Unanswered questions

[Angrboda]

Have you heard about the "angel" that told him the future?

So again if someone out of the blue were to lay out every major event in your life, and told you He was from God, and gave you a list of things to focous on, would you brush it off even if everything he said started to unfold as he said it, or would you do as you were instructed?

If in your heart of hearts you would brush it off, then ask yourself why God would bother saying anything to you?

A Link to my Messenger/Message thread. (Angel story) http://atheistforums.org/thread-13378.html

(emphasis mine)

In your original retelling of the story, you wrote that he claimed to be a psychic (his words) and that he asked if you wanted to hear what the Lord had in store for you. You inferred that he was an angel from him interrupting his talking when you thought in your mind that he must be an angel, and that he responded "something like that." According to your original retelling, he did not say he was an angel from God, and since you don't know for certain why he responded with the "something like that" comment, you cannot be sure he meant to affirm that he was an angel or indeed what, if anything, he was affirming. Now a year later, you claim he told you that he was from God. Just as the stories in the Gospels get more elaborate and involved with the retelling from Mark to John, so your story has developed and grown. I wonder now if you even had a dream of hell, or if, as is not uncommon, you imagined a dream or an encounter with this man, and later mistook it for a memory. Regardless, your testimony is obviously not worth a plugged nickel. This is the sort of embellishment one might expect of both misremembered tales as well as made up bullshit. Since it's obvious your tale has grown with the retelling over the course of a year, we have every reason to suspect that nothing like what you recounted a year ago actually happened, and every reason to believe you are just another victim of your own ego and self-deception. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

[Drich]

So again if someone out of the blue were to lay out every major event in your life, and told you He was from God, and gave you a list of things to focous on, would you brush it off even if everything he said started to unfold as he said it, or would you do as you were instructed?

If in your heart of hearts you would brush it off, then ask yourself why God would bother saying anything to you?

A Link to my Messenger/Message thread. (Angel story) http://atheistforums.org/thread-13378.html

(emphasis mine)

In your original retelling of the story, you wrote that he claimed to be a psychic (his words) and that he asked if you wanted to hear what the Lord had in store for you. You inferred that he was an angel from him interrupting his talking when you thought in your mind that he must be an angel, and that he responded "something like that." According to your original retelling, he did not say he was an angel from God, and since you don't know for certain why he responded with the "something like that" comment, you cannot be sure he meant to affirm that he was an angel or indeed what, if anything, he was affirming. Now a year later, you claim he told you that he was from God. Just as the stories in the Gospels get more elaborate and involved with the retelling from Mark to John, so your story has developed and grown. I wonder now if you even had a dream of hell, or if, as is not uncommon, you imagined a dream or an encounter with this man, and later mistook it for a memory. Regardless, your testimony is obviously not worth a plug nickel. This is the sort of embellishment one might expect of both misremembered tales as well as made up bullshit. Since it's obvious your tale has grown with the retelling over the course of a year, we have every reason to suspect that nothing like what you recounted a year ago actually happened, and every reason to believe you are just another victim of your own ego and self-deception. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Taken from the above linked thread, "messenger/message"

At this point we traveled less than a mile and I was absolutely dumb founded, I thought to myself this Guy must be my guardian angel. Then He stopped mid sentence looked me square in the eye and said: "something like that." Then He proceeded to tell me of my future, what God was going to do for me, what was required of me, and what was expected in return. (Don't like to go into details because many tell me I am conceded or foolish to think God will use me in these ways when I do share.)

You have confused a retelling with a given senerio. The segment you quoted was a small piece of a greater point, not a retelling of my specific situation.

[Bad Writer]

You asked what my homosexual son would have to do to be disowned... I told you.

Wrong. I asked if you would disown him if he was homosexual, not what he'd have to do as a homosexual to be disowned. Moving on.

Homosexuality is a sin like any other sexual sin and should be approached like any other sexual sin.

How is homosexuality a sexual sin? All homosexuality describes is an inclination towards the same sex. I think you're jumping the gun here a bit, kind of like how you began thinking of your son looking at you while you're in the shower.

Do you like Lesbian porn, or does your porn have to have heterosexual intercourse only? How do you feel about threesomes?

I'd send him to a camp if he wanted to go. Believe it or not, not all people who have sexual feelings for the same sex want them.

