Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And different christains seemd to have a different concept of love..they often confuse it with romanticism and relativism.
<gulp>
Not the same as that is unscriptural.
same as above..not scriptural reference therefore they are not the same.
The but doesn't exist, you still don't understand the concept I entailed before and you're trying to justify the love of sin with the love of the sinner. Which is not only erronous but unbiblical.
Duh, but we can't do whatever we want.
key word repentance, which is NOT what homo advcates are advertising.
You're just putting words in my mouth now.
Read the bible, he shows a deep hatred for sin. I suggest you sit down and think about it, I don't know where you pulled your Christ from seems like the toothfairy would be dancing with him.
Erronous, again go read the bible.
who are the people? because I personally have only seen secularist do this, not legit christians.
All interpretations are subjected to experience,except mine isn't based emotions but theological process which I try my best to be objective, you don't.
Simple, your setting up the argument so mine looks bad based on emotional connotation rather than evidence.
Mind explaining what you don't understand?
Where exactly do you get your christ from then? Homosexuality is a fact? What kind of "fact" are you talking about? Can you please show me these facts. If your reffering as homosexuality being a sexual orientation, your wrong since there is no SCIENTIFIC of SCRIPTURAL facts that prove this.
more useless gargabe. Scripture is God's word, without it we have no certainty of anything, not even of the existance of the Christ you claim to follow.
If you want to get into semantics were never going to get anywhere. Naturality can be defined a number of ways which doesn't neccerly pertain to your concept of the word. Again natural or something that is ordained as "normal" by God's standard is how I defined the word. Also since God created nature, depending on the context of the word and your world view..it woud be natural for misscariges to occur, but it's not God's natural design for babies to happen...unless you wantto argue that God wants babies to die.
irrelvant..again
Can be as objective as possible, yours clearly isn't. Are you saying that all interpretations are of equal value? Does a babies interpretation have the same as a 20 year old adult?
I'm less likely than you are because of my methodology
Please explain how.
Yes you are.
Again putting words into my mouth, when you post evidence of homosexuality being biblical i'd love to hear it, it actually reflects on your general hermanutics.
)Where is your evidence that my processes are any less objective than yours? In fact, I would rather like to know how you can make a judgement on the objectivity of my processes without even knowing what they are; I haven't told you, so I guess you are just making assumptions, and judging me on that. Does't sound very Christ-like to me.
Um, no. You may see it that way, but if so then you are missing the point.
It isn't clear what you "haven't seen one person do". I don't know what the comment was supposed to be referring to.
Christ does not come to us primarily through the bible. The bible is one way out of many that he can speak to us, and even then it's first a tool through which he speaks. So, my knowledge of Christ comes from (in no particular order):
The overwhelming expert scientific opinion is that homosexual orientations exist. The only people insisting otherwise are those with a vested interest in arriving at a particular conclusion.
Christ is God's Word, not scripture.
You have no more certainty with it than without it. You are just moving your faith from Christ to the bible. I would even suggest that you have less certainty than I - if large amount's of the OT were proved beyond doubt to be forgeries (say) then it would not shake my faith one iota, but I'm guessing it would destroy yours.
Using your own definitions for words that are completely at odds with accepted common or speciality usage is just daft.
1. Given that God has designed a system where the majority of fertilised embryos don't make it, I assume he's ok with that.
Whether Christ was telling the truth or lying is not irrelevent.
I didn't say it did have holes, I said it could have [without it damaging my faith]. But that's beside the point - I presume you are not disputing that Christ said that, so you have to deal with its implications. If Christ said that (I believe he did, and I presume you do as well), then it must be true, and if it is true then all his laws must be inferrable from the Great Commandments alone. If they can't be, then Christ never said that or Christ was wrong or Christ is a liar. I don't believe any of those three, do you?
I would hardly call ignoring one of Christ's most revolutionary statements "being objective".
No.
At the moment your methodology seems to be "ignoring all the difficult stuff Christ said in favour of trying to pick out a new Law from circumstantial evidence". Hardly one likely to arrive at the truth.
Something can be all true, partly true, or completely untrue. Even a single piece of text can be true in one sense and not in another. "It's either all true or all false" is so clearly untrue as to be laughable; almost every text ever written is partially true and partially false. What it really means is "I want it to be all true, so I will deny any other possibility".
You may think that, but you are wrong. Please stop bearing false witness, or prove your claim (which you cannot do without being able to read my mind to determine my motives).
You cannot ask for evidence, while at the same time putting your fingers in your ears, squishing your eyes tight and saying "Lalalalalalalala" at the top of your voice.
Or rather, you can, but you will neither see, hear nor understand.
Good luck with that.
(Antidote, if anyone cares, is to open your heart. All else will follow.)
I think I like you
Oh dear Lord. All you have argued here is subjective "evidence", it's clear that you don't even believe in the infallability of scripture, so how can that be objective. Do you know what objective means?
Didn't addres anything, so invalid statement.
Again, same as above
All you have word of mouth and again you haven't prenseted what is "God's word." Is there some new canon that I need to know? And no, all reliabel scientific datat shows that homosexual orientation doesn't exist. The best homo advocates can come up with is " a result of some biological presuposition." Show me one peer review article that shows homosexuality is an orientation.
What is God's word then?
Oh please...the canon has been repeately been proven through history. Not to mention you have not proven any reliabel source of Christ of your own. You got Christ out of thin air.
Nope, you just don't have common understanding of the various uses of the words.
1) I want to see the evidence for that, and biblically you're incorret. But then again your God comes out of thin air.
lol. This made me laugh, if Christ lied then we don't have anything go on as Christain. We would all just believe in some random God.
This is simple, either it has wholes or it doesn't. If it does, then there is no point in listening to it. You're taking the bible and the parts you like and using those and then the parts you don't like and saing their in valid. I suggest you look at the canonization of scripture.
I would since the only being that could be objective is God.
How about you stop with the here say and step up with some evidence.
huh? Wow talk about hypocrital. My methodology is compromised of scripture first because that's the only realiable source of truth. Everything else is based on falliable knowledge, whether it's reason or experience which is what you are doing.
Again, if part of is right, we have no christ. Christ is based on the concept on the entire falliabel word of God. How do we know certain parts are true about hima nd others are not? Any peice of "evidence" you claim is subjective. Unless you want to present another canon and your evidence for it you have nothing.
OH please, talk about flase witness, not only do you have no evidence for none of your arguments all you do is make random statments. Even if you don't recognize your lies or admit to them, they are still there.
