Good points... I worked in Hollywood and there were a high percentage of gay people in the industry, especially gay men. Its funny how Christians can hang out with heterosexual fornicators, gossips, gluttons, etc and be friends with them and interact with them whether in family or not but when it comes to gays they ignore them.
"McLaren is playing with words here and leaving many confused."
He's essentially saying that approval or the lack therof of something about a person should not neccessarily determine the overall acceptance of that person. It's not a such confusing concept.
"An homosexual act is a sin, the Bible is clear"
Many believe this, others differ due to different Biblical interpetations. Mr. Mclaren is stating the ideal that a lack of agreement on this and/or other... (Cont.)
Mr. McLaren's message conveys an ideal that approval should not go hand in hand with (overall) acceptance. It's a good reminder for us all since too many Christians let disaproval get out of hand, causing it snowball into rejection.
This is a typical "postmodern" answer. Avoid directly answering the question by giving a vague subjective answer, obviously because you dont want to offend anybody. So called "men of God" need to stop dancing around the question and stand up for the truth.
"Why is it that Brian thinks that his thoughts on "acceptance doesn't mean approval" is any different than most evangelical, fundamentalist Christian's view of "accept the sinner, but not the sin"?"
I think his message is that one should be careful not to let another's "sin" or at least what is perceived as such determine acceptance.
Why is it that Brian thinks that his thoughts on "acceptance doesn't mean approval" is any different than most evangelical, fundamentalist Christian's view of "accept the sinner, but not the sin"? That's the message I've always heard.
I am never more prayerful for the wellbeing of the non Christian, agnostic or athiest than I am the fellow Christian who second guesses our Lord on matters of ultimate judgement that are His ALONE.
life hurts.i have two very nice persons in your family.with the challenges.of what you speak about.i am so concerned for these two very nice family members of our ' s.i love them a lot.they are so nice to me and my husband
thanks brian for posting.i knew you.back in rockville maryland.when i was thirteen.rick and i are still married.our children were 32 and 31 this year.
Mclaren brings up a good point in stressing that agreement and acceptance should NOT neccessarily or entirely go hand in hand. It's a lesson FAR too many Christians have sadly not taken to heart.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
jesus never says anything about homosexuality. if it were an issue for the future "chrisitian" faith, i'm sure he would have mentioned it. all forms of love are approved. forget human form. spirit is all that matters. judge ideas, not people. may all be blessed in all their doings.
@IsCoolSilke - haitng [some kinds of] religion, I have to agree can be a good thing....
Jesus actually said that the scribes of his day (the social/political oppressors) the Pharisees (the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES) & the UNBELIEVING God haters should all be be very concerned, because at the end they will all be judged and sent to eternal punishment (i.e., hell). So the question is not if you are religious or not, but whether you have the facts and turn in faith to the truth of God in simple faith
-In light of the fact that there are clear principals of exegesis which emphasize the role of theme& context, it's shocking you insist on this. It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise.This theme is established in the genesis account of the male/female relationship and later re- inforced by Jesus who also condemns divorce. Nowhere are men EVER called 'Echad'
@shieldsff How then do you explain the Intersexed? People with BOTH male and female sex organs. Why is it so hard to understand that human sexuality is complex and layered and unique to almost each individual. And like 1500 species of animals God created members who are homosexual. It is a part of nature and is natural.
well, actually, I do not see any need to 'explain' the inter-sexed. This is a rare condition which may require surgical correction-a birth defect. Like most people, I do not accept there is any valid biological evidence that, in the main, people are irreversibly "born' homosexual. The APA itself has made perfectly clear that sexuality is subjected to a myriad of environmental factors & behaviors are not inexorable. I urge that you intently find wisdom about God's plan for relationships
@neenerpuss - 'How then do you explain the Intersexed?'
I don't need or try to explain the "inters-exed" Why would one attempt or need to point to the clear exception to justify the normative. That's like someone inquiring how can we explain the conceptual validity of marriage fidelity in light of the existence of adultery
@shieldsff Your NON-answer answer that took you over 4 weeks to think of proves you clearly do not have any understanding of biology.
If a person has both a penis and vagina what determines their sexuality? Something other than their genitals would be the correct answer. Biochemical? Hormonal? Emotional? Brain chemistry? Right brain? Left Brain? Why, if its something other than genitals for inter-sexed people would that not be true for people who have only single sex genitals too?
OK, so here we go again exactly:Further hubris& arrogance on your part that someone should venture and poise a contrary and persuasive position. U are full of assertions my friend with no basis or logic.You have no scientific support for your assumptions,yet U rant on about faulty analogies involving rare bio-hermaphrodites and peoples socialized sexual orientations. As if for examplesthose who are bi-sexual say have no manner of choice or volition in their behaviors. This is contrary to Christ
well said- I have previously recommended the Youtube debate with Dr. Michael Brown and Harry Knox. Dr. Brown does an outstanding,unassailable job of explicating and expounding the underlying judeo/christian ethical understanding of sexuality in God's view. Every one would do themselves a great favor listening to the deep wisdom of this man. The urgency of the Apostle Paul's warning in I Cor 6 "Not to be deceived..." (speaking to the brethren) makes sense because of those who call sin "love"
@boc1953 there are many counterfeit churches out there but that does not make all churches counterfeit IE toyota makes a Car they call Lexus it is Nothing more than a toyota but nobody will pay 115,000.00 for a toyota so they make it sound like it is not built on a Economy car , yet what is a toyota ? you see Lexus does not sound japanese , so the consumer takes the bait , and the rip off is complete the World is doing the Same thing ! they teach that there is No GOD ! But They Lie !
It never ceases to amaze me how people are so devided on this issue. It tells me that people are coming from ego and not spirit. The Bible is a compilation of books interpreted by man and is the story of humanity and their relationship and understanding of God. You can take any Bible Verse and use it to make your point. There are so many interpretations . I chose to believe in a loving God and we are all his/her children. Jesus wanted to bring that back to us.
@Rosipatch I like your Idea, Lets put the Bible in the Trash and Make up our own laws ! What a Great idea ! I am sure we can figure out a way to get to heaven on our own ! Oh wait a minute The Bible teaches that in Matthew 7:21 Jesus said Many Many will say Lord Lord let me into your kingdom and Jesus says "DEPART FROM ME MEN OF LAWLESSNESS " The Bible teaches that you make up your law people are outside of Biblical Truth ! Not a Very safe place to be !
I disagree that that the greek word Apostle Paul uses "Arsenokoitai" lacks a consensus of meaning among reputable Bible scholars. I recommend the debate here on YT with Dr, Michael Brown & Harry Knox .Read Matt 19 and Mark 10. Paul wrote in the first century addressing an entire panoply of SPIRITUAL conditions. Paul had numerous terms to address the sins & ills of his day so your argument begs the question of why he chose THAT word. Also see the work of clinical psychologist Stanton Jones
You 'proudly' mention [the] 'gay christian movement (even though God strongly condemns & resists the proud). Could you clarify that? Where in the Bible is it taught that Christians ought to distinguish themselves or establish their identity in Christ Jesus predicated on sexuality? In fact, we are told there is only one Lord, one faith & one baptism into the body of Christ Jesus. Is it not possible that U R deceived ? Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too
He states in the vid that one person's (overall) acceptance of another shouldn't neccessarily depend on approval of everything about the person. What is heretical about this?
