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

[ok doser]

Eider is running a classic Alinsky game here - he's trolling, which is why I'm not interested in being polite to him - he's holding his opponent to a standard he doesn't intend to meet, which is why he's been so reluctant to get into specifics, and which is why he's so reluctant to answer direct questions and instead prefers to avoid, ignore and obfuscate

his (concealed) argument is that if you oppose homosexuality based on OT law AND don't follow all the rest of OT law, you're a hypocrite

put that clearly, it's easy to refute, which is why Eider won't put it that clearly.

 

[God's Truth]

You clearly do not understand what a question-mark means.


This is question time.,
All you have to do is read each law, selected at random, and tell me whether or not you think it still applies to Christians. Easy.
Just three laws from one book.
Here we go............ can't wait for your ansdwers.

1. Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Yes.... or No?

2. Deuteronomy {22:5} The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Yes........ or No?

3. Deuteronomy {23:24} When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put [any] in thy vessel.
Yes...... or No?

Let's start there. Those were selected by turning to a page and placing a finger on the page. Easy.



So why write jibes at a political party on a thread about Gsys? That's just obtuse, imo.



In which case, leave mention of political parties out of it, why don't you?

What does the old law say to do with poor homosexuals?

 

[eider]

Or the lack of one, apparently...

I think those apply to everybody--not just Christians. So put me down for 3 "yes's". I don't see the need to do away with laws that help us know how to love our neighbors as ourselves.

There we are, so you would support a law which obligates wealthier people to support poorer people. That's good.
Personally I don't think that there should be any laws which make people wear 'gender' clothing, or have 'gender' haircuts etc. There are countries in the World where the religious police will drag you out of the shop (or wherever) and give you a beating if you don't fit the correct 'gender' appearance. We don't really want that back, but if you like it then you do.
The law which allows folks to wander in to their neighbours yards and scrump their fruit etc, but forbids them to take it away in 'carriers' is a bit didgy for some countries because of gun-nuts who live to kill trespassers. I think that laws against intrusion or vagrancy laws could save lives there if the land is awash with idiot gun-nut landowners. But that's just me.

Ok, so it looks as if you just accepted all those.

I can tell you this. I don't have a vineyard, nor do I grow crops. I don't cross-dress, nor have I allowed my children to do so, though it is sometimes difficult to discern some types of clothing as male or female.

That first one is somewhat subjective. I have a brother that isn't very responsible with his money. I haven't seen him starving, so I haven't been very eager to open my hand to him. Same with my immediate neighbors. They all seem to have what they need. I have some friends that have been out of work, and we have tried to help them in some ways. We've given food and clothing (like jackets and gloves and blankets) to some standing on street corners, and sometimes they appreciate it, sometimes they don't.

Re. the second one: Do you think it's a concern if Christians cross-dress? Do you think it's possible for everybody either in the time of Deuteronomy or today to avoid cross-dressing? Do you think it's a good idea to avoid such? Why or why not?

If it's too obtuse for you, you can ignore.

Look..... you gave those laws a Yes, so don't start wandering off in to 'maybes' or 'Nos', OK?

Here's just one more and I didn't pick it, it got brought up here already. What the uneducated have called the 'shrimp' law, with mention of catfish as well. Where I live our national and local governments do INSTRUCT all visitors to our sea shores 'DO NOT EAT THE SHELLFISH!' Now why do you think that is? For instance, do you think it's a 'religious' law? One way to find out why the Mosaic Laws banned such foods is easy to discover simply by researching deadly killer sicknesses such as 'shellfish poison paralysis' or the 'accumulation of poisons in omnivore/carnivore creatures'.

Me? I break that law above once a fortnight because I walk out on our local tideline and collect a feed of oysters, but I have learned to boil them for a few minutes in order to reduce the high risk of sickness which is associated with them. If they are to be eaten live then they must be kept under ultr-violet light for three days beforehand. I guess that the Jews didn't know about such things back then.

And that is why LAWS CAN ADAPT. And that is why more and more Christians do accept freedom of dress-codes, freedom of sexuality, freedom of sexual choice, same sex marriage and partnerships, female priests and Bishops, etc etc. Where I live many Christians accept all of those conditions, as do their churches.

If you like I'll random select three more and stick them up later today, but I do assure you that NONE of them are 'religious' laws, they were tough laws for the production of a sickness free, healthy, cohesive, very successful nation of people to not only survive their aggressive neighbours but to be much much stronger than any of them. But where time has enabled people to adapt them, just as Jesus adapted the sacrificial, ceremonial and (probably) dress-code laws. Easy. One just has to focus upon Jesus rather than all the rest of it, I guess.

 

[ok doser]

There we are, so you would support a law which obligates wealthier people to support poorer people.

