What are your thoughts on this?

[childeye 2]

Stop playing around. You should know that it's wrong.

It's a mistake to entertain any slander that I'm playing around since in reality I'm dead serious. I not only know what is right and what is wrong, but I know why, and I've stated why on the record.

 

[ozso]

It's a mistake to entertain any slander that I'm playing around since in reality I'm dead serious. I not only know what is right and what is wrong, but I know why and I've stated why on the record.

In my opinion you don't seem to know right from wrong in this case. Although I'll admit that since you write in such an obscure manner I'm not completely sure of what you're trying to say.

 

[childeye 2]

In my opinion you don't seem to know right from wrong in this case. Although I'll admit that you write in such an obscure manner I'm not completely sure of what you're trying to say.

I sense no guile in your words above.

I submit that you find my writing obscure in the moral/immoral context even because in my reasonings I use neutral/objective connotations of terms while you use subjective Pro/Con connotations of terms in your reasoning. It's possible you don't even understand what I've just submitted.

However, hopefully this will not be so obscure that you can't see and understand my reasoning:
All sin is a product of a lust of the flesh, and it can factually be proven that any temptation to sin forms in the imagination in a darkness that is ignorant of truth.

This necessarily means that where the mind has in the forefront the knowledge of truth, temptation would not manifest into any inordinate/excessive passions that lead to sin.

If we can understand that, then perhaps we can see that knowing the difference between lust and Love is the same as knowing the difference between the carnal mind and the spiritual mind which is something only the spiritual mind can comprehend.

If we can understand that, then we can understand that the carnal mind cannot help but be tempted in its weakness because sin looks good to the carnal mind due to ignorance of spiritual things.

If we understand that, then we can understand why Jesus called sin slavery and said the Spiritual Truth will set you free.

If we understand Jesus, then when we read Romans 2:1 we can understand why it is that when we judge/discriminate between others and ourselves in subjective Pro/Con connotations, we condemn ourselves because we all have been ignorant carnal minded servants of sin.

Therefore, I submit that you find my writing obscure in the moral/immoral context because I use neutral/objective connotations of terms in my reasonings while you use subjective Pro/Con connotations of terms. And finally, I'll declare that the Truth that sets free is that wisdom that comes from God in the Christ, who suffered a cross so that sins may be forgiven.

 

[rjs330]

Only if you want to deny everything that's going on with LGBTQQIP2SAA+.

I agree. Those like Cruz have shown a lack of wisdom in this issue. With the lgbt it has always been you have to watch what the left hand is doing. They hold out the right hand making a claim that's all they want. Then with the left hand they are working hard at something else.

Now a days they gotten to the point of being very open about all of it. Meanwhile some are stuck with the old days thinking that all they want is people to be nice to them. It's very odd to me that Christians of all people have been blinded to their actions, especially when they are really brazen anymore about them.

 

[rjs330]

A great deal of live and let live was established a good twenty years ago.

But that wasn't enough.

LGBT went on to become LGBTQQIP2SAA+ which has to be promoted and celebrated.

And now little kids need to be thoroughly involved in it.

Now there needs to be a whole LGBTQQIP2SAA+ curriculum for little kids.

Now we need LGBTQQIP2SAA+ to make little kids be nice to everyone.

We need LGBTQQIP2SAA+ to reshape society at the kindergarten level to make the world a better place.

And what seems to get lost is that you can still be kind and fight against that agenda at the same time. It's not that difficult. It's not an either/or proposition.

 

[rjs330]

I make it a rule for myself not to believe in conspiracy theories. Especially conspiracy theories that are designed for the explicit purpose to hate and encourage violence against my neighbor.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't really see the encouraging violence against my neighbor thing. Other than some wildly fringe dude. Certainly not from 99.9% of people. We are against the agenda being pushed/forced upon us and our children.

 

[Bradskii]

You know, your right. I never watched that video. It...looked like dog poop to me so I walked around it.

Then you've missed the entire point of the thread...

 

[rjs330]

Well, seeing as non-hetero/non-cis people aren't an organization.

-CryptoLutheran

There ARE LGBTQ organizations who are actively pushing the LGBT agenda. So please don't make it sound like their aren't.

White supremacists are not organizations either. But there are white supremacist organizations who push a white supremacist agenda.

 

[rjs330]

Who's condemning anyone? I havent. I'm sure not sitting in glory either, lol. I will glory in the Lord and if somehow I touch even one ersons heart and that causes them to turn to the Lord, then I have did my job.

The gay cheerleaders always try to make it sound like us Christians need to walk in love and tolerance of others. And I still havent found in scripture where it says, be tolerant to sinners in their sin...

WHo cares what they think of me.

LGBT issues are an interesting exception to a lot of what the world sees as wrong. We don't see them standing up and coming against Christians for believing that lying is a sin or theft is a sin or adultery is a sin.

But they really fight against the notion that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Or that premarital sex is a sin etc.