I'm circumcised. Did anyone ask me if I wanted that? I'm stuck with a mutilated dick for life, and I've learned to do very well with what I have. I accept that I'm circumcised. This may not be the most apt analogy, but I can tell you that if you try to go against a sexual tendency, there is bound to be psychological damage. Same kinda goes for me if I were to dwell on the fact that I'm circumcised...trying to go against this fact does me no good in the end.

If he wanted to embrace his feelings then I'd give him what he was due, and let him go and do what he wanted to do. Let him be his own man/woman or whatever the p/c term is this week. If and when he was ready to be an active member of this family I would welcome him home.

Why didn't you just say this at first? So you would disown him/her for sexual tendencies that weren't up to snuff with your bible, even though science proves that homosexuality is not a sickness, but a biological fact (just like my circumcision).

(As per the story of the prodigal son)This would be true for a heterosexual daughter or son as well.

The story of the Prodigal Son wasn't about disowning the child. As for the heterosexual sin of pre-marital sex or heterosexual fornication, I wonder what Jesus would think about you disowning your teenage daughter because she got pregnant? What's that story in the Gospel of John about Jesus saving the Hooker from being stoned, and then forgiving her on the spot? Are you saying this doesn't count?

Anyway, it's amazing how un-biblical you actually are despite your heavy Bible thumping, for all the good it does. This is the point I was trying to make about you, and you played right into my hands. I can rightfully say that you are scum for acting as so many other so-called Christians would when confronted with sexual sin and homosexuality. You are a bigot, a hypocrite, and crummy human being. If you don't follow your Lord Jesus, then who is it that you follow? Pastor Fred? Well, it's apparent that he doesn't speak for Jesus either.

But then it's hard to speak for someone who may never have existed in the first place...but that's another conversation.

[Drich]

How is homosexuality a sexual sin?

if you discount everything the bible says openly against it, there still is not a Santified pretext in which homosexual sex is permitted before God. God has only allowed sexual activity between man and woman through the covenant of marriage. There is no covenantal examples of same sex marriage. If there is not a Santified pretext in which homosexual sex can take place then it is classified as a sexual sin like every other sexual sin one commits against his body.

All homosexuality describes is an inclination towards the same sex.

Not according to merrium-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality it allows for either interpretation. Yours was a weak attempt in conversational control. Play nice or we will spend hours splitting hairs.

Do you like Lesbian porn,

No.

or does your porn have to have heterosexual intercourse only?

beggs the question.

How do you feel about threesomes?

I have trouble finishing a two some with my wife with out wanting to go to sleep afterward. I would not want to have to ride one horse into the ground, then jump off and hop on to another.

I'm circumcised. Did anyone ask me if I wanted that?

are you sure no one did? What is your answer based on your memory?

I'm stuck with a mutilated dick for life, and I've learned to do very well with what I have. I accept that I'm circumcised. This may not be the most apt analogy, but I can tell you that if you try to go against a sexual tendency, there is bound to be psychological damage. Same kinda goes for me if I were to dwell on the fact that I'm circumcised...trying to go against this fact does me no good in the end.

So, by your logic if and when EVER we go against our 'sexual tendencies' we are doomed to psychological damage? What if my sexual tendency was toward married women? Or female celiberities, or some other current social taboo or unrealistic out of reach pairing? What if I had 'scarlet Johanson' taste with your looks, and a homeless man's budget? Would I be doomed to mental instability just because I didn't get to sleep with the actress I wanted to? No of course not. Growing up it was brook shields and Cindy Crawford. All but a handful of guys got to go there, and the sanity of the majority of the world population of men who grew up in the 80's with pictures or posters of either of those two on the wall is in tact.

It wasn't till the last ten or so years that we were told that it is our obligation to stick your dick in anyone/anything that will hold still long enough for you to do it. As per the current societal decline I would say this new philosophy where one sticks anything that he wants is the source of all instability we are currently experiencing.

Why didn't you just say this at first? So you would disown him/her for sexual tendencies that weren't up to snuff with your bible, even though science proves that homosexuality is not a sickness, but a biological fact (just like my circumcision).

Ah no. You appearently do not understand what it is to be disowned, in relation to what I have described here. Keep reading.