Eider's inherent dishonesty (as evidenced above) is another reason I call him a troll

Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

Thee doesn't specify wealthy or wealthier people

see: the widow and her mite


additionally, it does not say "support"


typical of Eider, it's not worth going past the first sentence

 

[Derf]

There we are, so you would support a law which obligates wealthier people to support poorer people. That's good.
Personally I don't think that there should be any laws which make people wear 'gender' clothing, or have 'gender' haircuts etc. There are countries in the World where the religious police will drag you out of the shop (or wherever) and give you a beating if you don't fit the correct 'gender' appearance. We don't really want that back, but if you like it then you do.
The law which allows folks to wander in to their neighbours yards and scrump their fruit etc, but forbids them to take it away in 'carriers' is a bit didgy for some countries because of gun-nuts who live to kill trespassers. I think that laws against intrusion or vagrancy laws could save lives there if the land is awash with idiot gun-nut landowners. But that's just me.

Ok, so it looks as if you just accepted all those.




Look..... you gave those laws a Yes, so don't start wandering off in to 'maybes' or 'Nos', OK?

Here's just one more and I didn't pick it, it got brought up here already. What the uneducated have called the 'shrimp' law, with mention of catfish as well. Where I live our national and local governments do INSTRUCT all visitors to our sea shores 'DO NOT EAT THE SHELLFISH!' Now why do you think that is? For instance, do you think it's a 'religious' law? One way to find out why the Mosaic Laws banned such foods is easy to discover simply by researching deadly killer sicknesses such as 'shellfish poison paralysis' or the 'accumulation of poisons in omnivore/carnivore creatures'.

Me? I break that law above once a fortnight because I walk out on our local tideline and collect a feed of oysters, but I have learned to boil them for a few minutes in order to reduce the high risk of sickness which is associated with them. If they are to be eaten live then they must be kept under ultr-violet light for three days beforehand. I guess that the Jews didn't know about such things back then.

And that is why LAWS CAN ADAPT. And that is why more and more Christians do accept freedom of dress-codes, freedom of sexuality, freedom of sexual choice, same sex marriage and partnerships, female priests and Bishops, etc etc. Where I live many Christians accept all of those conditions, as do their churches.

If you like I'll random select three more and stick them up later today, but I do assure you that NONE of them are 'religious' laws, they were tough laws for the production of a sickness free, healthy, cohesive, very successful nation of people to not only survive their aggressive neighbours but to be much much stronger than any of them. But where time has enabled people to adapt them, just as Jesus adapted the sacrificial, ceremonial and (probably) dress-code laws. Easy. One just has to focus upon Jesus rather than all the rest of it, I guess.

You're slow, but you eventually agreed that our government can and should be able to set temporary bans, or require extra protective measures on things that are dangerous to the population--like a command to boil water before drinking, after, say, a sewage spill. I'm not disagreeing with you at all on the likelihood and necessity of laws in some instances and not in others. But just like the government sometimes knows things that the general populace doesn't, and therefore might have occasion to command something that doesn't make sense to the rest of us, so does God. Thanks for circling back around to say what I said in one of my early posts to you.

I think it's funny that you both complain about my "maybes" and "nos", and do exactly the same thing by saying that sometimes laws can change based on the needs of the society at the time. I am in agreement with you. Not that ALL laws are of that kind, but that SOME are. You aren't suggesting, are you, that murder is ok now? You aren't suggesting, are you, that bearing false witness is ok now? How would we know which can be cast off as no longer necessary and which must persevere? Maybe we should look at the New Testament to see if those laws still should apply to us. Many do, if they fit with our situations. If I have a vineyard, then people should be able to walk into it and eat from it--until the poor begin to take advantage of the generosity and overwhelm to ability of the vineyard to produce for the owner (me, in this example).That's the principle given by Paul: "If they won't work, neither let them eat." 2 Thes 3:10. And reason is given in the following verses:
[2Th 3:11 KJV] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
[2Th 3:12 KJV] Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

These commands--1) to share food with the poor, and 2) to work for your food--go together. They illustrate principles, by which we can determine the spirit of the laws, and not just the letter. For instance, commanding that someone eat their own bread does not mean they don't have to eat their own grapes or meat. "Bread" illustrates the principle of all kinds of food.

In the same way, opening ones hands to the poor illustrates general generosity, NOT just giving them what is in ones hands at the time, lest we circumvent the law by never carrying anything in our hands. Nor does the principle move beyond the immediate vicinity of the target of the law. The principle doesn't seem to extend to opening other people's hands. I shouldn't have the right to walk into your house, or accost you on the street, and demand that you feed the poor 2000 miles away. You can offer. But the law doesn't demand it.

Has the need for that second one gone away, now that we have unisex clothing? First, tell me the principle of the law, and then we can discuss whether it is no longer needed.

The same might or might not be necessary for the shrimp law you mentioned. Jesus was less concerned about what we eat as He was about what we do.
[Mar 7:19 NKJV] "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?"
[Mar 7:20 NKJV] And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.
[Mar 7:21 NKJV] "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
[Mar 7:22 NKJV] "thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
[Mar 7:23 NKJV] "All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

Jesus didn't seem to care so much about shrimp. But He did care about "evil thoughts", "adulteries", "fornications", and "lewdness". These include sexual propensities, and Jesus said they come from within and they defile a man. Now we have a few principles we can deal with:
1. That there are some sexual sins that defile a man
2. That it is bad to defile one's self
3. That we can't just "follow our hearts", because these things proceed from our hearts, if we let them
4. That sexual sin is compared to murder, blasphemy, theft, deceit, and pride (ever hear of Gay "Pride"?)

