Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If one is "born gay" how do you explain ex-gays?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by McCoy View Post
    I think what he was saying was that there are 613 OT commands in the Mosaic code-- approximately 600 of which are either silently disregarded or else conveniently explained away as unbinding for today's Christians, by apologists. All of which makes the practice of dumpster diving discarded Levitical purity codes and using them against homosexuals, to be all the more comical.
    Let me ask you this: If some laws in the Mosaic Law were only intended for a certain group of people, and had no moral value whatsoever, but the remaining laws did have moral value, and were not symbolic nor arbitrary, would that be a good way to divide the laws that apply today from the laws that no longer apply?

    The verses in which Yahweh personally sanctions slavery (both the debt slavery of fellow Hebrews and the chattel slavery of foreigners
    ... who were conquered in battle...

    Leaving that bit out makes a huge difference.

    Slavery based on kidnapping (the kind we had in America) is immoral, because kidnapping is a capital crime.

    Indentured servitude (to pay off a debt or as punishment for a crime) and to deter warfare are perfectly acceptable reasons for slavery, though, I'm not sure if we could justifiably implement the latter today (based on Biblical principles).

    ), were believed to be valid, by the majority of scripture's readers, for roughly 1700 + years. Paul also reinforced the ancient practice, giving a straight-thru line for the institution that stretches across both Testaments.

    In 2019, virtually no serious Christians on the planet think slavery is a moral practice and the concept is universally regarded as evil-- in stark contrast to the words of Yahweh.How did this happen? How did something so universally approved by holy text for several millennia, come to eventually be regarded in civilized countries as evil? The answer is simple: culture.
    And?

    What's your point?

    Enlightenment ideas that took hold in 18th century Western culture slowly changed the majority view in the Church and in the world. It wasn't easy. And large numbers of Christians fought against the change vehemently... and even violently. But in the end, culture-- not Scripture-- transformed the way we view morality.
    So therefore... something.... Again, what's the point you're trying to make?

    Because morality is not determined by the majority...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
      Let me ask you this: If some laws in the Mosaic Law were only intended for a certain group of people, and had no moral value whatsoever, but the remaining laws did have moral value, and were not symbolic nor arbitrary, would that be a good way to divide the laws that apply today from the laws that no longer apply?
      We would have to agree on what "moral value" means. Does moral value essentially just entail human well-being-- i.e. over-arching concepts of harm reduction and fairness?

      ... who were conquered in battle...

      Leaving that bit out makes a huge difference.

      Slavery based on kidnapping (the kind we had in America) is immoral, because kidnapping is a capital crime.

      Indentured servitude (to pay off a debt or as punishment for a crime) and to deter warfare are perfectly acceptable reasons for slavery, though, I'm not sure if we could justifiably implement the latter today (based on Biblical principles).
      No, it makes no difference whatsoever, morally-speaking.

      The particulars of how slaves were obtained is of no consequence to the underlying moral objection that owning and collecting other human beings-- as one would inanimate objects like property-- is evil. Owning other human beings and being able to beat them at will (up to the point of death) and to own their wives and offspring and be able to pass them on like property to future generations, is a moral evil. Yahweh sanctioned this in the pages of Scripture.

      As for the allegedly more "humane" indentured servitude/debt slavery of fellow Hebrews, this is also wickedness. A Hebrew slave who was indentured as single man, but who was allowed to marry and have children while a slave, lost ALL the rights to the wife and children at the end of his six year term (Exodus 21:4). The slaveowner kept the wife and children as his own property. If the slave found this disagreeable, the only recourse was to become a slave for life to the master (v. 5,6). If you think this is either moral or humane, your moral compass needs a serious recalibration.

      Again these edicts are alleged to have been given in the first person by Yahweh. Regardless of whether one believes that or not, the point I've made is that no sincere Christians believe such an act or concept of human ownership would be considered to be remotely moral today.

      And?