The story of the Prodigal Son wasn't about disowning the child.

exactly! It's about a child leaving his father's house (badly) or choosing a life style not consistent with how the father has chosen to expose his family to. Staying Gone till his lifestyle choice consumed him and spit him out when there was nothing more to take. Leaving him for the pigs. This is the key difference between being disowned and choosing to leave. If one chooses to leave, he has the option to come back. Where as a disowned child does not have that option.

As for the heterosexual sin of pre-marital sex or heterosexual fornication, I wonder what Jesus would think about you disowning your teenage daughter because she got pregnant?

again not disowned. I am giving her and her baby daddy an oppertunity to be the adults they were pretending to be. When there pride runs out they will return.

What's that story in the Gospel of John about Jesus saving the Hooker from being stoned, and then forgiving her on the spot?

this has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Are you saying this doesn't count?

what does stoning not allow for that allowing a prodigal go and come back on his/her own does? Here's a hint. Once you stone someone they are dead.

Allowing a prodigal to be consumed by their choices wil sift the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the weeds. If the prodigal's pride will allow him/her to return then you have a real chance of reaching them in a way that you could not do before. If they do not return, then it is better that you know where they stand now, than add 10 years of unwanted preaching and lectures that will only serve to further callous and harden their heart toward you and God.

Anyway, it's amazing how un-biblical you actually are despite your heavy Bible thumping, for all the good it does.

its almost cute the way you guys earnestly think that a few hundered Sunday schools worth of bible knowledge (Im being generous) somehow places you in an authoritive position to not only accurately divide and repersent the word, but to put you in a place to rebuke someone who say has a few more Sunday schools worth of study behind them.

This is the point I was trying to make about you, and you played right into my hands.

awwwe.

I can rightfully say that you are scum for acting as so many other so-called Christians would when confronted with sexual sin and homosexuality. You are a bigot, a hypocrite, and crummy human being.

intolerant of intolerance and the intolerant is the only acceptable intolerance allowed in western soceity! That and intolerance of Christians in general... When you find an 'intolerant Christian' well that is like hitting the lottery, then you can say and do what ever you like, and you will be look up to by your peers.. Kinda like how the kkk was looked up to for protecting white women from the 'evil' black man... But, now instead of skin color the accepted intolerance is based off of belief. Which is better than something as trivial as skin color (so long as all of the various shades of brown think as you do, am i right?) good job old sport!

If you don't follow your Lord Jesus, then who is it that you follow? Pastor Fred? Well, it's apparent that he doesn't speak for Jesus either.

but, you who claim there is no God some how can navigate the whole bible better than men like 'pastor Fred' who have been formally educated and has given the lions share of his life to discerning God's word???

Do you not see the fatal flaw in you logic?

But then it's hard to speak for someone who may never have existed in the first place...but that's another conversation.

Ah, the obligatory reminder/self assurance that even if I can dispel everything you said here you can default to the core of your new system of belief, and everything will be made well.

[Bad Writer]

How is homosexuality a sexual sin?

if you discount everything the bible says openly against it...

No. The Bible never speaks openly against it. Even the story of Sodom and Gomorrah never specifies that it's a sin. God is unhappy with the sinful nature of the people there, but it's never stated that their sexual behavior is the result of his displeasure.

Skip ahead a couple chapters, and Lot has sex with his daughters anyway, even though he was apparently the most righteous man in the entire city. You could say his daughters were the unrighteous ones, but try to explain to me how these girls were able to date rape their father and bear him children? To keep his dick erect for this act, it had to be consensual. Not only that, but he never kicked out his daughters for being pregnant without a husband. Remember, this is the most righteous man in all of the wicked city.

Does the Bible ever condemn homosexuality? We can't tell for certain, but does it speak out against it? Never. We do get a passage or two about a man cleaving to wife, but it never says that a man will not have sex with another man, or have thoughts of another man, or anything else of this nature. Your interpretation of the Bible's passages includes homosexual tendencies as a sin, even without it ever actually addressing the issue.

All homosexuality describes is an inclination towards the same sex.

Not according to merrium-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality it allows for either interpretation. Yours was a weak attempt in conversational control. Play nice or we will spend hours splitting hairs.