But god never accepts homosexuals, according to the bible. They are an abomination and should be put to death without delay. The bible is crystal clear on this issue. Crystal clear! This guy is just choosing to alter and water down the unalterable word of god! His position is totally indefensible and in complete opposition to the word of the creator. If you want to be a good christian. You must put all homosexuals to death ASAP! Oh, and people who eat shellfish also. Bye...
@clay56 Yeah, sorry about that Clay...I didn't mean to mislead you but I thought the final sentence clarified my true position quite adequately. I really like your reply! It made me laugh! Thanks...
I wonder if you will be laughing on the day of Judgement ? By the way I visited the ruins of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah Did Christians burn the cities or were they destroyed BY GOD ? You Have been warned !
Interesting how you Admit that there will be a Day of Judgement , If you are Positive that you will be Dead and No Judgement will occur , then can you please Explain why the human body is the only Living creature that Losses weight at Death ? No Animal does this regardless of weight the same amount leaves the Human Body at Death , Why is that ? If you Cannot Even Convince yourself Than How Will you Face GOD ?
@hbav8tor I am happy to admit there could be a judgement day. I don't pretend to know everything about life and death, I leave that to believers. I just don't see any evidence to support the bizarre idea of an afterlife and a god and all that goes with it. As for why the human body loses weight after death, I don't have a clue why. Does that happen? Are we the only living creatures that lose weight after death? What does that have to do with a god or gods? What is it I can't convince myself of?
@boc1953 You are honest , Let me ask you a question Have you ever read the Bible Cover to cover ? Do you know What Biblical CHRISTianity is all about ? & I am not talking about the guys on TV with the funny hair , mormons, jews,catholics,muslims, etc I am talking about the God of the Bible, Did you know that The Bible has NEVER been Proven Wrong ? But science has been proven wrong many times ? Duncan MacDougall weighed people on a scale that were dying at the moment of death
@hbav8tor I have read the bible cover to cover and that's one reason I don't believe it suggests a true god. The bible has never been proven wrong because it can be (and has been) interpreted in so many different ways. The bible can be manipulated to say anything you want it to say. Science has been proven wrong because it works with empirical, verifiable evidence, which is constantly being revised and updated as new knowledge is gained. Religious belief works with unverifiable superstition.
@boc1953 You are incorrect about the Bible being " interpreted in so many ways it can be made to say anything you want it to" which tells me you have never read the Bible, Anyone who has read the Bible will tell you it Points to ONE TRUE GOD ! why lie to me about reading the Bible ? have you ever heard of the word hermeneutics, exegesis, eisegesis ? The only way to read the Bible has always been by understanding hermeneutics and exegetical interpretation , Please No more lies .
@hbav8tor How strange! In your last post you said I was honest. Now you call me a liar! But I guess that's what happens when someone takes their deepest beliefs and gives them to an imaginary friend,who tells them what to think. I have read the bible without 'interpretation' and it is abominable! The OT is the sort of book collection one would expect from bronze age mythology.As for the New Testament, it's central doctrine of atonement is utterly immoral. The idea of one person paying for (cont)
@boc1953 I said you were honest in the last post because you admitted that you were unsure about a Final day of Judgement , But now you got caught in a Lie so I am simply telling you that I know you are Lying to me . You did Lie to me because you said that you read the entire Bible and No where in the Bible did you find a One God Theme , so lets do this Please Kindly Provide Chapter and Verse from the Bible which point out that there is Not a Triune God as you claim exist in the Bible !
@hbav8tor I never said there isn't a one god theme in the bible! Of course the bible will say Yahweh is the one true god. Every holy book says their god is the only true one! I never said otherwise! Trust me, I have read the bible cover to cover.
@boc1953 This is what happens when you Lie , you forget what you said go back and look it up for yourself Let me refresh your memory here is what you wrote " I have read the Bible Cover to Cover and thats one reason I Don`t believe it suggests a true God" That was then this is what you last wrote " I never said there is not a one God theme in the Bible " So which One is it Today ? it is one thing to say you do not believe it is an entirely different thing to say the Bible supports you
@hbav8tor There is a difference between a one god theme and a true god. The bible, like many other holy books suggests a single god. I never said it didn't. I said I don't believe the bible suggests a TRUE god. Then in my later post, I said "I never said there isn't a one god theme in the bible". So, to spell it out for you, the bible clearly states there is one god (in 3, whatever that means) but I don't believe it is true. I don't believe the god of the bible is a true god. Understand?
Respond to this video... Thanks for the response , you state that you believe that the Bible does not point to a One True God but the Bible does teach that there is a one true God , is that correct on what you said ?
@hbav8tor No I said that the bible teaches that there is one true god. That the bible does point to there being one true god but that I do not believe in the teachings of the bible and do not believe there is one true god. ie I don't believe the bible. I don't believe there is a god. I do believe the bible says there is one true god but I don't believe it's true what the bible says. I don't know how many more ways I can state this to you.
@boc1953 I understand you to say that you do not believe that the Bible teaches a One True God theme , Can you Please kindly Provide Chapter and verse from the Bible that states your point of View ? this is the 3rd time I am asked for this , can you please provide this Information ?
@hbav8tor I have answered this question 3 times and I think that's enough. But just for you...one more time...I do believe the bible teaches a one true god theme. I just don't believe in the teachings of the bible so I don't believe there is one true god. Anyway, it's bedtime for me now, so goodnight, sleep tight and god bless. I'll answer any other posts tomorrow.
@hbav8tor (cont) the sins of another is awful! Only believers who have read the bible will say it points to the one true god. It's reverse engineering. As for the big words (hemeneutics etc), If god wanted to communicate with his creation, he would do so unambiguously. His word would not need to be cryptically analysed and interpreted by men in order to be understood So read the bible as it is written and it is clearly not a divinely inspired document. Man's divine interpretation makes it divine
@boc1953 Can we debate without argumentum ad hominem ? Have I attacked you in any way ? if you are unsure of yourself is it not better you find out now as opposed to later before GOD ? So why get mad ? I simply stated fact about you lying , please kindly supply me with the Bible Chapter and Verse that as you claim do not point to a Triune GOD, as far as the reading of the Bible do you not know that ancient languages have changed ? ancient Hebrew, Greek, English words change
@hbav8tor I am not mad at you...I have said nothing to attack you. I am not unsure of myself, I think perhaps it is you who needs assurance and you look for it in religious belief. What you stated is an unfounded belief that I lied. Unfounded belief and fact are not the same thing. As I said before, I am happy to concede that the bible points to a triune god. I know ancient languages have changed, that's one reason why I don't think a god would have used the printed word to communicate with us.
