Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[Kenny'sID]

If you had an explanation, you would share it.

You just didn't catch on did you....oh well.

 

[Sparagmos]

God and Heaven will always use truth and standards to defend discrimination. Muslims and satanist are no more excused their version of morality where it conflicts with the inspired word of God than the state and you are.

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In the case of homosexuality, the behavior stems from who they are, how they were born, jyst as you were born heterosexual.

LOL, thanks for lightening the mood.

 

[Sparagmos]

You just didn't catch on did you....oh well.

No, I didn’t catch on. So can you go ahead and explain it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I didn’t catch on. So can you go ahead and explain it?

And therein lies the problem. Since i know you would not catch on, as you have already attested to, no sense in explaining anything...the very reason your just gong to have to rake my word for it.

And no, i don't expect you to catch on tho that either, but one never knows

 

[TLK Valentine]

But i got caught up in defending it because of silly leftist double standards...

Always someone else's fault, isn't it?

 

[Sparagmos]

Irreverent: CF discriminates against you by forbidding you to from advocating for certain beliefs.

Which is legal. Free speech rights don’t extend to private social media platforms. But if CF were to receive public money, or seek some kind of public accreditation, that would likely change.

 

[Sparagmos]

And therein lies the problem. Since i know you would not catch on, as you have already attested to, no sense in explaining anything...the very reason your just gong to have to rake my word for it.

And no, i don't expect you to catch on tho that either, but one never knows

I didn’t say I wouldn’t catch on if you explained yourself. I certainly get the pickle you are in, trying to explain why offering up his daughters to be raped was the lesser of two evils. You probably are wishing you hadn’t made that ridiculous claim.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In definition: that what constitutes what a Christian is can even make the devil one. That is quite a degree of fluidity.

Well, I'm going by the definition of "Christian" as "someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God, who died to save mankind from its sins."

Pretty sure the Devil believes that -- after all, he was there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then you are saying the term 'sodomy' did not come from the city that was clearly destroyed for the act of homosexuality because men sleeping with men isn't really homosexuality because it was an act of violence in Sodom? When in fact God calls all homosexuality an abomination?

You didn't manage to create quite enough confusion there to get that one by us.

Jack doesn't rely on confusion -- just truth. Hence your confusion.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Then you are saying the term 'sodomy' did not come from the city that was clearly destroyed for the act of homosexuality because men sleeping with men isn't really homosexuality because it was an act of violence in Sodom? When in fact God calls all homosexuality an abomination?

You didn't manage to create quite enough confusion there to get that one by us.

And preferring two virgin women over hairy men certainly indicates they were not heteros, and the Holy Spirit adds in Jude 1:7 that they went after strange flesh.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well, I'm going by the definition of "Christian" as "someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God, who died to save mankind from its sins."

Pretty sure the Devil believes that -- after all, he was there.

sigh. If you are going to continue to impugn Christian faith then try to understand that Scripture must be the definitive source for what a Christian is and for what faith is, and actually obtain some education by it, and not by reading a few verses in isolation.

Which word simply does not teach that merely believing that Christ the Son of God is real makes one a Christian anymore then my belief in the devil being real makes me a Satanist. Perhaps you may have even read Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? (James 2:19,20)

Instead of mere intellectual acknowledgment of facts being Biblical saving faith, in Scripture this is abundantly described as that which effects obedience, for in reality, everything you choose to do is a result of what you truly believe, even if only at the moment. Thus faith is equated with obedience by the Spirit.

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. (Romans 6:17-18)

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 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. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:12-14)

For while it is faith that is counted for righteousness, faith is evidenced by works, and are the credentials of a Christian, including repentance when convicted in heart of not obeying God.