I don't play nice, and now you're trying to mess with my words. Is a man who has had sex with another man necessarily a homosexual? No. I have had sex with another man, but I am married to a woman. Nice try, but no dice. A person can be homosexual without having had sex, and you know it. I think we know who's stalling for time, and it's the person pulling up the Webster's dictionary to try and prove a moot point.

or does your porn have to have heterosexual intercourse only?

beggs the question.

It doesn't beg any questions. You answered the one about Lesbian porn, but now you're stalling on this one. Are you afraid that if you tell us that you like porn that we'll ridicule you for it? I may have something in mind with this line of questioning, but you'll never know if you're not honest. Stop beating around the bush like you did when you were talking about your son looking at you in the shower and just answer the questions. You made this thread for questions, and I'm going to damn well ask them.

How do you feel about threesomes?

I have trouble finishing a two some with my wife with out wanting to go to sleep afterward. I would not want to have to ride one horse into the ground, then jump off and hop on to another.

Interesting. So you're not interested in performing in one yourself, but do you ever watch them in porn? I'm just trying to find out how you personally feel about sexual acts because this is very connected to what we're discussing here.

So, by your logic if and when EVER we go against our 'sexual tendencies' we are doomed to psychological damage?

Not doomed, but we definitely run the risk. The thing that we all agree on in society is that even if we have sexual appetites that are outside the social norms, it is not okay to act upon them if they could potentially harm the other person, or if they compromise their ability to a consensual act. A couple who are homosexuals run much less risk of emotionally hurting themselves or others than a person who preys on women who are married.

If you are indeed doomed to mental instability because you can't sleep with a hotshot celebrity, then I'd say this is a case where the person does need help to figure out a healthy balance in life. This would be a cause worthy of finding a good solution to. Since gays do not generally run this same risk, a straight camp or any other kind of self-help facility is not necessary for them. Also, if they don't want to be gay, even though they are biologically wired that way, it's probably because someone told them it's not okay to be homosexual.

...the sanity of the majority of the world population of men who grew up in the 80's with pictures or posters of either of those two on the wall is in tact.

That can't possibly have anything to do with them coming to grips with reality...

It wasn't till the last ten or so years that we were told that it is our obligation to stick your dick in anyone/anything that will hold still long enough for you to do it. As per the current societal decline I would say this new philosophy where one sticks anything that he wants is the source of all instability we are currently experiencing.

I'd like to see a quote by a psychologist that actually holds to this standard that you are proposing. By this train of thought, we would also have more cases of rape and other sexual misdemeanors than we would know what to do with, if this was really the philosophy we are following. No...it must be something else. I wonder what it could be...?

I'm also interested in what you consider to be societal decline. Really. This should be good.

The story of the Prodigal Son wasn't about disowning the child.

exactly! It's about a child leaving his father's house (badly) or choosing a life style not consistent with how the father has chosen to expose his family to.

So the father is always right in every family?

Staying Gone till his lifestyle choice consumed him and spit him out when there was nothing more to take. Leaving him for the pigs.

You think this happens every time that a person leaves his family on bad terms? That person always ends up eating with the swine in the end? Jesus had some pretty bleak stories that scared little boys into aligning their views with their father's. That's really what the story of the Prodigal Son is about (and it seems you agree).

My step-brother is as gay as they come. His father is extremely Roman Catholic. Let's make a wager. $50 says he's going to do just fine in his life of debauchery and will never have to come back home crawling on his hands and knees. Will you take this bet? C'mon, you know you want to. Jesus can't be wrong!

As for the heterosexual sin of pre-marital sex or heterosexual fornication, I wonder what Jesus would think about you disowning your teenage daughter because she got pregnant?

again not disowned. I am giving her and her baby daddy an oppertunity to be the adults they were pretending to be. When there pride runs out they will return.

I'm sensing some backpedaling, but I don't think you see it. Anyway, we'll go with this last statement for now.

Fine, not disowned. But I do think you're being a little insincere about what you think the situation entails every time. I'll make another wager with you that perhaps if this happens, you'll be the best dad ever and even let them rent out your basement for a nominal fee! Another $50 says you do just that!

Situations involving teen pregnancy vary from teenager to teenager. You know what the leading cause of it is? Teaching kids about nothing but abstinence. You know what keeps the babies at bay? Teaching the kids about safe sex in a well-rounded sex education module. Facts are a bitch.