And the real difference is we don't see them
1. Celebrating adultery with Adultery month or National Cheater Day
2. Having Adultery Celebrating parades.
3. Flying Adultery pride flags
5. Having adulterers reason to children how they should explore their adulterous and cheating characteristics
6. Having school curriculum teaching kids all about they too could be a cheater, they should celebrate cheaters and be fulling accepting of anyone who cheats on their boyfriend or spouse.
7. The schools should help kids be cheaters

Etc etc. It's only the practicing homosexuality is sin that they really fight against and don't want to be noticed for.

Isn't that interesting? Why is homosexuality being a sin such a hard thing for them to accept?

 

[Bradskii]

LGBT issues are an interesting exception to a lot of what the world sees as wrong. We don't see them standing up and coming against Christians for believing that lying is a sin or theft is a sin or adultery is a sin.

But they really fight against the notion that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Or that premarital sex is a sin etc.

And the real difference is we don't see them
1. Celebrating adultery with Adultery month or National Cheater Day
2. Having Adultery Celebrating parades.
3. Flying Adultery pride flags
5. Having adulterers reason to children how they should explore their adulterous and cheating characteristics
6. Having school curriculum teaching kids all about they too could be a cheater, they should celebrate cheaters and be fulling accepting of anyone who cheats on their boyfriend or spouse.
7. The schools should help kids be cheaters

Etc etc. It's only the practicing homosexuality is sin that they really fight against and don't want to be noticed for.

Isn't that interesting? Why is homosexuality being a sin such a hard thing for them to accept?

Harm.

 

[rjs330]

Genuine question: Do you consider the satirical song that's been the center of this thread to be one of those sources, or an example of those kinds of sources?

Because if so, that would lead me to think that the way you ingest information on this topic is through a highly prejudicial filter.

Imagine, for example, if one assumed all Christians are violent religious fanatics. Now imagine the kind of sources one might be using, even "Christian sources"--after all, Westboro Baptist Church does exist. Now, also imagine, you came across satire poking fun of the idea that all Christians are violent fanatics--but instead of perceiving the satire for what it's saying you instead filtered that through your own prejudicial assumptions about Christians.

After all, Christians are violent religious fanatics: The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Rhineland Massacre, the Salem Witch Trials, Westboro Baptist Church. I mean, none of that paints a good picture of people who call themselves Christian. And sure, maybe you've met Christians who don't fit that view you have of them, but you can find ways to compartmentalize that. A handful of maybe-okay Christians doesn't really change the fact that Christians are bad people. You have plenty of examples, and you can find Christian sources to back up your feelings and thoughts.

Does that make Christians, by default, violent religious fanatics? Does even a preponderance of evidence of Christians acting like violent fanatics make Christians--by default--violent fanatics? Is it a fair and accurate way to engage other people by working on prejudicial assumptions, even when one can back up those assumptions with examples, even a massive amount of examples? Ignoring all bigger conversations that could emerge from what I'm saying here, simple question: How do you want to be treated? How would you feel if someone treated you as a statistic or as a blank face representative of a group? I assume that you, like almost everyone else, wants to be treated as yourself--that you aren't just a number, but a face, a person with feelings and thoughts, and an entire lived experience that is uniquely your own.

While there is a lot, I think, that could be expanded upon in what I've said above; the real point I'm trying to get at is actually pretty simple: The dangers of confirmation bias and prejudicial thinking.

That is to say: Of choosing to interpret people through an assumption or set of assumptions about a group; accepting ideas and statements which selectively confirm what one already thinks and believes; and without allowing assumptions to be seriously challenged.

-CryptoLutheran

EDIT: I've modified some what I've said and tried to make things more clear and coherent.

By the way, you referenced a lot of ancient history. We are referencing what is going on TODAY. And yes people HAVE used the Westboro Baptist Church along with another nut job to make claims against Christians as a whole.

The song is NOT satirical. It's truth. I've already produced the examples across the country if the truth of their statements. You could claim the group was an outlier only if there wasn't overwhelming evidence that that what they were saying wasn't happening. But it is. Therefore they are not an outlier but part of the ongoing mainstream of the LGBT agenda across the country.

Satire? Lol. You are supposed to be wiser than that.

 

[Divide]

Then you've missed the entire point of the thread...

No I havent because that hasnt been the focus of the thread for pages and pages now. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

[Bradskii]

No I havent because that hasnt been the focus of the thread for pages and pages now. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

It's what is being discussed. See the post above yours as an example.

 

[ozso]

I sense no guile in your words above.

I submit that you find my writing obscure in the moral/immoral context even because in my reasonings I use neutral/objective connotations of terms while you use subjective Pro/Con connotations of terms in your reasoning. It's possible you don't even understand what I've just submitted.

However, hopefully this will not be so obscure that you can't see and understand my reasoning:
All sin is a product of a lust of the flesh, and it can factually be proven that any temptation to sin forms in the imagination in a darkness that is ignorant of truth.

This necessarily means that where the mind has in the forefront the knowledge of truth, temptation would not manifest into any inordinate/excessive passions that lead to sin.