@boc1953 you have attacked me , again to refresh your memory , " you can call me a liar but I guess thats what happens when someone takes their deepest beliefs and gives them to an imaginary friend " in this sentence you are insinuating that God is Nothing more than a "Imaginary friend" like that of a person who is mentally ill , Is that not an attack ? Again I am not here to attack you ! I am here to get you to look at the evidence and use Logic to come to a conclusion
@hbav8tor You were the first to insult, by calling me a liar, which I am not! If you are so thin skinned as to take my comment as an attack, then how can we debate at all? As far as I'm concerned, your god IS no more than an imaginary friend. I realise several billion people believe in gods but that doesn't validate their belief. There was a time when everyone thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. That didn't mean they were right, any more than belief in gods makes it true.
@boc1953 I am not thin skinned at all , I just wanted to point out that you can attack me but that did nothing to support you presuppositional Beliefs thats all , I am still waiting for your response on what Darwin said
@boc1953 I am not sure where you stand , you Now say that you are happy to concede that the Bible points to a Triune God , yet you earlier stated that it did not . then you stated that you know that "ancient languages have changed thats one reason why I do not think God would have used printed word to communicate with us " Yet you state that you read the Bible Everyday and keep it by your bed ! Why ? it is not how God would talk to us according to what you earlier wrote
@hbav8tor I never said I read the bible every day. Is English not your first language? You seem unable to understand my writings. You keep misquoting me so I think you either don't understand or don't want to. Which is it?
@boc1953 So Now you propose to Put yourself in the place of GOD , so you know Better right ? as far as how he should save mankind ? speak to mankind ? which of his rules are fair and which ones are not fair ? Do you Honestly believe that you are smarter than GOD ? That somehow you have figured it all out ? Lets examine your life , are you working ? where do you live ? How much money do you have ? How much power do you have ? why are you so limited in resources then ? please answer
@hbav8tor I don't put myself in the place of god. I don't believe he exists so how can I replace him? It is you who chooses which rules to obey and which to ignore. Any cursory reading of OT law will show that you don't follow it. My life is perfect. I have a thriving career as a musician, which I love. 4 children all with university degrees, good jobs, husbands. The love of my wife of 32 years. A great house and time on my hands. A love of the beauty of life. All without any need for god(s)!
@boc1953 If God does not exist why do you read his Bible ? why do you keep it so close to your bed ? sir because you do not understand the Bible , you do not understand that the O/T has been replaced by the N/T CHRISTians live by the N/T today , When ever you Judge Gods Rules and decisions on why he does what he does you are putting yourself in a position above God , other wise how could you make the statement that That is not how " I believe God would choose to communicate his Word to us "
@hbav8tor Whoever decided to replace the OT with the NT and all christians who follow that ruling have placed themselves above their god! I am happy to admit that I place myself above your god and all the others. Because gods do not exist as far as I can tell and so I am above them because I do exist. You are the hippocrates because you go against your gods rules and then use man made excuses to justify your defiance! The bible clearly states god's law is eternal and unchanging!
@boc1953 if you would have read the Bible your would have an understanding the God Himself replaced the O/T law with the N/T , So you place yourself Above God , so I ask again If you are above God , why are you living the Only Life you have in Japanese car style ? Still working at 58 ! kids still working ! There is No God according to you , so why the rules ?
@hbav8tor Jesus said in the new testament that not one jot of old testament law was to be changed. It is man's interpretation of the bible that has led to NT replacing OT. I don't understand your comment on 'why the rules?' Your not heading towards the 'morals come from god' angle are you? Please don't go there! It was Jesus who said 'Take no thought for the morrow'. If you are living by that rule, I guess you are contributing 0 to society! Your gods rules are too barbaric for me to follow.
@boc1953 Your life is perfect ? I simply wanted you to be honest with yourself , Now that you spilled the beans , lets have a Look at your perfect life , you have a thriving career as a musician at 58 Years Old ? your Children all have Jobs ? why are they still working for other people ? Only one house ? congrats on being Married for 32 Years that is a Great Thing ! You are enjoying what God Calls Common Grace, the God who you say you do not believe in yet you read his Word daily , why ?
@hbav8tor I don't see where you are going with this conversation. I didn't say I only had one house, but what do these questions have to do with anything? I am enjoying what your god calls common grace? I don't care what you call it. I just don't believe it has anything to do with your god. You can't see the world through any other glasses than the religious ones you wear! Whoever brainwashed you did a good job! Nothing means anything to you without your god, does it?
@boc1953 let me ask you this simple question, you say you read the bible everyday , how many chapters did you read a day when you were reading it cover to cover ? Can you answer that ?
@hbav8tor I do not read the bible every day. I have read the bible from cover to cover and when I was reading it, I probably read 3 or so chapters most days. Do you understand when I say I do not read the bible every day. I do not read the bible at all these days. You seem to be under a misaprehension regarding this.
@boc1953 this is why I said that you are Lying , you said that you have read the entire Bible Cover to Cover in 5 months Correct ? at 3 Chapters a day you Could Not have finished the Entire Bible in 5 Months !
Respond to this video... Why do you Continue To Lie to me ? if you are going to lie make up a good one like you are worth Millions of dollars of that you drive a Ferrari or that you are a Very famous Person Etc
@boc1953 If you promise to not Lie anymore can I trust your word as a Proven Liar ? what would your kids say ? Great going dad you Lied to him ? would your wife be proud My Husband is a Liar ? do you even care about the problems of Lying ?
@hbav8tor Thanks for giving me something to laugh about! I didn't keep track of how many chapters per day I read, I have a life! I also don't care if you believe me or not. You obviously prefer to believe the unbelievable on no reliable evidence, so I take it as a compliment that you don't believe me! Why would it be a good lie to say I had millions and a Ferrari? I am not that materialistic! I have not lied to you since our discussion began but you seem really hung up on this!You call me (cont)
@boc1953 I asked if you have read the Bible cover to cover , and your reply was yes you have and it took you 5 months and you were reading 3 chapters a day , Now some simple math there are 1189 chapters in the Bible , assuming you read 3 chapters a day for 5 months ( which I doubt ) but will give you credit for since that is your claim 30 days times 5 months equals 150 days times 3 chapters equals 450 chapters that is NOT THE BIBLE ! U cannot stop lying ! This conversation is Over !
@hbav8tor (cont) "a proven liar" which again, shows that your standards of proof are not very high, something I would expect of a believer. Obviously you are inclined to believe without any evidence! Of course, you are the true liar here, as is evidenced by your posts so far. Most foolish of all is that you are lying to yourself about evidence for the existence of a god. Your chosen god in particular! I mean, really, where is this conversation going? Are we just going to swap insults now?
@boc1953 but again I ask you why do you read the Bible and have it near your bed if there is No God ? Does your wife think the same way ? Do your Children think the same way ?
@hbav8tor Also, a quick search of google revealed that there are many explanations for the loss of weight immediately following death, if indeed this does occur...the jury seems to be still out on that. Surely, if the soul is immortal and immaterial, it would have no weight?