What's that story in the Gospel of John about Jesus saving the Hooker from being stoned, and then forgiving her on the spot?

this has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Or you don't want to discuss is because you know I'm right about this. Whether or not you disown your kids who you believe are sexually errant is one thing, but not forgiving them is another. That's the point this passage in the Bible is trying to illustrate, and it's actually my favorite one of all the Jeebus fairytales.

It's really too bad that most scholars agree that it's an interpolation that made its way into the Gospel of John well after it was written. Christians actually use that fact as a basis to ignore the teaching within the passage.

Allowing a prodigal to be consumed by their choices wil sift the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the weeds.

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine? This is blatant arrogance on your part to think so highly of your beliefs that you should want your "wayward" son to grovel at your feet like a servant to a master. Do this to your kids, and I guaran-fucking-tee you that you do not have what constitutes a healthy relationship with them.

Anyway, it's amazing how un-biblical you actually are despite your heavy Bible thumping, for all the good it does.

its almost cute the way you guys earnestly think that a few hundered Sunday schools worth of bible knowledge (Im being generous)...

Stop. Your generosity is misplaced. If you assume that we know nothing of the Bible, then you've just made an ass of yourself on that assumption alone. Most of us come from Christian backgrounds on this site, myself included. My experience involves missionary work. You can eat a bag of dicks now, please.

intolerant of intolerance and the intolerant is the only acceptable intolerance allowed in western soceity! That and intolerance of Christians in general...

Again. You are a bigot, a hypocrite, and crummy human being. I don't say this lightly. Your beliefs have made you so. You aim to promote unhealthy relationships with your children, as evidenced in this discussion. This worries me, and rightfully so as I am a father myself.

If you don't follow your Lord Jesus, then who is it that you follow? Pastor Fred? Well, it's apparent that he doesn't speak for Jesus either.

but, you who claim there is no God some how can navigate the whole bible better than men like 'pastor Fred' who have been formally educated and has given the lions share of his life to discerning God's word???

Why do you keep failing to realize that atheists do not make the claim that there is no god? We make the logical conclusion based on the lack of evidence to support your claims to a deity. Have you learned nothing of Burden of Proof?

Look at it this way: an atheist never has any reason to say "I don't believe in a god" if you don't first make the claim by saying "There is a god". You see how that works? Please tell me you understood it this time.

FYI. A formal education as a pastor does not an expert make.

But then it's hard to speak for someone who may never have existed in the first place...but that's another conversation.

Ah, the obligatory reminder/self assurance that even if I can dispel everything you said here you can default to the core of your new system of belief, and everything will be made well.

Wow. You read into that last one way too far.

It's a separate conversation because I don't want to include my proofs for why Jesus may not have existed in this discussion of ours. And yes, there is evidence for his non-existence. It is not a belief I hold, as I do not state as fact that there was no Jesus.

I hope that clarifies it a bit for you.

[Angrboda]

"The first version of the vision was written in Joseph Smith's own hand in 1832. It was personal. It merely dealt with his sinfulness and his going to the grove to ask God for forgiveness. End of story. Subsequently, over the next 12 years, there were other versions that emerged from Joseph Smith, where the story got more detailed and more colorful. And one of the later versions became the official version."
— from "The Mormons", PBS: American Experience

(quoted in the original Messengers/Message thread)

---

I don't know if I saw a "Capitol A"ngel or just a messenger, but what stuck me was what he had to say.

---

He told me of comming prosperity, but not for my benfit so I could live in luxuary, but so I could help others ... I have been given my own company which has grown by double to a factor of 5 every year since we started in 03, and since have rolled what we do, over into dealership in '07. Which has since afforded us another oppertunity to split the company and place us in a position to sell equipment to competing dealers.

I was told I was going to be a spiritual leader

I can tell you that if I was told that I would have to endure a 250 dollar aday herion addicted wife, for the first 5 years of our marriage, or near bankruptcy, or alienation from my family, or loss of friends or being shunned from our church, or any of the really bad things I am not going to talk about here I would have probably taken the easy way out along time ago. I was given exactly what I need to endure those trials and nothing else. [i.e. none of the bad stuff]

"Because these avenues are typically how Satan speaks. the way we can tell between the two messages, is that ... 'Other' messages seem to appeal to one's vanity." — Drich

---

I don't know about that. Have you heard about the "angel" that told him the future?