      What's your point?
      The primary justifications, historically-speaking, for slavery in the West, have been Biblical. Western, post-Enlightenment civilization slowly adopted a different moral position on slavery due to shifting, extrabiblical ideas that became prevalent in the culture. Culture changed our moral view of slavery-- not the Bible. The fact that some important dissenting Christians championed those cultural ideas, doesn't alter the fact that those anti-slavery ideas came from an extrabiblical source and superseded the clear teaching and commands in the Old and New Testaments .

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by ok doser View Post

        and its estimated that eight to ten times that percentage find that they fancy and/or fall in love with a child


        so where you live pedophiles rights are respected?
        so you equate same sex couples as pedophiles eh? That's obtuse, really it is. The majority of sex offenders are hetero, surely?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by eider View Post
          No I am not saying anything about repentance or doom, Derf, I am simply saying that a considerable % of people find that they fancy and/or fall in love with a person of their own sex.
          Or an animal or a child or a brother or sister or my neighbor's wife. Why stop at homosexuals? [Jde 1:18 KJV] How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

          Essentially you are saying that God doesn't (or didn't) know what He was talking about, and that you (or they) should be allowed to determine what is right by your/their own feelings. Adam and Eve had the same issue, and it doomed billions of people to death. They were short sighted. You're too short-sighted to be having this conversation, apparently.
          Your ideas of doom are yours, but when you 'in any way' get involved with the decisions of others about their own sexuality or identity then that does need to be stopped by good-reason and true-love. Where I live we lock up people who interfere with others or incite trouble for those with deffering sexual identities.
          And why is that a more moral position than the other? Because you like it better?

          If you want to follow the OT laws as written, then follow them but don't add your own clauses. And the 106 sacrificial/ceremonial laws were removed by Jesus himself (I will have mercy and not sacrifice) and so the 507 others remain, very few of which you seem to bother about.... ?
          Can you name some of those laws you think I don't bother about? If not, then your statement is quite presumptuous. That's why I used the minor one of the parapet on the roof. It has a valid application today--having just built a house, I can understand why it's necessary (and why decks have to have railings). This is matter of loving ones neighbor, including my own family and posterity, as MOST of the laws in the OT were. [Gal 5:14 KJV] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

          If others were about loving one's neighbor, then it seems likely that the homosexual restrictions were also about loving one's neighbor, just like the ones where you weren't supposed to use deadly force on a thief in the daytime, but it was ok at night.
          [Exo 22:2 NKJV] "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, [there shall be] no guilt for his bloodshed.
          [Exo 22:3 NKJV] "If the sun has risen on him, [there shall be] guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.


          God didn't tell them why it was ok at night and not in daylight, He just gave them the command. You don't know why God commanded that homosexuals be put to death, but He did. And it was probably an act of loving one's neighbor.

          I'd love to discuss this aspect further, if you want.
          It's no good quoting Paul at me...... a man who never married in his lifetime as far as we know and who was clearly a bit thorny about sex, relationships etc.
          What did Jesus say? Eh?
          What did Jesus tell Paul? If you're rejecting Paul on this issue, then you're rejecting his authority in the establishment of the gentile part of the church, which means you're rejecting any other option but following the Old Testament law. I'm not sure how that helps your case.

          But if you insist, should we look at Revelation? :
          [Lev 20:13 KJV] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
          [Rev 21:8 KJV] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

          Do you want to go see who was speaking in Rev 21:8?
          No you don't have that correct. Good Christians, all Christians (not just your particular Creed or following) can by all means offer help to other people, but when it becomes interfering, oppressive, bigoted, subjective etc it needs to be stopped by the people and the laws of their lands where possible.
          Same-sex couples, partners and spouses need to be respected for their love and left alone, but some extremists can't leave 'em alone, it seems.
          Not if it hurts them. And "hurt" should be concerned about the more long-term hurt of hell, rather than a short-term hurt of not getting to love whoever I want to. If our inaction causes them to be doomed to hell forever, then we are morally at fault, too.
          [Eze 33:6 NKJV] 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.'