Does that inform us about transvestism? It seems like it. If Deuteronomy calls it an abomination, is that just because of a temporary harm it might do to the people? Or is it a person trying to attract the same sex and lure someone into another abomination, homosexuality? And even if a man feels like he was born with a desire to wear women's clothing and wear makeup like a woman, that doesn't mean it is a feeling that should be indulged, but rather fought against, lest he defile himself.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

And even if a man feels like he was born with a desire to wear women's clothing and wear makeup like a woman, that doesn't mean it is a feeling that should be indulged, but rather fought against, lest he defile himself.

Good point, at the crux of the matter.

This is exactly the case. Likewise, as to homosexuality, the argument we've heard, clear up to Obama, is the argument of being with the person you love, and/or the homosexual can't help what he or she is. (Note that thinking on an emotional level is a lower level of thinking, as a preacher once said of emotions ruling our minds, "God does not do His deepest work, in our shallowest parts.") I, for one, reject the concept what we lust after is anything but a very lowbrow sort of love, if at all, most Christians knowing eros can occur in a whorehouse, that Godly love is agape. But if two people were united in a shared love of bank robbery, or heroin, you get the point, the behavior would still be sinful.

There's a false moral relativism, especially in the liberal mind we're seeing, that seeks to overturn norms and the times, whether faith-based beliefs against perversions or simply what has been considered normal and honorable the past thousands of years. If morality is relative, there really is no law. One can well argue for pedophiles still being in the closet of a society that doesn't understand them, by the same arguments for homosexuality being normative. Where does it all end? At serial killers, that lust to murder? Is this what we want to teach our children? Have you noticed the strong push to allow children to decide their sex? Condemn gender pronouns? Nobody could make this stuff up.

A heterosexual person can have great lust for the opposite sex, and the mandates of the Christian faith are to control our lusts, not to commit adultery, and to flee fornication. That somebody has strong lust does not ever make following through, into one's behavior, not sinful. As a matter of fact, the notions of "if it feels good, do it", or "do what thou wilt" are thoroughly Satanic and in rebellion against Almighty God.

Interesting, on this idea we should change the fabric of the times and laws of the ages, redefine marriage and the like? This is the playbook of the antichrist:

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The devil is always about deception and perverting righteousness, his best trick doing so, disguised as an angel of light.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Would like to add, all Christians know, being driven by lust, by sin(s), is not acceptable in the faith, is rather evil, again, the ways of death, both physically unhealthy and damning:

Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[ok doser]

One can well argue for pedophiles still being in the closet of a society that doesn't understand them, by the same arguments for homosexuality being normative.

I've argued the same here for years, and usually drawn the fevered (emotional) oppositional response
from some formerly active members who support homosexuality, one of whom had a great reputation here for being a kind and gentle follower of Christ, at least among those other members here who were rather dimwitted

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I've argued the same here for years, and usually drawn the fevered (emotional) oppositional response
from some formerly active members who support homosexuality, one of whom had a great reputation here for being a kind and gentle follower of Christ, at least among those other members here who were rather dimwitted

It's a problem in Christendom, those that drink the Kool Aid of false gospels, that, in fact, reject the whole counsel of Almighty God, as laid down by His Spirit in scripture.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [not simply the words we like] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

It should be noted there are the kind and gentle in all the antichrist, false religions, also. There have been some pedophile liberation rumblings in the news, of late, but mainly from campus crackpots, thus far.

We all know the devil is most religious, has flooded the world with false religions, that he, clear back to the Garden, told the truth, but only to a point. Half truths, mixed with lies, are just that, half the truth, and, from the pulpit, this is the devil's gospel.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit.

God isn't a "half and half" God:

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

There's that old saying, with reference to picking and choosing what of God you'll accept or reject, how much Satan you'll signup for: "You can't be a little pregnant."

 

[ok doser]

There have been some pedophile liberation rumblings in the news, of late, but mainly from campus crackpots, thus far.

one of the major drivers in the move to reassign homosexuality from a disorder to a "variant of normal" in the APA's version of what now is the DSM-5, was the lie, from proponents of homosexuality, that homosexuals make up 10% of the population. Now that they're out of the closet, it appears that the number is closer to 2%.

Why this is important wrt pedophilia is that the numbers put forward by non-affiliated sources indicate a pedophile population of greater than 15%, with estimates ranging up to 20%. Good data is very hard to come by for reasons that should be obvious, and thus it's impossible to calculate any numbers with anything like precision. But clearly, pedophilia has the stronger argument for being a "variant of normal". And that's not including hebophilia.

There's that old saying, with reference to picking and choosing what of God you'll accept or reject, how much Satan you'll signup for: "You can't be a little pregnant."