So again if someone out of the blue were to lay out every major event in your life, and told you He was from God, and gave you a list of things to focous on, would you brush it off even if everything he said started to unfold as he said it, or would you do as you were instructed?

(emphasis mine, here and later)

You have confused a retelling with a given senerio. The segment you quoted was a small piece of a greater point, not a retelling of my specific situation.

I quoted no "segment." I read over the story multiple times to see if I could harmonize what you've written in this thread, in which you claim he told you he was from God, with what you wrote in that previous thread and it simply cannot be made consistent. Nowhere in that entire thread do you claim that he told you he was from God. That's a rather striking omission, if true, and makes the whole "guardian angel" bit rather beside the point. I even checked a related thread to see if you'd ever gotten back to me about finding the original written account you claimed you had made; not surprisingly, you never did get back to me. Your story as recounted in Messengers/Message thread is simply not consistent with what you have told us in this thread. On top of everything else, you claim that he pointed the way to your marrying your crack whore wife, and yet you still had to agonize over whether or not to stick by her. ("I was told I was going to be ... a Husband ... to one God specifically groomed for me.") The pieces simply do not fit.

Later in that thread you explain why you wrote the story down afterward, saying, "I gave the guy 2 dollars when we parted ways, and wrote the story down as soon as I got to a place I could do so. Why because He gave me so many future events to look after I wanted to see if they would come true." No mention that he said he was from God there, either. I guess guys claiming to be from God were such a common occurrence in your life at that time that you didn't think it worth mentioning. And I guess you didn't think it strange that he claimed to be from God, yet he needed cash and a ride.

Further on in that thread, we discuss your belief that the angel was a "messenger from God." Again, no mention that he had claimed to be from God, though it would have been rather pertinent, as that is specifically what I had asked. But let's see your own words:

If I'm not misreading you, you concluded that this gentleman who was "something like that" was a messenger from God,

I start saying is I don't know if he was a proper Angel or if he simply carried a message from God. Simply carring the message technically makes one an angel, but does not nessarily mean one is a spirit based being who lives with God "Angel"

If he had indeed said that he was from God, why all this rubbish about proper angels? A simple, "he said he was from God," would have made infinitely more sense. Moreover, in your OP you state that, "I tell you all of this to say a angel is a messenger from God." Your exposition in that thread simply doesn't make sense in light of him having told you that he was from God.... unless, at that point in your development of this little Christian morality tale, you hadn't added that detail.

It wasn't the fact that i did this or that. It was that a 'man' told me what I was going to do 4 to 5 years before I did it.

Another opportunity to let us in on the secret that he said he was from God. Maybe you didn't mention it because neither did he.

...I have told the story a few times, and if I were looking to perfect anything I would have by now. The story is told to the best of my ablity to recount the events. Theological fundi flaws and all. It stands or falls on the merrit of what I can recall. Nothing added nothing taken away.

---

And now, rather than admitting as much, you attempt to cover over the inconsistencies with a diversionary excuse and accusing me of being "confused."

I guess we can add that you are an unrepentant liar to the list of things we know about you.

[Edwardo Piet]

You have a strange idea of what constitutes evidence Mike. But that's a given.

Could you forgive a mentally ill guy for getting threads mixed up?

Please do...

[Brakeman]

I'd like to hear what god sounds like when he speaks to DRICH.

The sound of me reading my bible if one is made.

So why are you different that other christians that can hear his voice, others that have conversations with him? Some unknown christians wrote the bible and they had to hear god's vocal words to have been able to have written the books down without just making it up. Why are you different than they? Why would god treat Drich differently than so many other christians?

You could argue that it is just not part of god's plan for him to talk to you, but that would seem unlikely, as there is so much for a real god to do these days. There's been a mighty big slump since the time of the ancient prophets..

