Homophobes. Your nipples prove that you could have been Gay.

[mayor of simpleton]

Homophobes. Your nipples prove that you could have been Gay.

Fair enough...

My questions here would be as follows...

Would polymastia be an indication of the condition of "bisexual" or "pansexual" orientation?

How does silicon effect this sexual orientation potential?

Would a nipple piecing be an indication of destroying the Id, Ego or Superego?

What effects does fitness training (say benchpress) or over consumption of fast foods (cause of many a man boob) have upon all future sexual orientation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ppmaHtIPS8

"... everyone needs a bosom for a pillow, everyone needs a bosom!"

Meow!

GREG

[Greatest I am]

In response tothe sedcond video; it's not true that Jesus nullifies the punishment for our sins or the fact that we did sin, he advocates that the consequences or price of our life of sinful actions are already paid. Jesus was that propitiation, given by God, not the nullification. Punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is obviously unjust. Sacrificing one for the many is just. It is further more touching and sacrificial when he did it knowingly and intentionally, but continued till the end with dignity instead of bitterness. What parent on here wouldn't step in front of a bullet or a car to save their kid? How is that immoral?

To your ezekiel verse the prohpet speaks the entire chapter of temporal rewardsand punishments not of eternal so I don't see where it's relevant to this discussion, ATT. It does easily show personal accountability though , so I'm not sure why you included it, as it's in opposition to the opinion of the first video and your view thusfar. Nor do I see the correlation to your Psalms verse that talks about rich people not being able to redeem/save any but yourself.

I agree that killing one to save the many is justifiable.
In this case, Jesus/God was saving the many from a danger that he himself put in place.

God threw the grenade and then laid his son over it.
That is insane and unjust.

You can call it a suicide or sacrifice all you want to but what it was, was a self-aggrandizing act that he did to satisfy conditions that he himself set up.

As to Ezekiel, you might note that he destroys the concept of original sin.

Regards
DL

[tackattack]

Just because he created the potential for sin does not mean he is the accountable party for original sin. He gave us the choice, we chose and continue to choose paths away from God. Original sin isn't a bad gene or something that get's passed down. It's a part of our instinctual nature that prefers to experience rather than trust. It wasn't something Adam and Eve did whenever ago, people still do it today. If by destroying original sin concepts you're talking about that we are somehow culpable for something we didn't do, then you're right. Many verses destroy that, that's my point. Your first video's premise is that we are being punished for something someone else did, which entirely misses the mark and I tried to point it out. We are personally accountable for our actions and recognizing our own sinfulness is a fundamental part of coming to Christ, not the sins that Adam did in a Garden.

[frankiej]

That sounds like an argument that would come from someone who thinks something like homosexuality is a choice.... Justsayinnnnnnn.....

[Greatest I am]

Just because he created the potential for sin does not mean he is the accountable party for original sin. He gave us the choice, we chose and continue to choose paths away from God. Original sin isn't a bad gene or something that get's passed down. It's a part of our instinctual nature that prefers to experience rather than trust. It wasn't something Adam and Eve did whenever ago, people still do it today. If by destroying original sin concepts you're talking about that we are somehow culpable for something we didn't do, then you're right. Many verses destroy that, that's my point. Your first video's premise is that we are being punished for something someone else did, which entirely misses the mark and I tried to point it out. We are personally accountable for our actions and recognizing our own sinfulness is a fundamental part of coming to Christ, not the sins that Adam did in a Garden.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If God created our natures then he is culpable for what we do.

Regards
DL

---

That sounds like an argument that would come from someone who thinks something like homosexuality is a choice.... Justsayinnnnnnn.....

+ 1

Regards
DL

[tackattack]

@Greatest- God is the author of Human's sinful nature? So God wants us to not follow his path? Sin is diametrically opposite to God's will, so how could he give us somethings he didn't possess ie. a sinful nature? Your arguement is illogical and unsupported scripturally. Obviously you don't believe in personal accountability or free will. Why you want A or B has nothing to do with personal accountability of free actions. I'm a father of 2 and I'd probably kill anyone who harmed them. Does that make me any different than a delusional murder? No, I kill he kills, killing is wrong. The killing is what's punishment worthy not the reasons of the individual. It may make a difference in our restitution, but it's not something that wouldn't make us "not guilty"

@frankiej- Was that towards me? If it was I have no idea what your talking about or what it has to do with this conversation. I understand the OP and topic were regarding gays and homophobia, which is why I suggested it get moved out of religion. Since it's here, I'm only participating because it's not taking a genetic, scientific or homosexual bent. To answer your question, no I don't feel homosexuality is a choice.

[Greatest I am]

@Greatest- God is the author of Human's sinful nature? So God wants us to not follow his path?

Now you speak for God. HMM.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

------------------------

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Regards
DL

[tackattack]

i don't and didn't speak for God, they were questions, which you didn't answer.
A)He established that the wages of sin was death from the beginning. That Adam and Eve would no longer have access to the tree of life meant they'll have death because their nature is sinful and they (upon expulsion) had knowledge of what evil was.
B)God's plan wasn't for them to eat the fruit because it was the one forbidden fruit not to eat. It did present a forseable choice, not an inevitable outcome.
C)Jesus isn't the solution for sin. He is the atonement or reparations for sin. If Jesus' dying freed all man from sin, he did a crappy job because we all still sin. A solution for sin would be ignorance of evil and faith in God, but that's not where we're at at or could get back to.
D)Jesus is the narrow doorway though by which we can still have access to God's will in this life and the afterlife.

Scripturaly you can't support that Eve was following God's plan in sinning and by stating she was it's obvious you believe she had no choice or free will. Jesus was a willing sacrifice for mankind, and He is the cornerstone of Christianity. You've failed to established where it is immoral to sacrifice yourself for the greater good.
You're absolutely right in that there was no need for God to send His son, He could have just let us all die for eternity. Wouldn't that have been a wasted effort in the first place though? Certainly not something an omnimax God would do.

[Greatest I am]

i don't and didn't speak for God, they were questions, which you didn't answer.
A)He established that the wages of sin was death from the beginning. That Adam and Eve would no longer have access to the tree of life meant they'll have death because their nature is sinful and they (upon expulsion) had knowledge of what evil was.
B)God's plan wasn't for them to eat the fruit because it was the one forbidden fruit not to eat. It did present a forseable choice, not an inevitable outcome.
C)Jesus isn't the solution for sin. He is the atonement or reparations for sin. If Jesus' dying freed all man from sin, he did a crappy job because we all still sin. A solution for sin would be ignorance of evil and faith in God, but that's not where we're at at or could get back to.
D)Jesus is the narrow doorway though by which we can still have access to God's will in this life and the afterlife.

Scripturaly you can't support that Eve was following God's plan in sinning and by stating she was it's obvious you believe she had no choice or free will. Jesus was a willing sacrifice for mankind, and He is the cornerstone of Christianity. You've failed to established where it is immoral to sacrifice yourself for the greater good.
You're absolutely right in that there was no need for God to send His son, He could have just let us all die for eternity.

Or just forgiven us outright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs

Regards
DL

[tackattack]

or just turn us all into worshiping robots. He could have done anything he wanted. I showed that the wages of sin is death. Dying selflessly with sacrfice is our example. IF you want to address the rest of my questions feel free, I already have addressed yours. I don't have time to go though tons of video that I'm already subscribed to (ZOMGitsChris I am also subscribed to)and have seen. Feel free to address them personally with your own thoughts, unless you'd like the same cut and paste in return.
V/R
Dave