:chuckle:

:thumb:


When I'm not banned from Facebook, I often mix it up with some hardcore feminist groups regarding "reproductive rights" - your saying above reminds me of them, their insistence on treating the unborn child as something other than human and alive and deserving of protection - an evil position that reminds me you can't be a little evil

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

one of the major drivers in the move to reassign homosexuality from a disorder to a "variant of normal" in the APA's version of what now is the DSM-5, was the lie, from proponents of homosexuality, that homosexuals make up 10% of the population. Now that they're out of the closet, it appears that the number is closer to 2%.

Why this is important wrt pedophilia is that the numbers put forward by non-affiliated sources indicate a pedophile population of greater than 15%, with estimates ranging up to 20%. Good data is very hard to come by for reasons that should be obvious, and thus it's impossible to calculate any numbers with anything like precision. But clearly, pedophilia has the stronger argument for being a "variant of normal". And that's not including hebophilia.



:chuckle:

:thumb:


When I'm not banned from Facebook, I often mix it up with some hardcore feminist groups regarding "reproductive rights" - your saying above reminds me of them, their insistence on treating the unborn child as something other than human and alive and deserving of protection - an evil position that reminds me you can't be a little evil

It really is hard to claim righteousness of character, and condone any evil, at the same time. A little criminal or a big criminal is still a criminal.

Something that so much dawned on me, in recent years, is how liberals are, as a group, homosexuals, in God's economy. You could say half the nation is homosexual, and here is why.

Romans 1 states that God has given reprobates over to a reprobate mind, citing homosexuality as a trait. In God's economy, similar as Christ taught of hate being murder and lust adultery, whether you commit the acts or not, one that champions things of the devil is a partaker in the evil, whether they directly participate in the behavior or not:

2 John 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

You wish homosexuality well, you advance a homosexual agenda, you ARE a participating homosexual, by God's standard. These are such very important verses, which even common law recognizes on a real level, such as one aiding a murderer, in any way, even post facto, is culpable, or the getaway driver also being a bank robber, if the guy inside murders somebody in the bank, the getaway guy also a murderer. Naturally, you couldn't say somebody enthusiastically saluting Hitler is not a "good" Nazi, and, being of Hitler's power base, is not, therefore, a culpable participant in Nazi crimes. If you took away the supporters, the likes of Hitler would have been nobodies, and should have been nobodies.

We have a situation where homosexuality is, in fact, an evil political agenda, to normalize homosexuality, and this just a start, as you mention. Somebody waving that homosexual flag is a participant in homosexuality. What I've found interesting of such scripture doctrines is how the liberals have gone off the deep end, terminally butthurt over Trump, deranged over Trump: they have been given over to a reprobate mind, can't stand a President that has been a good President, in many ways. They are overcome with paranoia, emotional wrecks often, delusions of, as if, Trump is coming to round Democrats up to concentration camps or something such, some sort of thinking that has them tied in knots, frantic and beside themselves. As you point out, only so many Democrats are homosexuals, but they, as a group, are reprobate of God, on various fronts. That is, they are given over to the same mind as the homosexual of Romans 1, veritably love homosexuality, Obama lighting up the White House rainbow. They all love homosexuality.

Given Romans 1, this is quite telling, of the traits of the reprobate mind. You could say it appears God has given the liberals over to crazy, to where they're abandoning any pretext of even having common sense. For instance, it's okay for Joe Biden to threaten, captured on video, brag about using his office to threaten Ukraine, if they don't fire a prosecutor investigating his son's corrupt company, yet impeachable for Trump to merely ask about such corruption? I would remind everybody the Vice President, Biden, was, verifiably, up to this blackmail, while in charge of Ukraine policy for the U.S. The liberals won't say boo to that? (Biden's son, that doesn't know squat about energy, is lavishly paid to be on the board of Burisma, and no liberal says boo?) This is hypocrisy gone full stupid, turned over to reprobates minds, I reckon. Or how about Obama denying Ukraine lethal aid, entirely, but impeachable Trump delayed it on national security grounds, heaven forbid anybody would claim Obama was, even more, a threat to national security and Ukraine? It's all full blown, are you out of your minds, idiocy, before our eyes.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Al Gore needs to do another documentary, An Inconvenient Group. It could even be the truth, this time. Well, don't hold your breath, though your breathing is melting the icecaps, that began melting thousands of years ago.

 

[eider]

You're slow, but you eventually agreed that our government can and should be able to set temporary bans, or require extra protective measures on things that are dangerous to the population--like a command to boil water before drinking, after, say, a sewage spill. I'm not disagreeing with you at all on the likelihood and necessity of laws in some instances and not in others. But just like the government sometimes knows things that the general populace doesn't, and therefore might have occasion to command something that doesn't make sense to the rest of us, so does God. Thanks for circling back around to say what I said in one of my early posts to you.

You're a great debater............ when you hold to a fixed point.

I think it's funny that you both complain about my "maybes" and "nos", and do exactly the same thing by saying that sometimes laws can change based on the needs of the society at the time. I am in agreement with you. Not that ALL laws are of that kind, but that SOME are.

Another 'stop' and 'go' . ........ let's go.....