[Drich]

No. The Bible never speaks openly against it. Even the story of Sodom and Gomorrah never specifies that it's a sin. God is unhappy with the sinful nature of the people there, but it's never stated that their sexual behavior is the result of his displeasure.

the attemp to strip the bible of the book chapter and various verses that openly denounce homosexuality and identify it as a sin is nothing new. Even if you take all the bible says against homosexuality, you still do not have a Santified pretext in which homosexual behavior is permitted. Because with out doubt the bible deems all sexual activity even the thought of it outside the confines of a Santified marriage a sin. If the bible or God does not allow a provision for homosexual sex, then any and all homosexual sex (even the thought of it) becomes a sexual sin. Not an especially bad sexual sin, but a sexual sin none the less, just like any other.

Skip ahead a couple chapters, and Lot has sex with his daughters anyway, even though he was apparently the most righteous man in the entire city. You could say his daughters were the unrighteous ones, but try to explain to me how these girls were able to date rape their father and bear him children? To keep his dick erect for this act, it had to be consensual. Not only that, but he never kicked out his daughters for being pregnant without a husband. Remember, this is the most righteous man in all of the wicked city.

lot also lived in a time before the law.

Does the Bible ever condemn homosexuality?

[/quote]We can't tell for certain, but does it speak out against it? Never. We do get a passage or two about a man cleaving to wife, but it never says that a man will not have sex with another man, or have thoughts of another man, or anything else of this nature. Your interpretation of the Bible's passages includes homosexual tendencies as a sin, even without it ever actually addressing the issue.[/quote]
In no less than 13 different places the bible openly identifies homosexuality a sin. http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

But again even if you ripped out those pages and or some how you silence the bible on its stance, you still do not have a Santified pretext in which homosexual sex is permitted. With out this permission, homosexual sex like any sex outside the confines of a Santified marriage is a sin.

I don't play nice, and now you're trying to mess with my words.

thats just it sport, its not your word, it apart of the English lexicon and as such is subject to the definitions found in reference material like merrium-webster's dictionary.

beggs the question.

It doesn't beg any questions.

do you not understand what the logical fallacy 'begs the question' means?
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html

In your orginal question you asserted that if I did not like gay porn I was only inclined to straight porn. Not allowing for the option of not liking porn at all. The fallacy comes in because you need to provide proof of your assertion that limits me to only two options.

You made this thread for questions, and I'm going to damn well ask them.

your right I made this thread for question. I will answer questions. However I will not answer logical fallacies. Even if you frame your logical fallacy in question form. A logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy no matter how you frame it. For me to participate in your fallacy will only push the conversation to whatever fore gone conclusion you may have. This is a form of intelectual dishonesty, that I will not be apart of.

Interesting. So you're not interested in performing in one yourself, but do you ever watch them in porn?

i was exposed to porn at a very young age and struggled with everyday of my life. Even now my mind will wander to things I've seen if I am not careful, about who or what I surround myself with. That is why I do not like or watches certain mainstream movies or shows. And why I have not carried over any of my friends from before my conversion. Because they wanted to live a life I no longer wanted for myself.

I'm just trying to find out how you personally feel about sexual acts because this is very connected to what we're discussing here.

I am for them in the proper context. (A Santified marriage.)

Not doomed, but we definitely run the risk. The thing that we all agree on in society is that even if we have sexual appetites that are outside the social norms,

That is a very slippery slope. Social norms are only based on the self righteousness a given soceity allows for itself. Look at how quickly homosexuality went from social taboo to a social mandate in this country. All it takes is a desensitization through over exposure and the society yields its current morality to the first person to question the norm.

...the sanity of the majority of the world population of men who grew up in the 80's with pictures or posters of either of those two on the wall is in tact.

That can't possibly have anything to do with them coming to grips with reality...

Why is denying your sexually 'reality' in one instance, and in another putting you at risk for mental instability?

I'd like to see a quote by a psychologist that actually holds to this standard that you are proposing. By this train of thought, we would also have more cases of rape and other sexual misdemeanors than we would know what to do with, if this was really the philosophy we are following. No...it must be something else. I wonder what it could be...?

You can find a psychologist to agree with what ever you think is right. Psychology is the societal art of justification. Whatever a given psychologist feels justified in doing he can back with research.

I'm also interested in what you consider to be societal decline. Really. This should be good.

the attack and degradation of the traditional family. History records societal degradation and eventually a fall, when the tradition family model has been corrupted or replaced. Greece, Rome, Korea, china, Japan have all experienced societal decline when the traditional family was compromised.

