Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,646
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Upvote
0
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.
For example most postmodern christians can't accept the biblical concept of loving the sinner but hating the sin...this is the issue with homosexuality.
Verse 9: " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head."
BUT HATE THEIR SIN AS YOU HATE YOUR OWN
What exactly is the 'gay lifestyle'? Being promiscuous, or just having a relationship with someone of the same sex? Because if you're refering to the latter, I don't see what could be destructive about it(or more destructive than straight relationships).Well over the years, he has lost count of the number of people, who have come out of the gay lifestyle, because they realised that it wasnt for them, and it was destructive. However the reason they actually came to this conclusion (of the gay lifestyle being wrong) because of my friends approach. He was non jdugemental, definatly not accepting of the sin, however didnt feel the need to state the obvious
His words not mineWhat exactly is the 'gay lifestyle'? Being promiscuous, or just having a relationship with someone of the same sex? Because if you're refering to the latter, I don't see what could be destructive about it(or more destructive than straight relationships).
Not the same as that is unscriptural.I really am coming to hate this phrase, for one single reason.
Here it is in another guise; "I am not a racist, but ... "
same as above..not scriptural reference therefore they are not the same.So with "Love the sinner, but ... "
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.Where does anyone get this 'but' from? God does not have a 'but' in his love for us, and neither does Christ. When he meets Zaccheus and says, I am going to have dinner with you tonight, he does not say, but you must serve Lasagna or else I won't come. He says, I will be there.
Duh, but we can't do whatever we want.God meets us, where we are. No buts.
key word repentance, which is NOT what homo advcates are advertising.It is our response to his love, unconditionally given, that convicts us that we are unworthy to receive in such an unconditional way. And it is this which leads to contrition, and repentance, of all our sins.
You're just putting words in my mouth now.Anyone who has not experienced this, and thinks that it is a kind of trade off, my repentance in return for God's love, really has not got a clue.
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.You call this postmodern. In that case Christ himself is the very first postmodern Christian. This is the love which Christ shows; it is bloody and it is painful and it is sacrificial. And it is nothing to do with hatred in any shape or form. Not even hatred of sin. Christ did not hate sin; he showed understanding of it, and compassion to the poor soul caught in its web.
Erronous, again go read the bible.Anyone who dares do less, dares be less than Christ like.
who are the people? because I personally have only seen secularist do this, not legit christians.While others confuse it with condemnation.
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.Your's is subject to your intepretation of the bible and experience, so is mine. You can pretend that your concept of God is somehow more objective, but that doesn't make it true.
Simple, your setting up the argument so mine looks bad based on emotional connotation rather than evidence.How so? Please demonstrate how I have said something equivalent to your strawman/not strawman.
Mind explaining what you don't understand?Your comment is unclear.
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.Christians follow Christ, not scripture. Scripture have more holes than a collander and Christ would still be worth following. However, homosexuality is a fact, so I guess your scripture based faith is a falsehood, according to you.
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.Then stop asking for everything to be proved from scripture. A demand that one does that can only be reasonable if everything can be proved from scripture.
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.God isn't natural (part of nature), so such a definition is counter to reasonable usage.
irrelvant..againWhen Christ said "all the law and the prophets follow from these" he was lying?
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?It's your interpretation. An interpretation that can never be independent of the baggage that you bring to it.
I'm less likely than you are because of my methodologyExactly - we are quite capable of getting things wrong - misinterpreting God - for hundreds or even thousands of years, just as we did over race and any number of other issues.
Please explain how.That simply does not follow.
Yes you are.That's ok, because that's not what I am doing.
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.In other words, your intepretation is infallible, but everyone who disagrees with it is bringing their prejudices to bear. Sorry, that doesn't wash - your interpretation is as fallible as anyone else's.
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.
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.
Beloved, let us love one another for love is of God and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
John 4:7
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.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.
Um, no. You may see it that way, but if so then you are missing the point.Simple, your setting up the argument so mine looks bad based on emotional connotation rather than evidence.
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.Mind explaining what you don't understand?
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):Where exactly do you get your christ from then?
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.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.
Christ is God's Word, not scripture.more useless gargabe. Scripture is God's word,
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.without it we have no certainty of anything, not even of the existance of the Christ you claim to follow.
Using your own definitions for words that are completely at odds with accepted common or speciality usage is just daft.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.
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.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.
Whether Christ was telling the truth or lying is not irrelevent.irrelvant..again
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 thought God's word had holes, so how does it support your argument?
I would hardly call ignoring one of Christ's most revolutionary statements "being objective".Can be as objective as possible,
No.Are you saying that all interpretations are of equal value?
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.I'm less likely than you are because of my methodology
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".Please explain how.
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).Yes you are.
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.)
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?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.
Didn't addres anything, so invalid statement.Um, no. You may see it that way, but if so then you are missing the point.
Again, same as aboveIt isn't clear what you "haven't seen one person do". I don't know what the comment was supposed to be referring to.
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.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 bible (in more than one way)
other people telling me stuff
observing other people's lives
prayer
God's call on my own life, and his help in sustaining and fulfilling that calling
other writings
Creation
etc ...
I value the bible only because I believe in Christ first and he speaks through it. He is the source - not the bible; to put them the other way around is idolatory.
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.
What is God's word then?Christ is God's Word, not scripture.
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.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.
Nope, you just don't have common understanding of the various uses of the words.Using your own definitions for words that are completely at odds with accepted common or speciality usage is just daft.
1) I want to see the evidence for that, and biblically you're incorret. But then again your God comes out of thin air.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.
2. the word natural that I've underlined is one you've stuck into a sentence where it doesn't fit in order to try and prove that it can be used in the way you want. God doesn't have a 'natural' design in any meaningful sense; one has to stretch the meaning of the word to make the sentence make sense.
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.Whether Christ was telling the truth or lying is not irrelevent.
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 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 since the only being that could be objective is God.I would hardly call ignoring one of Christ's most revolutionary statements "being objective".
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.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.
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.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".
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.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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?