You aren't suggesting, are you, that murder is ok now? You aren't suggesting, are you, that bearing false witness is ok now? How would we know which can be cast off as no longer necessary and which must persevere?

A Court decides whether a death was murder. Some killings are judged to be lawful. Please get to a point..........

Maybe we should look at the New Testament to see if those laws still should apply to us. Many do, if they fit with our situations. If I have a vineyard, then people should be able to walk into it and eat from it--until the poor begin to take advantage of the generosity and overwhelm to ability of the vineyard to produce for the owner (me, in this example).That's the principle given by Paul: "If they won't work, neither let them eat." 2 Thes 3:10. And reason is given in the following verses:

Ah........ Yes........ Paul. Please don't try and tie poverty to laziness. The poor are often disabled, or locked in to a tough financial situation which they cannot free themselves from. We're really talking about Gays, aren't we? To the point.........

These commands--1) to share food with the poor, and 2) to work for your food--go together. They illustrate principles, by which we can determine the spirit of the laws, and not just the letter. For instance, commanding that someone eat their own bread does not mean they don't have to eat their own grapes or meat. "Bread" illustrates the principle of all kinds of food.

Hey......... back to Gays..... yes?

In the same way, opening ones hands to the poor illustrates general generosity, NOT just giving them what is in ones hands at the time, lest we circumvent the law by never carrying anything in our hands. Nor does the principle move beyond the immediate vicinity of the target of the law. The principle doesn't seem to extend to opening other people's hands. I shouldn't have the right to walk into your house, or accost you on the street, and demand that you feed the poor 2000 miles away. You can offer. But the law doesn't demand it.

You're wrong there. The law DOES demand that you shall pay your taxes, and your Government decides who needs subsistence, benefits and care, not you. Back to gays, eh?

Has the need for that second one gone away, now that we have unisex clothing? First, tell me the principle of the law, and then we can discuss whether it is no longer needed.

The law? The first principle of most western laws is freedom.

The same might or might not be necessary for the shrimp law you mentioned. Jesus was less concerned about what we eat as He was about what we do.

You think that Jesus was careless about potential poisons, or sickness and health? He was replying to folks criticising him! Anyway, Paul tells you to avoid eatring blood meats........ do you? .... or am I wrong about that?

[Mar 7:21 NKJV] "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
[Mar 7:22 NKJV] "thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
[Mar 7:23 NKJV] "All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

Ah yes! At last you've interested me! ..... an evil eye was mentioned.
Honi Soit Qui Mali Pense. I have thought of that a few times as I have read comments (on this thread) about Gays being pedophiles, etc.

Jesus didn't seem to care so much about shrimp. But He did care about "evil thoughts", "adulteries", "fornications", and "lewdness". These include sexual propensities, and Jesus said they come from within and they defile a man. Now we have a few principles we can deal with:
1. That there are some sexual sins that defile a man
2. That it is bad to defile one's self
3. That we can't just "follow our hearts", because these things proceed from our hearts, if we let them
4. That sexual sin is compared to murder, blasphemy, theft, deceit, and pride (ever hear of Gay "Pride"?)

Sexual sin = to murder? Some religions do execute and/or flog sexual sins, for instance Sunni and Shia Islam does, and all based upon Abrahamic religion, I believe. Have you ever considered how close to Islam some of your tenets are? In Iran they crane-hang such convicted folks, so it takes a lot longer than a straight drop through a trap-door. And Iranians definitely don't go near any kind of dress that is outside the male/female dress codes, very like your own mind on these matters, I think. The Jehovah Witnesses are right there beside you on this one...... they cleeve to the Mosaic and Pauline Laws on this as well, so you're surrounded by the company of other religions about this. And Bahais have strict rules about gender coded haircuts and dress, and even effeminate behaviour in men is shunned. So, yes, I can't say I've never heard of these tenets before.

Does that inform us about transvestism? It seems like it. If Deuteronomy calls it an abomination, is that just because of a temporary harm it might do to the people? Or is it a person trying to attract the same sex and lure someone into another abomination, homosexuality? And even if a man feels like he was born with a desire to wear women's clothing and wear makeup like a woman, that doesn't mean it is a feeling that should be indulged, but rather fought against, lest he defile himself.

Yet another Nation has just legislated for freedom of sexual expression and relationships, it was on the news this last 24 hours......... I think it is Switzerland, but I don't remember.
That's the thing.......... you're losing the people on this, and since the West is all about democracy I think you're in for a long old haul........ I don't see how a minority of thought (even when supported by all those other religions) can win through on this.

 

[ok doser]

The law? The first principle of most western laws is freedom.

freedom to break the law?

I have read comments (on this thread) about Gays being pedophiles, etc.

Gays are pedophiles, at staggeringly disproportionate rates:

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders (in the homosexual population) against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Sorry :idunno:

Yet another Nation has just legislated for freedom of sexual expression and relationships ...

including pedophiles?

 

[Child of God]

Just curious.

They are Bi Sexual, and presented with the opportunity will again perform sex with the same sex..home another of the the same sex sex am them would they not join in.