So the father is always right in every family?

Do you always move the goal post when your questions have been answered? You asked what I would do.. Not what every other father does.

You think this happens every time that a person leaves his family on bad terms?

in my orginal post I pointed out that some lost sons do not come back.

again not disowned. I am giving her and her baby daddy an oppertunity to be the adults they were pretending to be. When there pride runs out they will return.

I'm sensing some backpedaling, but I don't think you see it. Anyway, we'll go with this last statement for now.

I'm not back peddling. My intention is and will always be to mirror the example given to us by Christ. I simply clarified my position when you wrongly labeled my efforts. You are quick to judge, slow to understand and wreckless in how you apply your judgments on to other people.

Fine, not disowned. But I do think you're being a little insincere about what you think the situation entails every time. I'll make another wager with you that perhaps if this happens, you'll be the best dad ever and even let them rent out your basement for a nominal fee! Another $50 says you do just that!

No basements in my state.

this has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Or you don't want to discuss is because you know I'm right about this. Whether or not you disown your kids who you believe are sexually errant is one thing, but not forgiving them is another. That's the point this passage in the Bible is trying to illustrate, and it's actually my favorite one of all the Jeebus fairytales.

It's really too bad that most scholars agree that it's an interpolation that made its way into the Gospel of John well after it was written. Christians actually use that fact as a basis to ignore the teaching within the passage.

This passage speaks to personal judgement, sentencing someone to physical death, and attempting to execute that person. None of these things have anything to do with what is being discussed.
I have judged anyone the warrants a death sentence.

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine? This is blatant arrogance on your part to think so highly of your beliefs that you should want your "wayward" son to grovel at your feet like a servant to a master. Do this to your kids, and I guaran-fucking-tee you that you do not have what constitutes a healthy relationship with them.

So? Honestly what do I care that I do not measure up to your standards? Isn't that the point of being a Christian? We look to God for instruction and not soceity.

Stop. Your generosity is misplaced. If you assume that we know nothing of the Bible, then you've just made an ass of yourself on that assumption alone. Most of us come from Christian backgrounds on this site, myself included. My experience involves missionary work.

that is exactly my point. Most of you guys have very limited experience in Christianity and some how believe because you ladled soup in hati after the hurricans or even spend 30 years in a church never having missed a Sunday, this somehow places you in a position to use the bible to rebuke or correct someone who has spent the lions share of their lives studying scripture.

FYI. A formal education as a pastor does not an expert make.

But you being a missionary does... Yeah.

[The Reality Salesman01]

i suspected as much (seriously) because you would not have asked a origins question when the bible states God's existence preceded creation

But, I did ask an origins question. You said that my comprehension was only limited by the questions I can think to ask. You said that as long as I can ask the question, the answer would not be beyond my ability to comprehend. Let's see if you give me an answer that is beyond my human ability to comprehend...

the bible teaches God was before the beginning of creation. Think about without any part of creation to mark the passage of time, time becomes an unknowable/undocumentiable variable. Therefore to exist before the beginning literally makes one timeless.

Unfortunately, I am a being whose comprehension of time is limited to my knowledge of it being linear. So, to posit an infinity is beyond my realm of comprehension. It is nothing more than conjecture to do so. I have no basis for an infinity, nor do I know what preceeded the big bang, so I am not able to make any claims of the sort. You, have done exactly that. When I ask how you know it to be true, your answer is that you inferred it from your interpretation of biblical texts. You ambiguously offer a scientific understanding of time to justify it, however, should I raise a scientific objection to causation, you are reduced to shrugging your shoulders, and telling me...what exactly? That God's ability is beyond my comrehension?

You choose to retain your current level of understanding, rather than a/s/k for the gift of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom He offers you.

I'm a/s/king you a question, and you're unable to give a good answer.

If you refer to science and in our understanding of time to defend your God, then I assume you will also have no problem with the 3 part chain of causation that your claims of God have left a blank spot in.

An Efficient Cause- Who made it? You say god.

A Material Cause- (blank)

A Formal Cause- The universe

If you believe that only God preceeded the universe, and you are not a proponent of Ex Deo, then from what did God create the universe from?

Every form of causation requires all 3 of the above parts in order to effectively bring something else into existance. Explain.