If we can understand that, then perhaps we can see that knowing the difference between lust and Love is the same as knowing the difference between the carnal mind and the spiritual mind which is something only the spiritual mind can comprehend.

If we can understand that, then we can understand that the carnal mind cannot help but be tempted in its weakness because sin looks good to the carnal mind due to ignorance of spiritual things.

If we understand that, then we can understand why Jesus called sin slavery and said the Spiritual Truth will set you free.

If we understand Jesus, then when we read Romans 2:1 we can understand why it is that when we judge/discriminate between others and ourselves in subjective Pro/Con connotations, we condemn ourselves because we all have been ignorant carnal minded servants of sin.

Therefore, I submit that you find my writing obscure in the moral/immoral context because I use neutral/objective connotations of terms in my reasonings while you use subjective Pro/Con connotations of terms. And finally, I'll declare that the Truth that sets free is that wisdom that comes from God in the Christ, who suffered a cross so that sins may be forgiven.

I find your writing obscure for lack of a better term simply because it seems like you're trying to write on a sophisticated highbrow level instead of just saying things in simple easy to read and understand manner.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think trying to get Christians to stay quiet about sinfulness is from Satan.

I don't disagree. And I've been fairly vocal about sin on this thread.

Condoning, defending and promoting sinfulness isn't the way of Christ, or a commandment of God, it's a lie from Satan.

Also agreed. Which is why condoning hatefulness toward others is not the way of Christ--but a lie of the devil.

Jesus wasn't talking about those who condone and defend the practice sexual immorality and promote a twisted humanistic worldly view that there are multiple genders and sexual orientations to children - None of that is on account of the Son of Man, it's on account of Satan.

How about those who condone and defend the practice of hating one's neighbor and violating the commandment of God?

Christ our God had choice words for those He called hypocrites and blind guides.

Who do we want to be in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican?

So why do we ignore the commandment of God and insist on our own glory when the word of God is clear: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Whatever sin a gay person might commit is no worse than the sin of treating them poorly for being different than ourselves. The Greeks worshiped false gods, the Romans persecuted the Church, and yet the command to love remains anyway. There is no command to regard pagans as subhuman garbage; no command to despise the Samaritan because they worship on the wrong mountain. No command to disparage and gossip against the drunkard, the adulterer, or the backbiter. Yet how much poison seeps from the teeth of venomous asps who call themselves by the name of Christ? That a person attracted to the same sex is regarded worse than the abuser the adulterer the womanizer and even the murderer.

All our supposed piety is filth and dung. We are impenitent. We are harlots each and every one of us.

How are we not more ashamed?

Fall on your knees and weep, repent. You are a sinner.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Divide]

It's what is being discussed. See the post above yours as an example.

Yes. They are having a conversation. I can see that. But I'm not in that conversation. I'm in this one with you and couple others that's a little sidetracked so what is your point?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. They are having a conversation. I can see that. But I'm not in that conversation. I'm in this one with you and couple others that's a little sidetracked so what is your point?

Not sidetracked. We've been discussing this since post 622 when you erroneously claimed that that the op was in support of gays. When the original satirical video had been edited to include gutter level lies about the people appearing in it. That's all the thread has been about: denigrating gay people.

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't disagree. And I've been fairly vocal about sin on this thread.



Also agreed. Which is why condoning hatefulness toward others is not the way of Christ--but a lie of the devil.



How about those who condone and defend the practice of hating one's neighbor and violating the commandment of God?

Christ our God had choice words for those He called hypocrites and blind guides.

Who do we want to be in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican?

So why do we ignore the commandment of God and insist on our own glory when the word of God is clear: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Whatever sin a gay person might commit is no worse than the sin of treating them poorly for being different than ourselves. The Greeks worshiped false gods, the Romans persecuted the Church, and yet the command to love remains anyway. There is no command to regard pagans as subhuman garbage; no command to despise the Samaritan because they worship on the wrong mountain. No command to disparage and gossip against the drunkard, the adulterer, or the backbiter. Yet how much poison seeps from the teeth of venomous asps who call themselves by the name of Christ? That a person attracted to the same sex is regarded worse than the abuser the adulterer the womanizer and even the murderer.

All our supposed piety is filth and dung. We are impenitent. We are harlots each and every one of us.

How are we not more ashamed?

Fall on your knees and weep, repent. You are a sinner.

-CryptoLutheran

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t hate anyone and I certainly don’t treat anyone poorly. You sound a little judgmental and should probably follow your own advice

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t know about anyone else...

Oh, but you do.

 

[BPPLEE]

Oh, but you do.

Now you want me to judge others, I see some misguided people but if @ViaCrucis says the worst sin is not loving your neighbors doesn’t that include those neighbors he has no problem condemning? Do you think hes going to change their minds by calling them sinners and by implication hypocrites? He is using the same approach that he condemns them for using.
I’m sure his heart is in the right place but he is doing exactly what he is calling them out for