@boc1953 your hypothesis is Incorrect , "if the soul is immortal and immaterial it would have no weight " thats the whole point the soul is not immaterial and it has a weight , I understand you do not want a God most people do not but closing your eyes to the truth will not help your matter lets both be honest with each other about the facts , is that fair ? have you seen the Movie No Intelligence allowed ? its a quick movie Ben Stein who is not a CHRISTian makes a Fool out of Dawkins idea
@hbav8tor I was not making a hypothesis. Neither you nor I know anything factual or verifiable about the soul, let alone it's existence. The difference between us is that you pretend you do. You are the one closing your eyes to rational truth and suspending the logic that you use in all other areas of your life, if favour of superstitious belief. You are being intellectually dishonest, with yourself and with others. I have not seen the movie, but I know it's subject matter. (cont)
@boc1953 I do know that there is a soul you have said you are not sure, This is a great example of how you see things " I have not seen the movie but I know its subject matter " " I have Not read the Bible but Know its subject matter " Let me ask you how long did it take you to read the Bible ? and again you are wrong because the movie is about Dawkins ideas , I do like what you said about finding something wrong with a Theory and fixing it , can you be as brave with evolution ?
@hbav8tor It's also a great example of how you see things. "I do know there is a soul", like all religious believers, you pretend to know things you don't know. Again, I HAVE READ THE BIBLE! I read it over 5 months and I still read parts of it now. I keep it in my bedside table draw. Evolution is a real theory. There are no real biblical theories. Evolution has been more thoroughly tested than the theory of gravity! Yet it still stands up. Any holy book cannot stand up to any logical test.
@hbav8tor (cont) It is not 'Dawkins idea'. It is the undeniable evidence of thousands of scientific facts, piled one on top of another to reach a conclusion. The idea is attacked by scientists from every angle to find a weak spot and yet it still stands. Weak spots? Yes! But that is how scientific advancement has always worked! By finding something wrong with the theory and using the known facts to fix it. Religion has no honesty, so it can't do that.Honest self examination would be fatal to it.
@boc1953 Lets talk about Science shall we , have you heard of the LAW ( not theory) of Irreducible Complexity ? it states that a multi component system of parts that work together to perform a specific function must all be present at the same time in order to function, if you loose just one component of the system , the whole thing Fails ! just one of the Many examples is the Eyeball , Please Explain using evolution THEORY the existence of the eyeball . please respond Thank You.
@hbav8tor I am not a scientist, so am not really able to talk science. However, I can't believe that you chose the eye to prove irreducible complexity! Why not the bacterial flagellum? I will give you a link but you are obviously intellectually dishonest. This stuff has been refuted over and over again and a 2 minute search on google will answer the question for you. Here is one link (Richard Dawkins, I'm afraid).
@boc1953 You Tell me that Evolution is a Fact and proved by science , then when I ask you to Please Explain the Law of Irreducible Complexity, you now say you are not a scientist , so why are you talking about evolution then ? Did you know that darwin himself Said " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,slight modifications, My theory would absolutely break down " ? How would you reply to that ?
@hbav8tor I believe in evolution because it is supported by mountains of tested, reliable evidence and seems to be a reasonable theory. I do know what Darwin said and no irreducible complexity has ever been proven so far, despite many desperate attempts to find something to fit the bill. Are you a scientist?
@boc1953 You said " I believe in evolution because it is supported by mountains of tested reliable evidence and it seems to be a reasonable theory But I am not a Scientist so i cannot talk about it " Well then How is it you believe in something you do not understand and cannot talk about ?
@boc1953 irreducible complexity has been proven that is why it is call the LAW of irreducible complexity , unlike evolution which is called the THEORY of Evolution , LAW versus THEORY lol
sleep well and we can talk tomorrow , However there is still the matter of you reading the entire Bible cover to cover in only 5 months at only 3 chapters a day to address
@boc1953 this is funny I did a search on irreducible complexity and the first thing that pops up is the bacterial flagellum lol I am glad that you are looking up what I am saying but are you reading what I am saying ? ; )
You made my day ! ok so lets use the bacterial flagellum with the Law of Irreducible complexity , show me how it works according to darwin , and yes you can look it up , I know you are not a scientist
@hbav8tor If the bacterial flagellum was the first thing that popped up, you can do your own research on why it is not irreducible complex. It won't be hard to find if you want to look for it. Many peer reviewed papers are available to read online. But I know you won't look! You don't want the truth, only your feelgood delusions. That's fine with me but I wish you would keep it to yourself! I sincerely hope you have a nice life and it has been exasperating trying to communicate with you.
@hbav8tor Here is the eyeball evolution link. h t t p : / / w w w . youtube . com / watch ? v = PhDWCujcFEY I don't know if you will watch it and I'm sure you will say it is full of lies and conspiracy etc. I don't know if there is any point to us continuing to discuss. I think you might be intellectually dishonest, with yourself and with others. If you can't engage in honest discussion, what's the point?
Clay, I don't support animal-human marriage. I support heterosexual marriage. Marriage that is defined by one flesh, an idea that harks back to the Edenic idea that God created woman for man, and that woman comes from man's rib. You haven't defined to me marriage is for gays because it is obvioiusly not one flesh. I dont support animal-human marriage because there is a lack of consent. I simply dont support it because humans are not MEANT to be one flesh with animals.
"You haven't defined to me marriage is for gays because it is obvioiusly not one flesh."
Christ didn't define precisely what being "one flesh" was for men and women, so how can we truly know what it isn't beyond our own personal beliefs?
"I simply dont support it because humans are not MEANT to be one flesh with animals."
Personally I agree. But consent is also a vital consideration. Eliminating it to pave the way for legalized beastiality again ironically makes the practice... (Cont.)
9. same-sex marriage. A person that wants to marry an animal can say also that because Jesus did not include human-animal marriages in his definition of marriage, then they too have the right to marry. It doesn't matter how "uncommon" or "unnatural" you think it is. And yeah I know you want to use "consent" as an argument because you want to avoid saying that human-animal marriages are "unnatural" and "uncommon" which is what Paul and we think of when we think of gay marriages.
9. any interesting insights on this idea of one flesh (which is how Jesus describes marriage, albeit for heterosexuals), then I would love to hear it. Beyond a definition that Jesus gives us, we go for a semantic free for all on the notion of marriage. If you want to place same-sex marriage under standards, then you would have to grant the same right to those that want to marry an animal (which again, does happen). Consent is merely a provisional convention you use to somehow legitimize
"Beyond a definition that Jesus gives us, we go for a semantic free for all on the notion of marriage."
Christ gave a description of marriage for men and women because that's all the Pharisees were asking Him about.. And since you deem consent unneccessary in your beastiality cause, you place the practice closer in such regard to hetero marriage in Biblical times in which women were little more than slaves, who themselves did not have any real option of consent.