What is the opposite of a homosexual?
Someone attracted to the Opposite sex.

Are they in relationships with with others of the Opposite Sex?

If their partner brought a person of their own sex would they join in?

Not a very Christian Topic.

Homosexuals never become like Anti Smokers.

If presented with an attractive opportunity to have have sex, they will.

 

[JudgeRightly]

They are Bi Sexual,

Based on what evidence?

and presented with the opportunity will again perform sex with the same sex..home another of the the same sex sex am them would they not join in.

Why do you assume they would?

What is the opposite of a homosexual?
Someone attracted to the Opposite sex.

Are they in relationships with with others of the Opposite Sex?

Many of them have married a person of the opposite sex, yes.

If their partner brought a person of their own sex would they join in?

Why do you assume their partner would ever do such a thing?

Not a very Christian Topic.

Sure it is.

Homosexuals never become like Anti Smokers.

Because you say so?

If presented with an attractive opportunity to have have sex, they will.

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

 

[Derf]

You're a great debater............ when you hold to a fixed point.

What you're not getting is that the points are related--having to do with a reliable standard for judging truth vs falsehood and right vs wrong.

A Court decides whether a death was murder. Some killings are judged to be lawful. Please get to a point..........

You can deflect all you want to, but I used the word "murder" on purpose--because you and I both know what it means, as you've demonstrated. Please try not to stray off point.

Ah........ Yes........ Paul. Please don't try and tie poverty to laziness. The poor are often disabled, or locked in to a tough financial situation which they cannot free themselves from. We're really talking about Gays, aren't we? To the point.........

See first point, above.

Hey......... back to Gays..... yes?

See first point above.

You're wrong there. The law DOES demand that you shall pay your taxes, and your Government decides who needs subsistence, benefits and care, not you. Back to gays, eh?

And who decides who is in our government? A government is made up of people--fallible people like you and me. Fallible people need a higher authority.

The law? The first principle of most western laws is freedom.

I can't say what "most" western laws are about, but OUR first principle in the United States is "life", then "liberty" (freedom). But even before that, we recognize "truths", which are "self-evident", that all are created equal (meaning that they are first created, and then recognized as equal under the law), and endowed by their Creator with rights that should not be taken away except under certain circumstances. And if that Creator is the one that endowed such rights, then that Creator is the only one that can specify how or when to take away those rights.

You think that Jesus was careless about potential poisons, or sickness and health? He was replying to folks criticising him! Anyway, Paul tells you to avoid eatring blood meats........ do you? .... or am I wrong about that?

Paul, or the other apostles? But no, I don't usually eat strangled meats. What's your point?

Ah yes! At last you've interested me! ..... an evil eye was mentioned.
Honi Soit Qui Mali Pense. I have thought of that a few times as I have read comments (on this thread) about Gays being pedophiles, etc.

Such does not really pertain. Pedophilia is a separate sin, but is useful in logically considering the sin of homosexuality, as it is closer to an extreme in sexual sin. Bestiality is possibly more extreme, but also possibly less odious in terms of harm to humans. Did you have a point to make about homosexual pedophilia?

Sexual sin = to murder?

Does that bother you? I didn't really say that, but what if I did? And what if Jesus' opinion, as I've demonstrated, was/is that both defile a man whether or not they are equal? Does defilement concern you? If you recognized an authority higher than yourself, and that authority said "don't defile yourself", would you be willing to hear the list of things you should avoid? Why or why not?

Some religions do execute and/or flog sexual sins, for instance Sunni and Shia Islam does, and all based upon Abrahamic religion, I believe. Have you ever considered how close to Islam some of your tenets are? In Iran they crane-hang such convicted folks, so it takes a lot longer than a straight drop through a trap-door. And Iranians definitely don't go near any kind of dress that is outside the male/female dress codes, very like your own mind on these matters, I think. The Jehovah Witnesses are right there beside you on this one...... they cleeve to the Mosaic and Pauline Laws on this as well, so you're surrounded by the company of other religions about this. And Bahais have strict rules about gender coded haircuts and dress, and even effeminate behaviour in men is shunned. So, yes, I can't say I've never heard of these tenets before.

Yet another Nation has just legislated for freedom of sexual expression and relationships, it was on the news this last 24 hours......... I think it is Switzerland, but I don't remember.
That's the thing.......... you're losing the people on this, and since the West is all about democracy I think you're in for a long old haul........ I don't see how a minority of thought (even when supported by all those other religions) can win through on this.

And you're suggesting that 51% agreement on something makes it right? What if that 51% were to go the other way for awhile? You'd be ok with executing homosexuals for a few years, and then find it odious again? Are you even aware of what you're saying here?

You've developed a standard of ethics that is wishy-washy, unstable, in another word unreliable, as any despicable trait today might be a desirable trait tomorrow. And vice versa. Imagine your greatest attribute, suddenly being made illegal on someone's whim. Imagine your neighbor's darkest sin, perhaps a lust for all of your possessions or cannibalism or whatever, suddenly elevated to a virtue, and you being his nearest victim (or recipient of his benevolent gifting--yum yum!).

