Who is here calling other people names? While Jack is answering your posts, he has done so without name calling — and while his tone to your direct name calling has not been the best. It is not he who has to resort to ad hominem in argumentation. You speak as if you know a very few Bible verses, taken out of context, and then want to use them as “proof text” for your position. Proof texting is not appropriate Biblical exegesis. While you might not care what the Bible says, and that is your right. If you want to argue that a Biblical world view would support your position, you would have to be much better versed in the Bible than you appear to be.

One example: You rail against Paul, and yet you do not know the words of the apostle. As Jack pointed out, Paul was in total agreement with Christ when Jesus pronounced all foods clean (the context of what Jack cited was meat sacrificed to idols, which would have been an even bigger Old Testament taboo). If you rail against Paul, you also reject Peter, for Peter said of Paul’s writing:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. — 2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB95

The emphasis is mine, but Peter says of Paul’s letters, that they are hard to understand and people distort them — and then the important part — as they do the *rest* of *scripture*. In other words, Peter certifies Paul’s writing as scripture.

If you are going to try to show that a Biblical world view would state homosexual activity is not immoral, you cannot throw out large portions of the Bible. If you really want to understand what it says, you have to be willing to approach it on its terms, not your terms.

What does that mean? Well for starters, you would have to have the attitude that it might be that the God of the Bible in fact does condemn homosexual activity (just as I would have to have the attitude that it might condemn my most inbreed behaviors.) If you are going to approach something as an investigation into what that system states, yet refuse to believe it might state something you don’t like, then you have already determined the outcome before you start. You won’t find what you are unwilling to see even if all the evidence points to it.

Wrong again. (What a surprise.)
“Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live….” (Romans 8:12-13)

“For god to want us to change the way he/she created shows us he/she is not an all mighty god, and is in fact fallible. For god to want us to change our nature contradicts the idea that we are created in our creators image.”

Nonsense. An image is an image, not the original. God gave us free will. We rebelled. We still do.

“You get the point.”

But YOU do not. What did Jesus say to the woman? “Go, and sin no more.” (John 8:11)

“Paul… who also tells us to not eat shell fish….”

What do you know? Wrong again! “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Romans 14:14)

“We could have a nice debate about whether or not the bible is even relevant.”

Indeed, and you would lose that debate, too, especially since you do not even know what it says.

“True or not, that is irrelevant. God does not call us to do what is “natural,” but what is contrary to our nature, because our nature is sinful.”
That is bull shit. Our nature is not sinful. It is simply nature. Yes I know your scripture (that was written by men thousands of years ago, only to play the biggest joke on humanity there ever was or will be) says we are born with that original sin B.S., but you have to understand that anything that is natural is how god created us (according to your book) and for god to want us to change the way he/she created shows us he/she is not an all mighty god, and is in fact fallible. For god to want us to change our nature contradicts the idea that we are created in our creators image.

I guess that’s just one of the many contradictions in the bible.

“Quite true, but neither would he like our acceptance of sinful behavior.”

He might not like your “acceptance” of sinful behavior, but he would not condone judgment of the sinners. This was shown when the whore was about to be stoned…

Stoner1:”blah blah blah, stone the whore”

Stoner2:”Blah blah blah Stone her”

Jesus: “Let he who blah blah blah”

You get the point.

Okay, Next:

“On the contrary, Paul tells us “you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” (1Cor. 5:11)”

Paul is a Jackass who also tells us to not eat shell fish…. Wow! Great Source… that verse should say

“You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is shellfishally immoral or greedy, a clam eater or crab fisherman, a lobster dunker or anyone who smells of shellfish (excluding on hot days when you can get really sweaty in that place that is forbidden. With such man do not eat unless you are holding your breath.”

“Of course, you do not call yourself a brother, therefore it would be OK for us to associate with you, for the purpose of showing you the truth. Care to join a few of us for a drink and discuss it?”

No thanks. I prefer logic rather than superstition. We could have a nice debate about whether or not the bible is even relevant.

Adam Stilwell
I don’t hate you by the way, just your sin

True or not, that is irrelevant. God does not call us to do what is “natural,” but what is contrary to our nature, because our nature is sinful.

“One more point is that Jesus wouldn’t like your hatred of gay people.”

Quite true, but neither would he like our acceptance of sinful behavior.

“you have no biblical obligation, authority, or ‘right’ to judge us ‘fags’.”

On the contrary, Paul tells us “you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” (1Cor. 5:11)

Of course, you do not call yourself a brother, therefore it would be OK for us to associate with you, for the purpose of showing you the truth. Care to join a few of us for a drink and discuss it?

I’d also like to point out that as someone who clearly has NO knowledge of genetics, you shouldn’t open your big mouth about that topic, although you have every right to do so.

One more point is that Jesus wouldn’t like your hatred of gay people. Don’t say you don’t hate us because it is clear you do. You’d be happy with us being sent of to concentration camps in order to purify the world (BEING THE FASCIST SCUM YOU ARE)

Thank You very much asshat
Adam Stilwell

P.S. You are not God, therefor you have no biblical obligation, authority, or “right” to judge us “fags”. God Will Judge us, and it is up to god to determine what happens to us. NOT YOU. If you were a true believer in that bullshit religion blindly follow, then you would accept that as the truth.

One last thing, your god doesn’t exist, and neither does right or wrong. Have fun in church.

I hope you can learn to live and accept everyone, gay and straight, the ones who can’t are true sinners

God bless you

I concur totally on the issue of hate crimes. Emotion is a motive for a crime,not the crime itself. Making emotion a crime is a very slippery slope.

Try this for a moment … presume the scripture is without error, in fact that it is incapable of being in error. Look through what I have said — are those things in general logical conclusions of that axiom set? Is that not how I have stated everything I’ve said? I may not be perfect in having done so, but do you see a striving for that in all that I have done?

I realize that attempting to look at things from a different axiomatic position is not easy — if you don’t know that set completely, and have not studied it intensely it may be nearly impossible to fully comprehend the subtlety of some of the reasonings. But you should at least see (if you can put the mindset into place that scripture cannot be wrong) that the discussion is logical.

I believe we are in agreement.

Someone that acts upon sinful predisposition should be judged, not someone that has a predisposition.

Take for example the idea of “hate crimes” that receive additional penalty because of some perceived reason for hating. Not hardly what I would call reasonable. Behaviors are what people ought to be judged upon, not emotions. (When is the last time that someone beat the daylights out of someone else without hating them?)

“How axiomatic of you.”

At least I state up front what my axioms are, and I stay consistent within them (as much as I understand them to be).

I do follow what you say, and what I find abhorrent is that both are going on with little to no opposition by society at large. When Muslims state that we are a decadent society, I have little or nothing to say against it — we kill our children, we sexually exploit our children, those who pervert sexuality created by God are being defended, marriages are looked at as temporary — the west is becoming more and more a corrupt society.

While I find Islam’s treatment of women and those of other faiths outrageous, they at least have a moral backbone instead of a moral wax nose.