9. Does not come out of the man's rib. Considering this, he cannot be "one flesh" with the man. One flesh, by studying the context, indicates that at the origins of creation, man and woman were literally one. Verse 24 says "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Marriage biblically done harks back to this Edenic restoration. Now, if you have
9. was written. The one flesh thing was written in the context of the creation of men and women. In Genesis 2:23-25 it says: "The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." Woman is meant to be with man, and is meant to be one flesh with her because she is literally the rib of man, the bone of his bones, the flesh of his flesh. Now, I have a difficult time picturing how two men can be "one flesh" because a man
9. flesh is a kind of emotional, physical, and spiritual form of committment (the highest form of committment--one that was formerly shown to ones parents) that allows the couple to bring about new families, and protect it. I think that's what people experience when they partake in the mystery of marriage. But from a theological standpoint, marriage is a form of Edenic restoration. Do note that Jesus gave his definition based on the verse Genesis 1:27. But notice also the context of which it.
9. Now, we get the ball rolling with the one flesh thing. Now, this is a thing that's worthy of study on its own because a clear understanding of what marriage entails would prove helpful to couples. I believe the one flesh occurs as a process throughout one's marriage. So it occurs at the exchange of vows, it occurs at the physical act of sex, it occurs when you have a child together. I don't think it is embodied in one act, it is a "process" like salvation/sanctification. And this one
8. marriage, so it must be okay to do it! The standard he gives only applies to heterosexual couples!" is quite silly. I just used the animal-human marriage argument to show how silly the argument is. You see now why I say I don't feel you're following my argument?
9. Sounds silly right? Thats why the "consent" thing you bring up with animal-human marriages is just silly. We don't deny it because of "consent". We deny it because its just plain wrong, and plain unnatural (or uncommon)
...State your OWN personal interpetation of a verse then declare no other is proper context.
"I just used the animal-human marriage argument to show how silly the argument is."
Oh, I don't believe you really condone beastiality if you say so. But it's you who's not following my argument since again Im not saying Christ said nothing about SG couples because He neccessarily believed it okay, but to remind others who'd abuse His teachings to even vaguely suggest He didn't.
"Thats why the "consent" thing you bring up with animal-human marriages is just silly.
Tell you what, if and when our Lord sees fit to give animals the cognitive ability to enter a contract (a form of CONSENT) that would allow them to do thngs like open a bank account, purchase property and yes, enter marriage, I may take your pro-beastiality cause you say you don't support more seriously. 'Til then, it's just a smear/fear tactic that's been tried before and DIDN'T work.
7. What is the proper context? Read the chapter again. I am not going to get into this with you. You need to learn how to read Scripture and respect the context by which verses are written. I could give you a lesson on taking a verse out of context, but no, I feel it is a waste of time.
8. Again, what? No, I do not want to marry an animal nor do I support it. I am just saying that the argument that states that "Oh Jesus did not BAN same sex ..."
5. confusion, Clay. I dont care if there are 100 denominations in America. If they want to discuss the truth, then we get together in the name of Jesus, and study scripture together to glean the truths from it. I have faith that the Spirit will reveal himself if we do that sincerely and humbly.
6. No Clay, I do not care if you have a dissenting view. I welcome it. I just felt in the discussion that you didn't follow my arguments and brought out weird strawman arguments that has nothing to
"I just felt in the discussion that you didn't follow my arguments and brought out weird strawman arguments that has nothing to confusion,..."
More likely, since I don't agree with your arguments you use terms like "distortion" and "strawman" to try to condemn my own when you can't initially counter them.
"If they want to discuss the truth, then we get together in the name of Jesus, and study scripture together to glean the truths from it."
3. talk about the standards for marriage between human and animal, just like he doesnt talk about marriage standards between same-sex couples.
4. Ok dude, just for the sake of the argument: "Men give up their COMMON relations with women and lie with men. Read it again." It still does not take away from the fact that he saw the decline of society and the abandonment of God in the occurence of MEN giving up their COMMON relations to lie with other men.
"It still does not take away from the fact that he saw the decline of society and the abandonment of God in the occurence of MEN giving up their COMMON relations to lie with other men."
...In a PEGAN practice which makes the passage irrevelent to gay Christians. Comparing the acts of the people of this passage to all SG relationships is like comparing all Christians to people like Jim Jones or Fred Phelps.
1. Clay, I am not gonna address the slave thing and the women teaching thing. I honestly do not have any insights on that.
2. Rape? No, silly idea there. God does not bring people together through rape, Clay. You cannot use conservative "hermenumerics" (?) to justify rape.
3. Consent in marriage of course applies to a man and a woman who are brought together by God, but does not apply to animal and human marriages because their standards for marriage are different, and Jesus does not
"I am not gonna address the slave thing and the women teaching thing. I honestly do not have any insights on that."
Perhaps then, you should take the time to research and pray in order to acquire the insights, unless of course they may cause you to question your views.
"Rape? No, silly idea there. God does not bring people together through rape,"
You said consent was arbitrary backing it with the argument that Christ said nothing about it. The problem is He said NOTHING about consent... (Cont.)
...And if our Lord is not adverse to certain animal killings for man's sustenance and survival, as Christ demonsted, I fail to see how He could be so to adopting an animal for it's own survival. BOTH of these are LIGHTYEARS removed from the sexual abuse of an animal simply for a SINGLE person's gratification. It's why such activity must be be expressly agreed upon by BOTH parties, otherwise it's abuse or even rape.
Make you appear like a true proponent for beastiality. If this is the case, I have to say while I don't agree with you, I would support your right to voice your cause!
More likely you're confusing context with your personal interpetation. Afterall what is the proper context for "...All Things Are Possible?"
"(which is a shame because you deny the right to those who want to marry their pets--where is the social justice?)"
So your against SG marriage yet want to legally marry an amimal? Sorry but it truly sounds like your being fecetious. I've responded to matter of animal killings which you seem to ignore...(Cont.)
6. consistent with the word "consent" then you would have to apply it to not only animal marriage, but to animal killings, and animal adoptions. As I see it, you only use it provisionally to condemn human-animal marriages (which is a shame because you deny the right to those who want to marry their pets--where is the social justice?).
7. Matthew 19:26--Wow you used this one way out of context. Jesus here was talking about how difficult it is for rich people to be saved--but because God is
I say many who use the words "twisting" and "distortion" in reference to dissenting views say so because they can't see their belief and our Lord's will as anything OTHER than copletely the same. Again I in the main respect your view overall, it just doesn't sound mutural with your use of the terms. And the largely rhetorical question was how two people emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and physically committed to each other could not be one.
4. would bless same sex couples because he's doing it in the name of social justice? What would Jesus do? You look at the Scripture, and you humbly ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you. That's really the only way you can ask "what would Jesus do".
5. You can say I have a closed mind or heart. Or you can be more honest and clinical and say "where have I twisted things, or where have I trailed off from the discussion?" I like focussed discussions.