 

[eider]

What you're not getting is that the points are related--having to do with a reliable standard for judging truth vs falsehood and right vs wrong.

You can deflect all you want to, but I used the word "murder" on purpose--because you and I both know what it means, as you've demonstrated. Please try not to stray off point.

See first point, above.

See first point above.

And who decides who is in our government? A government is made up of people--fallible people like you and me. Fallible people need a higher authority.

Yep. They need to have trust in those they vote for.
So vote for what you believe in ....... all you need is 51% and you're getting there.

I can't say what "most" western laws are about, but OUR first principle in the United States is "life", then "liberty" (freedom). But even before that, we recognize "truths", which are "self-evident", that all are created equal (meaning that they are first created, and then recognized as equal under the law), and endowed by their Creator with rights that should not be taken away except under certain circumstances. And if that Creator is the one that endowed such rights, then that Creator is the only one that can specify how or when to take away those rights.

See? Life and Liberty with Truths. At last you're coming to the realisation that the people decide about it and so far most western people are believing in Liberty opf sexual expression, orientation and relationships, and many churches are recognising that if you even think about it.

Paul, or the other apostles? But no, I don't usually eat strangled meats. What's your point?
Such does not really pertain. Pedophilia is a separate sin, but is useful in logically considering the sin of homosexuality, as it is closer to an extreme in sexual sin. Bestiality is possibly more extreme, but also possibly less odious in terms of harm to humans. Did you have a point to make about homosexual pedophilia?

I was just interested to see if you keep your laws, and 'usually do...' us a weak answer, don't you think?
And other members made points about pedophilia in connection with Gays, maybe even you (?) and so I responded.

Does that bother you? I didn't really say that, but what if I did? And what if Jesus' opinion, as I've demonstrated, was/is that both defile a man whether or not they are equal? Does defilement concern you? If you recognized an authority higher than yourself, and that authority said "don't defile yourself", would you be willing to hear the list of things you should avoid? Why or why not?

Christians have mostly discarded Mosaic Law unless repeated by Jesus. What he was strong about was love and understanding, or so I hear from many Christians.

And you're suggesting that 51% agreement on something makes it right? What if that 51% were to go the other way for awhile? You'd be ok with executing homosexuals for a few years, and then find it odious again? Are you even aware of what you're saying here?

You would need to wait............ if 51% of a population want to see public painful executions of gays or other LGBT folks then I expect that your tenets would be gaining popularity. Me? I'd be doing what I do now, keeping the accepted laws of the land that I live in, or I would move..... one or the otrher.

You've developed a standard of ethics that is wishy-washy, unstable, in another word unreliable, as any despicable trait today might be a desirable trait tomorrow. And vice versa. Imagine your greatest attribute, suddenly being made illegal on someone's whim. Imagine your neighbor's darkest sin, perhaps a lust for all of your possessions or cannibalism or whatever, suddenly elevated to a virtue, and you being his nearest victim (or recipient of his benevolent gifting--yum yum!).

Waffle can't help here.
You believe in what you believe in, and I would guess that you are so thoroughly imprinted to your mindset that nothing could change it.
Ergo your idea about my ethics is always going to be cranked in to your mindset, your agenda.

It's no good............. I think it's pointless to continue with this, don't you?
But to end on a high note for you, just remember all those other countries and religions that see LGBT folks just like you do; that must help, to know that you are not alone..........

 

[ok doser]

... most western people are believing in Liberty opf sexual expression, orientation and relationships ...

and when "most western people" (who are generally dumber than dirt) are persuaded to believe that pedophilia is harmless to the child, and that pedophiles are deserving of "Liberty of sexual expression, orientation and relationships", you'll be just as big a booster of pedophile rights as you are of homosexual rights

 

[Child of God]

Based on what evidence?



Why do you assume they would?



Many of them have married a person of the opposite sex, yes.



Why do you assume their partner would ever do such a thing?



Sure it is.



Because you say so?



What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Many fully homosexuals have married the opposite sex.
Even had Children.

What do we call these people that they themselves say are Homosexual, but have had Children the normal way?

Are they Sperm Pirates? Or Impregnate me Pirates?

Having no love for their Sperm or Egg they choose to LIE, to create a baby.

What do you call this?

Here is something FUNNY.

What do you call a man that is Homosexual an had Children by a woman?

Dad.

What do you call a Lesbian that had Children by a Man?

Plaintiff in a child support trial.

Is that funny?

 

[Child of God]

If they are born Gay should we not have them, such as they are born Gay, we could save them the experience.

If they are BORN GAY, can not we just at that time, Abort them?

They Have Flaws, Being Born Gay is not different then being born without a Heart, or Liver or Brain.

Would you not abort a child without a heart? or Brain?

They are the Same, being born Gay is the same as being born without a Heart.
Ha, ha, ha, LOL.
Yeah right.

They like to claim this, The are PERVERTS.

THEY CLAIM they were born this way.
They are Perverts more concerned with sexual gratification then the Truth.

Oh, hell has more normal people then Gays.