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by McCoy View Post

            I think what he was saying was that there are 613 OT commands in the Mosaic code-- approximately 600 of which are either silently disregarded or else conveniently explained away by apologists as unbinding for today's Christians. All of which makes the practice of dumpster-diving discarded Levitical purity codes and using them against homosexuals, to be all the more hypocritical and disingenuous.

            The verses in which Yahweh personally sanctions slavery (both the debt slavery of fellow Hebrews and the chattel slavery of foreigners), were believed to be valid, by the majority of scripture's readers, for roughly 1700 + years. Paul also reinforced the ancient practice, giving a straight-thru line for the institution that stretches across both Testaments.

            In 2019, virtually no serious Christians on the planet think slavery is a moral practice and the concept is universally regarded as evil-- in stark contrast to the words of Yahweh.How did this happen? How did something so universally approved by holy text for several millennia, come to eventually be regarded in civilized countries as evil? The answer is simple: culture.

            Enlightenment ideas that took hold in 18th century Western culture slowly changed the majority view in the Church and in the world. It wasn't easy. And large numbers of Christians fought against the change vehemently... and even violently. But in the end, culture-- not Scripture-- transformed the way we view morality. The same is slowly becoming true for homosexuality as well.
            So you think enlightenment ideas are better, morally, than what God told the people of Israel to do?

            Can you point out some of these 600-something laws that are disregarded or explained away, and who it is that is doing the disregarding and explaining?

            Here are some options to choose from:
            [Lev 19:13 NKJV] 'You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob [him]. The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning.
            [Lev 19:15 NKJV] 'You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.
            [Lev 19:16 NKJV] 'You shall not go about [as] a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I [am] the LORD.
            [Deu 4:42 NKJV] that the manslayer might flee there, who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without having hated him in time past, and that by fleeing to one of these cities he might live:
            [Deu 5:20 NKJV] 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


            You're probably right, we SHOULD be bearing false witness against a neighbor. We SHOULD be executing people for unintentional manslaughter. We SHOULD be cheating and robbing our neighbors. We SHOULD be doing injustice in judgment and being partial to the poor and/or the mighty, and we SHOULDN'T be righteous in judgment.

            But here's another you might be right about. It seems to be saying that to rebuke your neighbor for his sin is how you can NOT hate your neighbor. I don't remember anyone thinking that way recently. Maybe we need to go back and mine the Levitical law for valid and useful laws.
            [Lev 19:17 NKJV] 'You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              So you think enlightenment ideas are better, morally, than what God told the people of Israel to do?
              I never said that.

              What I said was that there are times in which culture informs our view of morality. The debate about slavery was one such issue in the West.

              The Bible said one thing very clearly (I.e. that owning human beings was not only wholly acceptable societal behavior, but it was also a sign of divine favor). After a period of cultural enlightenment some 200- 300 years ago, people slowly began to question the morality of owning other people as property, and eventually the practice came to be viewed as a universal moral evil.

              Human beings did not reach this conclusion by studying the Bible. The Mosaic texts themselves tell us something quite the opposite. The moral conclusion about slavery that is universally regarded today, came to us from extrabiblical sources.

              Last edited by McCoy; January 24, 2020, 03:41 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by McCoy View Post

                I never said that.

                What I said was that there are times in which culture informs our view of morality. The debate about slavery was one such issue in the West.

                The Bible said one thing very clearly (I.e. that owning human beings was not only wholly acceptable societal behavior, but it was also a sign of divine favor). After a period of cultural enlightenment some 200- 300 years ago, people slowly began to question the morality of owning other people as property, and eventually the practice came to be viewed as a universal moral evil.

                Human beings did not reach this conclusion by studying the Bible. The Mosaic texts themselves tell us something quite the opposite. The moral conclusion about slavery that is universally regarded today, came to us from extrabiblical sources.
                Some interesting quotes from Wikipedia:
                Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement.