3. "This again happened AFTER they had abandoned Christianity. And the "exchange" was part of a pegan fertility ritual which describes the word "orgy" TOO well." A perfect case of someone reading too much into the text. Read the text again. Men give up their natural relations with women and lie with men. Read it again.
4. "ALL of it the reader must ask: "What Would Jesus Do?" " Good advice, but howh would you do this practically? Do you use your Liberal hermeneutic to say that Jesus
"Consent is an arbitrary element that you make necessary for your own definition of marriage."
Based on this "reasoning," people could be forced into marriage. Husbands could force intimate relations upon their wives. Yes Paul said for husbands to love their wives in Ephesians. But he also said for wives to submit to their husbands. As such a husband could justify his actions stating he was administering "tough love" to his unsubmissive wife.
3. Does not apply to marriages between animal and humans. In marriages between human and animals, "consent" is not necessary. Consent is an arbitrary element that you make necessary for your own definition of marriage. Furthermore, if rape (because the animal does not consent to having sex with hsi spouse) is a concern for you, is abduction also a concern for you? Seeing as many animals around the world are being taken up as pets without their "consent", why wont you fight for their rights?
Teachers, ministers, heads of industry, government and other areas since Paul EXPRESSLY stated they were not to teach or be in charge over men (1 Tim. 2:11-15). If this seems ludicrous to you, then you may be able see how and why your animal argument would seem ludicrous to others.
It again comes down to the question "What Would Jesus Do" at which Christians often arrive at different answers.
1. different from the definition of marriage that Christ gives between men and women, then it is possible that animals and humans getting married can be potentially acceptable. To support this even further, there is no clear and direct injunction against animal and human marriages in Scripture, so it seems alright to do so, provided that there is no idolatry involved in the marriage of course.
2. You are adding your own definition of marriage here. What applies to hetero/homo marriages...
...Marriage and TOO likely won't work with SG marriages. And this "potential" you mention goes both ways. If SG marriage is banned, then it's possible certain conservatives may use their own "hermenumerics" to argue that a virgin who is raped must marry and become "one flesh" with her rapist (Deu. 22:28-29) which Christ did not refute.
Slavery which Paul advocated in Ephesians 6:5 could also be argued. And going by the scriptures women could be taken out of their positions as... (Cont.)
Clay, I'm going to stop this soon because you cannot or deliberately do not follow the logic of my arguments.
1. So what if people used the animal argument to invalidate interracial marriage? Does that make it wrong? What does it have to do with I have to say? My reason for using the animal argument is that since gays subscribe to a different definition of marriage, then there is potential that it is acceptable. In the same manner, since animal-human marriages follow different norms
"I'm going to stop this soon because you cannot or deliberately do not follow the logic of my arguments,"
Sometimes I make my own arguments or expand on yours to show you the problem with them. Disagreement aside, I, in the main, respect your overall view.
"So what if people used the animal argument to invalidate interracial marriage?"
The point is people have used fear/smear tactics to discredit and condemn what they personally find objectionable. It didn't work with interracial... (Cont.)
"My reason for using the animal argument is that since gays subscribe to a different definition of marriage,..."
The problem is that Christ, in His description of marriage for men and women did not state, EXACTALLY when and how their becomming "one flesh" actually occurred. Does it happen after the ceremony, or the consummation, or somewhere in the course of the marriage? In light of this, what would constitute the ACTUAL difference of "oneness" between the orientations?
...In regard to ANY pairing. Thus you flung the door WIDE open to other possibilities. Your pro-beastiality argument may have worked better in Biblical times. Wives were little more than slaves and consent was not a real option for them as it wouldn't be for animals in a beastiality pairing. This makes beastiality closer in such respect to heterosexual marriage of the time. And I have to say in your efforts to compare it to SG marriage you're starting to sound like a TRUE... (Cont.)
4. About the "uncommonness" of such relationships and the lack of consent in such relations. Scripture does not outrightly forbid it, just like it doesn't (according to you) forbid homosexuality.
4. Marriage between an animal and a human takes on a different meaning, inasmuch as marriage between gays vis-a-vis marriage between man and a woman. Since Jesus only defines marriage in the context of heterosexuality and leaves out animal-to-human and gay marriages, then that offers the possibility that the Lord can bless those kinds of marriages. Inasmuch as consent might be important in a gay marriage, consent does not apply to marriages between animals and humans, in spite of what you feel
3. nice about those words and speaks strongly than silence. If Jesus or Paul said "hey homosexuality is ok" then that would be acceptable. Instead, Paul uses langauge that appears very condemning.
4. I would also say that there is nothing really to indicate that marriage to an animal save for the fact that it could be done out of idolatrous purposes. But there are weird people out there that really WANT to marry their dog or something. We ought to give them the right to do so because
" If Jesus or Paul said "hey homosexuality is ok" then that would be acceptable."
Paul did not speak to all SG relationships, not the least of which is marriage. Christ said nothing about them at all, meaning the condemnation of all SG relationships may not itself be acceptable. And I think you're trying to "argue" the legal right for a person to "marry an animal to make your condemnation SEEM more valid. It's important to note many argued that many made the same arguments to...(Cont.)
...Try to invalidate efforts to legalize interacial marriage in certain regions of the US. Seems deplorable and silly at the same time now, as it could be in times ahead since it is people being addressed in BOTH situations.
"consent does not apply to marriages between animals and humans, in spite of what you feel.'
It's most likely that VITAL consent that's why SG marriage is legal in several states and animal marriage isn't. And while nothing's outside the realm (Cont.)
3. In idolatrous orgies were having sex with women. That's why Paul says that as a result of these idolatrous orgies (with women), God gave them up to do what they want, and allowed them to EXCHANGE natural relations with women and engage in gay sex. Perhaps he is talking about it in the context or orgies and idolatry, but the fact remains: the occurence of homosexuality (not homosexual orgy) in society or the gayifing of society indicates that God has abandoned society. There is nothing
"That's why Paul says that as a result of these idolatrous orgies (with women), God gave them up to do what they want, and allowed them to EXCHANGE natural relations with women and engage in gay sex."
This again happened AFTER they had abandoned Christianity. And the "exchange" was part of a pegan fertility ritual which describes the word "orgy" TOO well. Gay Christians are NOT guilty of this and would very likely deplore the acts Paul described, as hetero Christians would if they... (Cont.)
... ALL of it the reader must ask: "What Would Jesus Do?" The different answers at which Christians arrive are a big explanation for the OVER 400 Christian denominations in the U.S. alone.
2. Us taking a dog as a pet without the dog's consent is abduction. I don't think consent is the main issue here, as killing an animal to eat it is much worse than marrying it and engaging in sexual activity with it. I don't think an animal will be psychologically scarred from having sex with its human spouse. You make a silly point and even contradict your own point by saying that animals do not share the same legal and divine considerations as human beings.
...Had involved UNwed men and women. Yet again there is debate over the Greek term from which comes the word "natural." If the word "common" is actually correct, then such wouldn't neccessarily be a measure of how good or bad Paul believed the "function" was since something "common" isn't neccessarily good any more than something "uncommon" is neccessarily bad. And we've repeatedly discussed Paul's dubious view of what was "natural" as seen in 1 Cor. 11:13-15 IF it was the intended word.