But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. (Hebrews 6:9-10)

Thus while affirming the salvation of those who believe, the same are told that,

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:5)

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12)

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)

if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:31-32)

Now its time for some sleep.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I didn’t say I wouldn’t catch on if you explained yourself. I certainly get the pickle you are in,

The only pickle I'm in is due to CF rules I can't get into a detailed description of what I'm dealing with here and why exactly it would be non productive to answer your question. I will do the best I can

I've already mentioned the reprobate mind a couple of times, and when dealing with such things, one simply cannot ever expect to come to a point of agreement... it's just not going to happen. That has already played out on this very thread where someone will make some of the most nonsensical claims in order to try to support a non-supportable case...it never ends.

Not wishing I'd made the claim?...absolutely untrue, and all in your mind.

So, you go right ahead and call this some kind of huge win for your end of this, something that would also not be true, but at this point, fully expected.

The term Sodomy came out of the name of the city for reasons that are very obvious to anyone without reprobate mind. If you choose, out of desperation, to use the completely irrelevant incident about the daughters to refute that point, fine, but it's still just that simple.

The basic argument here is elementary, and as simply solved as two plus two, but under the circumstances, some will not see it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Jack doesn't rely on confusion -- just truth. Hence your confusion.

And that reinforces Jacks end of this how exactly?

Yep, I've seen more "truth" on this thread than I can possibly stand....enough already

 

[Kenny'sID]

And preferring two virgin women over hairy men certainly indicates they were not heteros, and the Holy Spirit adds in Jude 1:7 that they went after strange flesh.

Good point. Offering the lessor evil did actually prove a sickness that was even worse than may have met the eye.

Fortunately the Angel was good enough to see the horrible position a bunch of Homosexual bullies put the daughters father in, and he stepped in.

 

[Sparagmos]

The only pickle I'm in is due to CF rules I can't get into a detailed description of what I'm dealing with here and why exactly it would be non productive to answer your question. I will do the best I can

I've already mentioned the reprobate mind a couple of times, and when dealing with such things, one simply cannot ever expect to come to a point of agreement... it's just not going to happen. That has already played out on this very thread where someone will make some of the most nonsensical claims in order to try to support a non-supportable case...it never ends.

Not wishing I'd made the claim?...absolutely untrue, and all in your mind.

So, you go right ahead and call this some kind of huge win for your end of this, something that would also not be true, but at this point, fully expected.

The term Sodomy came out of the name of the city for reasons that are very obvious to anyone without reprobate mind. If you choose, out of desperation, to use the completely irrelevant incident about the daughters to refute that point, fine, but it's still just that simple.

The basic argument here is elementary, and as simply solved as two plus two, but under the circumstances, some will not see it.

I wasn’t actually using the two daughters to make a point about homosexuality. Fine by me if you don’t want to discuss lot offering his daughters to be raped. It’s just a story in a book.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I wasn’t actually using the two daughters to make a point about homosexuality. Fine by me if you don’t want to discuss lot offering his daughters to be raped. It’s just a story in a book.

I see, you lost track of the subject...right. I seriously doubt that, your accusation was designed to discredit/confuse the issue. That's what people do when they have no legit defense.

 

[Sparagmos]

I see, you lost track of the subject...right. I seriously doubt that, your accusation was designed to discredit/confuse the issue. That's what people do when they have no legit defense.

Huh? No, I just made a flippant comment about lot offering his daughters to be rapes and you replied. I was not invested or involved whatsoever in the debate over whether the Bible condemned Sodom over homosexuality.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Huh? No, I just made a flippant comment about lot offering his daughters to be rapes and you replied. I was not invested or involved whatsoever in the debate over whether the Bible condemned Sodom over homosexuality.

I see, you were just being generally disruptive....got it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Good point. Offering the lessor evil did actually prove a sickness that was even worse than may have met the eye.

Fortunately the Angel was good enough to see the horrible position a bunch of Homosexual bullies put the daughters father in, and he stepped in.

I think both the angels were involved in rescuing well-meaning but naive Lot from men driven by lust:

But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. (Genesis 19:10)

Then they had to lay hands on insensible but kind Lot to deliver him out of the judgment to come:

And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. (Genesis 19:16)

Thank God for His mercy and grace.