Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[Tambora]

what bothers me about her claim is that "as easily as" implies that the consequences of bad behavior are, on average neutral, which leads to the ridiculous conclusion that the consequences shouldn't be avoided, that the behaviors shouldn't be avoided

it's obvious to anyone with any experience in this world that bad behavior usually leads to bad consequences

ROFL!
Your one-sided tunnel vision lenses are hindering you from acknowledging the point.
Even in scripture you have instances where the consequence of breaking the letter of the law resulted in a very positive solution.
If behavior earns and deserves the consequence of said behavior, then you are going to have to acknowledge the positive and negative results as being earned and deserved, and not just the negative.

 

[Tambora]

:think: "do not do evil that good may come of it"

Hmmm.
Is breaking the letter of the law always evil?
Nope.

 

[Tambora]

not universally

Oh?
Care to give us your mythical iron-clad check list of where the line should be drawn for every instance?
Things are not as black and white as you try to make them appear for your agenda.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hmmm.
Is breaking the letter of the law always evil?
Nope.

Breaking man's law to obey GOD'S law is NEVER evil, Tam.

You suggested the following...

...the consequences of bad behavior can result in something positive as easily as something negative.

If you say that consequences of actions are earned and deserved, then if it results in a positive ---- that positive result is earned and deserved by bad behavior.

...as if to suggest that committing adultery was something that should be done because it has (and I agree that it does) the possibility of producing something good.

That is wicked on it's face.

 

[ok doser]

...you insist that consequences of your actions are earned and deserved...

not universally

Oh?

yes

it's a point i've made dozens and dozens of times in the past three years, and it's a point that you've never shown any understanding of and continuously either ignore, distort or wildly misrepresent

because irrationality

... your agenda.

what do you think my agenda is?

gonna try to keep track of these unanswered questions:

Spoiler

(how am I) misrepresenting you...?

does scripture encourage women to act promiscuously?

does scripture say that acting promiscuously can result in "a good consequence or a bad one"?

 

[ok doser]

Breaking man's law to obey GOD'S law is NEVER evil, Tam.

You suggested the following...



...as if to suggest that committing adultery was something that should be done because it has (and I agree that it does) the possibility of producing something good.

That is wicked on it's face.

or if not "something that should be done", then at least "something that should be accepted and not opposed"

 

[glorydaz]

No, God held strict standards for his chosen people...thus all the rules and regulations. He did so, of course, because of their many transgressions.

and all that's to be tossed aside now?

God did it...not me. :chuckle:

jesus says: "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law"

glory says: "God says no more law! Wheeeeee!"

So your claim is that we are still under the Mosaic Law? Where are the ritual cleansings and the sacrifices? You want to keep the stonings, and toss out the Sabbath laws? Where does Paul list those requirements out for us?

Are you dressed and in your right mind today, Doser? opcorn:

 

[glorydaz]

i was quoting Jesus' words

But you refuse to quote the words that matter here. :think:

Matt. 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

How is it you are so quick to stone the woman for what you have done yourself?

Which, of course, is something you guys just refuse to admit....as if you were somehow worthy of casting the first stone.

Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.​

 

[ok doser]

... what you have done yourself?

what is it that you think i have done myself?

 

[ok doser]

Matt. 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

go a little further and you see "39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:..."

and yet we have from glory the hypocrite:

My preference would be for my big strong brother to go beat up the abuser and leave him in intensive care....but that's just me.

:sigh:

 

[ok doser]

or if not "something that should be done", then at least "something that should be accepted and not opposed"

[MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION] [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION]

consider the specific case of a man who commits adultery - never mind his excuses for doing so - how should he be dealt with?

 

[Tambora]

Breaking man's law to obey GOD'S law is NEVER evil, Tam.

I'm not talking about man's law, JR.

The law that GOD gave to Israel included bearing false witness and also that only priests were to eat the temple shewbread.
But we see in scripture that Rahab bore false witness about the spies, and a priest gave David and his soldiers the shewbread to eat.

You suggested the following...



...as if to suggest that committing adultery was something that should be done because it has (and I agree that it does) the possibility of producing something good.

That is wicked on it's face.

No I did not suggest that adultery was something that SHOULD be done.
I'm saying that the consequences of your actions (whether those actions were good or bad) can have positive or negative results.
It's not one way or the other, cut and dry, black and white.
To say that your actions earn and deserve the results is not a cut and dry, black and white argument.
See what I mean now?

 

[glorydaz]

[MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION] [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION]

consider the specific case of a man who commits adultery - never mind his excuses for doing so - how should he be dealt with?

In this world today? He should suffer the consequences of his own actions. If his wife forgives him, he can remain in the family and mend his ways. If she can't, then he should move out and continue to support his children.

I don't believe it's the government's place to punish adulterers.

 

[glorydaz]

what is it that you think i have done myself?

Are you claiming you never looked at a woman with lust when you were married?

I don't know why I even ask that, since you would never admit it.

 

[glorydaz]

go a little further and you see "39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:..."

and yet we have from glory the hypocrite:


:sigh:

Ah, I'm surprised to see you can't take a joke.

I don't even have a brother, dork.

 

[glorydaz]

So your claim is that we are still under the Mosaic Law? Where are the ritual cleansings and the sacrifices? You want to keep the stonings, and toss out the Sabbath laws? Where does Paul list those requirements out for us?

Are you dressed and in your right mind today, Doser? opcorn:

I'm waiting for a response, guys. opcorn:

 

[Tambora]

@Tambora @glorydaz

consider the specific case of a man who commits adultery - never mind his excuses for doing so - how should he be dealt with?

You keep wanting to suggest specific scenarios as if that will settle the issue of the results of consequences being earned and deserved.
It doesn't, nor can it.
Because we can find situations in scripture where the spouse of an adulterer can choose to react in a loving, supportive, and forgiving nature or just stone them to death.
The case of Hosea and Gomer would be an example of a spouse choosing the mercy route instead of the condemnation route.
That's why scripture hopping to present only one side of the coin is rarely productive, because one can nearly always find an exception.
When one sees another exhibiting bad behavior, they have a choice of how they respond ---- mercy or condemnation.
Be glad of it, otherwise you could receive no mercy for any of your bad behavior.
And if you are given mercy for bad behavior, then why restrict other's bad behavior from receiving mercy?
Not so black and white is it?

 

[musterion]

What is the basic disagreement here? (I know, "NOW he asks...")

Is it Dozer's half-serious claim that adulterers should be put to death today? (I think it's deliberate absurdity just to prove a point but he can tell me if I'm wrong)

Or is it where personal responsibility starts and ends?

Both?

Yeah I've chimed in lots of times but I've never been sure what the main disagreement is, and since this topic is now measured in YEARS and gets nowhere...someone tell me?

 

[glorydaz]

What is the basic disagreement here? (I know, "NOW he asks...")

Is it Dozer's half-serious claim that adulterers should be put to death today? (I think it's deliberate absurdity just to prove a point but he can tell me if I'm wrong)

Or is it where personal responsibility starts and ends?

Both?

Yeah I've chimed in lots of times but I've never been sure what the main disagreement is, and since this topic is now measured in YEARS and gets nowhere...someone tell me?

I know what you mean. I was letting it slide for some time thinking it was some pretend reality. Then I realized they might be serious when I saw they were advocating executing a 10 year old boy. Now that I see execution being promoted for adultery, I can hardly force myself to take them seriously. I guess it's what they'd like to see the government enforce, thinking it would help stop adultery and other such "crimes" from being committed. :idunno:

 

[glorydaz]

Killing all the perverts doesn't sound like it will work to me.