...Of possibility, as Christ stated in the latter half of Matt. 19:26, it truly appears ASTROMICALLY less possible that a union between human and animal would be acceptable to our Lord since animals can't consent to intimacy as people do and truly do not appear to have as high a devine consideration as people which is why Christ and our Father advocated their killing and consumption for human survival. But there are many things that are not covered in the Gospels which after reading...
Not the last time, because I feel there is some twisting and turning here.
1. Again, this is not about personal views or what you and I believe. Not to the same degree as "is alcohol ok to drink?". I feel the church has been getting a lot of flack from people for not "accepting gays" into the fold, and I want to provide some understanding as to why the church for the most part does not tolerate gay activity.
2. Us taking the life of an animal constitutes murder. And who says the marriage
6. particular instance I'm talking about) in a good light. This is and other verses in the Bible that I will not talk about (because I have no time to) provides to me compelling Scriptural support for the condemnation of homosexual activity. Now, if you are willing to take up the challenge to dismantle my interpretation in a sincere and honest way, I am up for it. And again, please pray that the Spirit will open my eyes if your interpretation is really the true interpretation. Bless
"Now, if you are willing to take up the challenge to dismantle my interpretation in a sincere and honest way, I am up for it."
Thanks, but Im satisfied with honestly pointing out the fact that none of the scriptures appearing to address homosexuality speak to all SG relationships, not the least of which is marriage. This again offers merrit to the possibility that our Lord may, under certain circumstances, actually accept such relationships.
Good points... I worked in Hollywood and there were a high percentage of gay people in the industry, especially gay men. Its funny how Christians can hang out with heterosexual fornicators, gossips, gluttons, etc and be friends with them and interact with them whether in family or not but when it comes to gays they ignore them.
NickVTA 1 day ago
Part 2
issues DOESN'T call for a complete lack of acceptance. In other words, agreement and acceptance don't neccessarily or entirely walk hand in hand.
clay56 1 day ago
McLaren is playing with words here and leaving many confused. The Dictionairy reveals the meaning of the word acceptance as follows:
1. The act or process of accepting.
2. The state of being accepted or acceptable.
3. Favorable reception; approval.
4. Belief in something; agreement.
An homosexual act is a sin, the Bible is clear
frankherman3 2 days ago
"McLaren is playing with words here and leaving many confused."
He's essentially saying that approval or the lack therof of something about a person should not neccessarily determine the overall acceptance of that person. It's not a such confusing concept.
"An homosexual act is a sin, the Bible is clear"
Many believe this, others differ due to different Biblical interpetations. Mr. Mclaren is stating the ideal that a lack of agreement on this and/or other... (Cont.)
clay56 1 day ago
Mr. McLaren's message conveys an ideal that approval should not go hand in hand with (overall) acceptance. It's a good reminder for us all since too many Christians let disaproval get out of hand, causing it snowball into rejection.
clay56 2 weeks ago
This is a typical "postmodern" answer. Avoid directly answering the question by giving a vague subjective answer, obviously because you dont want to offend anybody. So called "men of God" need to stop dancing around the question and stand up for the truth.
astherrien 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why is it that Brian thinks that his thoughts on "acceptance doesn't mean approval" is any different than most evangelical, fundamentalist Christian's view of "accept the sinner, but not the sin"?"
I think his message is that one should be careful not to let another's "sin" or at least what is perceived as such determine acceptance.
clay56 3 weeks ago
Why is it that Brian thinks that his thoughts on "acceptance doesn't mean approval" is any different than most evangelical, fundamentalist Christian's view of "accept the sinner, but not the sin"? That's the message I've always heard.
MargSFast 3 weeks ago
@propheticvindicator if that is not an ironic comment then i ask you why you feel the need to type that sentence out?
cappaslangmurderer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Mr. McLaren is on his way to Hell..."
I am never more prayerful for the wellbeing of the non Christian, agnostic or athiest than I am the fellow Christian who second guesses our Lord on matters of ultimate judgement that are His ALONE.
clay56 1 month ago
Mr. McLaren is on his way to Hell...
PropheticVindicator 1 month ago
life hurts.i have two very nice persons in your family.with the challenges.of what you speak about.i am so concerned for these two very nice family members of our ' s.i love them a lot.they are so nice to me and my husband
laurgreen 1 month ago
the comment so far are so unkind.yet i agree with you , brian.
laurgreen 1 month ago
i miss you lots.
laurgreen 1 month ago
thanks brian for posting.i knew you.back in rockville maryland.when i was thirteen.rick and i are still married.our children were 32 and 31 this year.
laurgreen 1 month ago
Mclaren brings up a good point in stressing that agreement and acceptance should NOT neccessarily or entirely go hand in hand. It's a lesson FAR too many Christians have sadly not taken to heart.
clay56 2 months ago
Right. Women submit to men, and men submit to Jesus.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
If there is not difference in how we approach the Law before and after the Cross, then Christ died in vain.
runningturtle871 3 months ago
jesus never says anything about homosexuality. if it were an issue for the future "chrisitian" faith, i'm sure he would have mentioned it. all forms of love are approved. forget human form. spirit is all that matters. judge ideas, not people. may all be blessed in all their doings.
klaw2121 4 months ago
@IsCoolSilke - haitng [some kinds of] religion, I have to agree can be a good thing....
Jesus actually said that the scribes of his day (the social/political oppressors) the Pharisees (the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES) & the UNBELIEVING God haters should all be be very concerned, because at the end they will all be judged and sent to eternal punishment (i.e., hell). So the question is not if you are religious or not, but whether you have the facts and turn in faith to the truth of God in simple faith
shieldsff 4 months ago
Brian McLaren is doing a great job.
theNCGstudios 4 months ago
Pretty good theme presented here that acceptance shouldn't neccessarily depend on approval.
clay56 5 months ago
-In light of the fact that there are clear principals of exegesis which emphasize the role of theme& context, it's shocking you insist on this. It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise.This theme is established in the genesis account of the male/female relationship and later re- inforced by Jesus who also condemns divorce. Nowhere are men EVER called 'Echad'
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff How then do you explain the Intersexed? People with BOTH male and female sex organs. Why is it so hard to understand that human sexuality is complex and layered and unique to almost each individual. And like 1500 species of animals God created members who are homosexual. It is a part of nature and is natural.
neenerpuss 5 months ago
well, actually, I do not see any need to 'explain' the inter-sexed. This is a rare condition which may require surgical correction-a birth defect. Like most people, I do not accept there is any valid biological evidence that, in the main, people are irreversibly "born' homosexual. The APA itself has made perfectly clear that sexuality is subjected to a myriad of environmental factors & behaviors are not inexorable. I urge that you intently find wisdom about God's plan for relationships
shieldsff 5 months ago
@shieldsff
You mean the part about women submitting to men? Yeah, I like that. :)
ClumsyRoot 4 months ago
@ClumsyRoot - No I think I was referring more to men submitting to Christ, who is submitted to the Father. Does that make sense ?
shieldsff 3 months ago
@neenerpuss - 'How then do you explain the Intersexed?'