                Abolitionist writings, such as "A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument" (1845) by George Bourne, and "God Against Slavery" (1857) by George B. Cheever, used the Bible, logic and reason extensively in contending against the institution of slavery, and in particular the chattel form of it as seen in the South.

                Other Protestant missionaries of the Great Awakening initially opposed slavery in the South, but by the early decades of the 19th century, many Baptist and Methodist preachers in the South had come to an accommodation with it in order to evangelize the farmers and workers.

                The first one denies your assertion that culture drove Christian thought and rather affirms that Christian thought drove culture.
                The second one denies your assertion that the bible clearly was in favor of slavery.
                That last one is especially interesting as it confirms one part of your assertion and denies another. I.e., it confirms that culture drives practice (or at least acceptance of practice), but the direction of the driving was in that case AWAY from the more moral position.

                And I chose Wikipedia on purpose because it is not usually particularly aligned with Christian thought in its articles.

                Keeping those quotes in mind, especially that third one, is it possible that you and other pro-homosexuality Christians have conformed more to cultural pressures than transforming culture to biblical morals by the renewing of your minds?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by eider View Post

                  so you equate same sex couples as pedophiles eh? That's obtuse, really it is. The majority of sex offenders are hetero, surely?
                  You're the one that proposed the standard of "true-love trumps all else":
                  Originally posted by eider View Post
                  ...but when you 'in any way' get involved with the decisions of others about their own sexuality or identity then that does need to be stopped by good-reason and true-love.
                  What if my true love and sexual identity ideas involves murdering my partner in the midst of intercourse? How far do you go before something having to do with "true-love" might also be deemed illegal and punishable?

                  You seem to hesitate at pedophilia, but why? What about bestiality? How far do we let our lustful passions take us before we rein them in?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by eider View Post

                    so you equate same sex couples as pedophiles eh? That's obtuse, really it is. The majority of sex offenders are hetero, surely?
                    what rationale do you have for denying the pedophile and his/her love child their consensual, non-harmful relationship?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by McCoy View Post
                      After a period of cultural enlightenment some 200- 300 years ago, people slowly began to question the morality of owning other people as property, and eventually the practice came to be viewed as a universal moral evil.

                      Human beings did not reach this conclusion by studying the Bible. The Mosaic texts themselves tell us something quite the opposite. The moral conclusion about slavery that is universally regarded today, came to us from extrabiblical sources.

                      nope


                      educate your dumb self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...ch_and_slavery

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                        I vote you the most boring display of the Dunning-Kruger Effect on this forum. You calling others “dumb” while mic-dropping an accompanying Wiki link (that I doubt very seriously you’ve read in full), is a signal to everyone reading that you are about to spurt out on a topic you don’t know anything about.

                        Shouldn’t you be out with your incel pals taking in a Foghat tribute band or something?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by McCoy View Post
                          You calling others “dumb” ...

                          only the retarded folk who spew out nonsense

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            You're the one that proposed the standard of "true-love trumps all else":


                            What if my true love and sexual identity ideas involves murdering my partner in the midst of intercourse? How far do you go before something having to do with "true-love" might also be deemed illegal and punishable?
                            If that's the case, then you would need help.
                            And to think that homosexuality and transexuality is linked to the above is just weird.

                            You seem to hesitate at pedophilia, but why? What about bestiality? How far do we let our lustful passions take us before we rein them in?
                            Speak for yourself.
                            Don't include me in worries about yourself. There's no 'our' there.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by ok doser View Post

                              what rationale do you have for denying the pedophile and his/her love child their consensual, non-harmful relationship?
                              What has the above to do with same-sex relationships?
                              You seem to be fascinated by pedophilia. Honestly, that's weird.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by eider View Post

                                What has the above to do with same-sex relationships?
                                You seem to be fascinated by pedophilia. Honestly, that's weird.
                                Same sex relationships is perversion.

                                Why do people have to have sexual relations with their same kind?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X