 

[Derf]

Yep. They need to have trust in those they vote for.
So vote for what you believe in ....... all you need is 51% and you're getting there.

I wouldn't have taken you for a Trump fan. Go figure.

See? Life and Liberty with Truths. At last you're coming to the realisation that the people decide about it and so far most western people are believing in Liberty opf sexual expression, orientation and relationships, and many churches are recognising that if you even think about it.

Many churches are unsure how to deal with sinful people that won't repent, in many areas of sin. But those that decide to either look the other way or embrace the sin are not really Christian churches anymore. I guess there are a lot of other kinds of "churches" out there.

I was just interested to see if you keep your laws, and 'usually do...' us a weak answer, don't you think?
And other members made points about pedophilia in connection with Gays, maybe even you (?) and so I responded.

Paul said both "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols" and "eat meat sacrificed to idols", and he wasn't being contradictory, any more than Solomon was when he said:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes. [Pro 26:4-5 NKJV]
Some commands only apply at certain times. Others seem to be "written in stone" and apply all the time. Who decides when murder is no longer wrong? You? Me? 51% of the populace?

I buy much of our meat in the grocery store. I know a little about the slaughter process, but only the part I'm involved in. For instance, when I take a steer in for slaughter, the guy shoots the animal in the head, cuts the throat, then hangs it to let the blood drain. But that's my own animal. I have little knowledge of what happens to the meat I buy in the store, beef, chicken, pork, or whatever. I'm not sure if the current meat processing (which DOES remove most of the blood here in the US, as far as I know) is a carry over from biblical injunction, or if it's due to actual negative experience. Or both. I don't eat raw meat, and I prefer to never eat rare meat, as I consider that to be eating the meat with the blood. I've heard that it really isn't. I'm no expert.

The red liquid is actually myoglobin, a protein that's only found in muscle tissue. Myoglobin carries oxygen through the muscle and contains a red pigment – which is why muscle tissue is red. As a steak is cooked, the myoglobin darkens – which is why the more “well-done” the meat is, the grayer it looks.May 18, 2017 [h=3]That red juice oozing out of your steak isn't blood - New York Post[/h] nypost.com › 2017/05/18 › that-red-juice-oozing-out-of-your-steak-isnt..

The idea of eating uncooked meat bothers me, but if there's a different process that duplicates the disease removal process like cooking does, it might justify eating raw or even bloody meat. I'm not sure.

When I say "usually", there might be a time when I actually ate strangled meat or meat with blood in it, and didn't know it.

Christians have mostly discarded Mosaic Law unless repeated by Jesus. What he was strong about was love and understanding, or so I hear from many Christians.

Or repeated by the apostles. I think that's a pretty good way to look at it, but the main point Jesus gave was that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Much of the Mosaic law was geared toward the same purpose, so except for the ritual and sacrificial laws, I tend to think Jesus strengthened rather than dismissed the Mosaic law.

I gave you an example of Jesus' reinforcement of Mosaic law, and you pretty much ignored it. Here it is again for you:
20 And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 "thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 "All these evil things come from within and defile a man." [Mar 7:20-23 NKJV]
If Jesus said this, including condemning pride, foolishness, blasphemy, etc., are you willing to consider what He meant and how you might follow His instruction here?

You would need to wait............ if 51% of a population want to see public painful executions of gays or other LGBT folks then I expect that your tenets would be gaining popularity. Me? I'd be doing what I do now, keeping the accepted laws of the land that I live in, or I would move..... one or the otrher.

Here's the problem: you seem to think the majority has a good idea of what is good for them--better than what God thinks. But we know--I'm sure you would admit some of this yourself--that we usually go for what is the most comfortable for us, rather than what's the best for us and our neighbors. Thus we have lots of sugar in our foods and drinks. Thus we have lots of entertainment options available. Thus we buy a fancier house or car than we can safely afford. Thus we let our dog poop on our neighbor's lawn and pretend we don't know.

Waffle can't help here.

Waffling on what is right is never helpful, even if 51% waffle with you. So why are you suggesting that we waffle on right/wrong? You seem to be at odds with yourself.

It's no good............. I think it's pointless to continue with this, don't you?
But to end on a high note for you, just remember all those other countries and religions that see LGBT folks just like you do; that must help, to know that you are not alone..........

Why? Is it because I'm not waffling on principles? If you are only interested in discussing things with people who will eventually agree with you, then you're probably right--I don't think you'll convince me that 51% votes determine righteousness. Ask the inhabitants of Sodom how well that worked out for them.

It makes sense for me not to be swayed by your arguments, since they don't pass muster when compared to a lasting standard. It makes no sense for you to be so thick-headed about your own views, assuming they stay the same long enough for you to know what they are, when you are willing to change them at the next poll.

And I am willing to continue in the hopes that you will see the error of your ways, even if it is merely because you are in a forum where your views are held by less than 50% of the members. You are a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, if you really believe what you right. And it's quite possible that 51% of the populace is just as unstable. Thus the admonition in Romans 1:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ... 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [Rom 1:21, 24 KJV]