!
WJ
Too bad your label is not appropriate. Again, I oppose some of your morals, not all morals. Perhaps I should be labeled as a “WJ's Religiously Derived Moralphobe”Stu said:
Quote The OT is clear, and Jesus said he did not come to cancel the law, and Paul says in Timothy that it is all good to teach, and in Romans that homosexuals are deserving of death. Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant law and in fulfilling it the the old covenant law passed away. There is no new covenant grounds for killing homosexuals or for stoning adulteresses or sabbath breakers etc.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 18 2009,04:58) Stu said: Quote The OT is clear, and Jesus said he did not come to cancel the law, and Paul says in Timothy that it is all good to teach, and in Romans that homosexuals are deserving of death. Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant law and in fulfilling it the the old covenant law passed away. There is no new covenant grounds for killing homosexuals or for stoning adulteresses or sabbath breakers etc.
thinker
So gays are just worthy of death then, they are not actually required to be killed by christians? This law was moved from command to threat of being killed. By god? What mechanism does god use for killing these days? If Paul really meant that, then what exactly did he mean to happen to gays? We are not talking about the threat of a lake of fire here, it says death. Another shifting of the goal posts.Maybe rather than telling me, you should tell christian homophobes that they should not be persecuting people then: in too many cases it is not the christian wielding the stone, but the homosexual wielding his or her own overdose. Did gentle Jesus imply that you should be more subtle about causing the deaths of others?
What about he who is without sin cast the first stone? There was one there that day in the presence of the adulteress, that your mythology says was without sin…
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,09:17) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2009,20:34) Hi All Here is a site I ran across that spells out the gay agenda pretty well. Guess what, it is a gay site!
The Gay Agenda
…..
Later in the piece:Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will, be taken out of context, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions.
Hi KejonnOf course, his disclosure completely disqualifies everything that he previously wrote from any opposing view and if you have one then you are a bigot and a homophobe, right?
How convenient!
WJ
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,09:22) WJ, In this thread, you have been arguing that the homosexual agenda is to “convert all others to homosexuality”. While you have not done an admirable job of backing this assertion, could I not also say that it is the agenda of the Christians (at least on this site) to condemn homosexuals?
Hi KejonnI have not condemned anyone, unless you think that condemning what someone does is the same thing?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2009,07:44) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,09:22) WJ, In this thread, you have been arguing that the homosexual agenda is to “convert all others to homosexuality”. While you have not done an admirable job of backing this assertion, could I not also say that it is the agenda of the Christians (at least on this site) to condemn homosexuals?
Hi KejonnI have not condemned anyone, unless you think that condemning what someone does is the same thing?
Have you ripped out Deuteronomy and Leviticus then? Or are you willing to state that you disagree with their contents regarding the condemnation of gays?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 18 2009,07:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2009,07:44) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,09:22) WJ, In this thread, you have been arguing that the homosexual agenda is to “convert all others to homosexuality”. While you have not done an admirable job of backing this assertion, could I not also say that it is the agenda of the Christians (at least on this site) to condemn homosexuals?
Hi KejonnI have not condemned anyone, unless you think that condemning what someone does is the same thing?
Have you ripped out Deuteronomy and Leviticus then? Or are you willing to state that you disagree with their contents regarding the condemnation of gays?Stuart
WJ,
Ignore this. Stu knows that Christians do not revert back to the old covenant. He is just being a trouble maker.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 17 2009,16:12) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 18 2009,07:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2009,07:44) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,09:22) WJ, In this thread, you have been arguing that the homosexual agenda is to “convert all others to homosexuality”. While you have not done an admirable job of backing this assertion, could I not also say that it is the agenda of the Christians (at least on this site) to condemn homosexuals?
Hi KejonnI have not condemned anyone, unless you think that condemning what someone does is the same thing?
Have you ripped out Deuteronomy and Leviticus then? Or are you willing to state that you disagree with their contents regarding the condemnation of gays?Stuart
WJ,
Ignore this. Stu knows that Christians do not revert back to the old covenant. He is just being a trouble maker.thinker
Hi JackI agree. He has been told over and over that we are under the New Covenant now.
I guess it is like a little child, they like to provoke each other!
WJ
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 18 2009,04:58) Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant law and in fulfilling it the the old covenant law passed away. thinker
I don't understand thinker, Then why Mat 5:18 say “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.”Has heaven and earth passed?
And Luke 15:17 tells us that “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”
Evidently Jesus and the apostles didn't think the law was ever going to pass away. Not one tiny little bit of it.
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 18 2009,10:28) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 18 2009,04:58) Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant law and in fulfilling it the the old covenant law passed away. thinker
I don't understand thinker, Then why Mat 5:18 say “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.”Has heaven and earth passed?
And Luke 15:17 tells us that “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”
Evidently Jesus and the apostles didn't think the law was ever going to pass away. Not one tiny little bit of it.
Tim
Heaven and earth was a Hebrew merism designating Israel.Quote “For verily I say unto you, till Israel pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” Israel passed away when Christ fulfilled the law.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 17 2009,18:32) Heaven and earth was a Hebrew merism designating Israel. Quote “For verily I say unto you, till Israel pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” Israel passed away when Christ fulfilled the law.
thinker
Care to back your assertion?Paladin, WJ
So, let me get this right: your religion requires you NOT to kill people, yet you will not reject the part of the book from which you preach that USED to require your ancient counterparts to kill people, and is still used by people today who call themselves christian (not TrueChristiansTM, obviously) as justification for their violence.
What is the status of Leviticus and Deuteronomy for you? Are they quaint memories of the good old days or a rejected Jewish history? Whichever it is, why so coy? Is this something to be embarrassed about?
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 18 2009,15:26) Why the talk of a “new covenant”? For Gentiles, there was no “old covenant”.
For atheists it is like watching children arguing over what arbitrary rules they will make to allow some kids into the treehouse club but not others.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 18 2009,01:37) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 18 2009,15:26) Why the talk of a “new covenant”? For Gentiles, there was no “old covenant”.
For atheists it is like watching children arguing over what arbitrary rules they will make to allow some kids into the treehouse club but not others.Stuart
STUSo what are you doing here then?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