I don't need or try to explain the "inters-exed" Why would one attempt or need to point to the clear exception to justify the normative. That's like someone inquiring how can we explain the conceptual validity of marriage fidelity in light of the existence of adultery
shieldsff 3 months ago
@shieldsff Your NON-answer answer that took you over 4 weeks to think of proves you clearly do not have any understanding of biology.
If a person has both a penis and vagina what determines their sexuality? Something other than their genitals would be the correct answer. Biochemical? Hormonal? Emotional? Brain chemistry? Right brain? Left Brain? Why, if its something other than genitals for inter-sexed people would that not be true for people who have only single sex genitals too?
neenerpuss 3 months ago
OK, so here we go again exactly:Further hubris& arrogance on your part that someone should venture and poise a contrary and persuasive position. U are full of assertions my friend with no basis or logic.You have no scientific support for your assumptions,yet U rant on about faulty analogies involving rare bio-hermaphrodites and peoples socialized sexual orientations. As if for examplesthose who are bi-sexual say have no manner of choice or volition in their behaviors. This is contrary to Christ
shieldsff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well said- I have previously recommended the Youtube debate with Dr. Michael Brown and Harry Knox. Dr. Brown does an outstanding,unassailable job of explicating and expounding the underlying judeo/christian ethical understanding of sexuality in God's view. Every one would do themselves a great favor listening to the deep wisdom of this man. The urgency of the Apostle Paul's warning in I Cor 6 "Not to be deceived..." (speaking to the brethren) makes sense because of those who call sin "love"
shieldsff 3 months ago
@boc1953 there are many counterfeit churches out there but that does not make all churches counterfeit IE toyota makes a Car they call Lexus it is Nothing more than a toyota but nobody will pay 115,000.00 for a toyota so they make it sound like it is not built on a Economy car , yet what is a toyota ? you see Lexus does not sound japanese , so the consumer takes the bait , and the rip off is complete the World is doing the Same thing ! they teach that there is No GOD ! But They Lie !
hbav8tor 5 months ago
is this about what man thinks or about what GOD THINKS ?
Its GODS WORLD Break his LAW and be sent to hell !
Follow HIS WORD you will Never be perfect ! but you will be forgiven and spend ALL ETERNITY IN HEAVEN !
hbav8tor 5 months ago
It never ceases to amaze me how people are so devided on this issue. It tells me that people are coming from ego and not spirit. The Bible is a compilation of books interpreted by man and is the story of humanity and their relationship and understanding of God. You can take any Bible Verse and use it to make your point. There are so many interpretations . I chose to believe in a loving God and we are all his/her children. Jesus wanted to bring that back to us.
Rosipatch 5 months ago
@Rosipatch I like your Idea, Lets put the Bible in the Trash and Make up our own laws ! What a Great idea ! I am sure we can figure out a way to get to heaven on our own ! Oh wait a minute The Bible teaches that in Matthew 7:21 Jesus said Many Many will say Lord Lord let me into your kingdom and Jesus says "DEPART FROM ME MEN OF LAWLESSNESS " The Bible teaches that you make up your law people are outside of Biblical Truth ! Not a Very safe place to be !
hbav8tor 5 months ago
I disagree that that the greek word Apostle Paul uses "Arsenokoitai" lacks a consensus of meaning among reputable Bible scholars. I recommend the debate here on YT with Dr, Michael Brown & Harry Knox .Read Matt 19 and Mark 10. Paul wrote in the first century addressing an entire panoply of SPIRITUAL conditions. Paul had numerous terms to address the sins & ills of his day so your argument begs the question of why he chose THAT word. Also see the work of clinical psychologist Stanton Jones
shieldsff 5 months ago
You 'proudly' mention [the] 'gay christian movement (even though God strongly condemns & resists the proud). Could you clarify that? Where in the Bible is it taught that Christians ought to distinguish themselves or establish their identity in Christ Jesus predicated on sexuality? In fact, we are told there is only one Lord, one faith & one baptism into the body of Christ Jesus. Is it not possible that U R deceived ? Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too
shieldsff 5 months ago
this man idolizes unity. St Paul said that there would be divisions among the church to show who have been approved.
he preaches heresy and expects unity?
he does not know God or the gospel, both of which he rejects, so he is not faithful to christ nor able to love like him.
in my experience liberals are as vindictive as fundamentalists, just over a different set of things
Strefanasha 5 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 5 months ago
"he preaches heresy and expects unity?"
He states in the vid that one person's (overall) acceptance of another shouldn't neccessarily depend on approval of everything about the person. What is heretical about this?
clay56 5 months ago
But god never accepts homosexuals, according to the bible. They are an abomination and should be put to death without delay. The bible is crystal clear on this issue. Crystal clear! This guy is just choosing to alter and water down the unalterable word of god! His position is totally indefensible and in complete opposition to the word of the creator. If you want to be a good christian. You must put all homosexuals to death ASAP! Oh, and people who eat shellfish also. Bye...
boc1953 6 months ago
"If you want to be a good christian. You must put all homosexuals to death ASAP! Oh, and people who eat shellfish also. Bye..."
I was making out a totally different reply before seeing this part of your post. :-)
clay56 6 months ago
@clay56 Yeah, sorry about that Clay...I didn't mean to mislead you but I thought the final sentence clarified my true position quite adequately. I really like your reply! It made me laugh! Thanks...
boc1953 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Yeah, sorry about that Clay...I didn't mean to mislead you but I thought the final sentence clarified my true position quite adequately."
NO apology neccessary, I really liked it.! :)
clay56 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Yeah, sorry about that Clay...I didn't mean to mislead you but I thought the final sentence clarified my true position quite adequately."
NO apology neccessary, I really liked it.! :)
clay56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Yeah, sorry about that Clay...I didn't mean to mislead you but I thought the final sentence clarified my true position quite adequately."
NO apology neccessary, I really liked it.! :)
clay56 5 months ago
@boc1953
I wonder if you will be laughing on the day of Judgement ? By the way I visited the ruins of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah Did Christians burn the cities or were they destroyed BY GOD ? You Have been warned !
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I won't be laughing on the day of judgement! I won't be doing anything on the day of judgement... Because I will be DEAD!
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953
Interesting how you Admit that there will be a Day of Judgement , If you are Positive that you will be Dead and No Judgement will occur , then can you please Explain why the human body is the only Living creature that Losses weight at Death ? No Animal does this regardless of weight the same amount leaves the Human Body at Death , Why is that ? If you Cannot Even Convince yourself Than How Will you Face GOD ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I am happy to admit there could be a judgement day. I don't pretend to know everything about life and death, I leave that to believers. I just don't see any evidence to support the bizarre idea of an afterlife and a god and all that goes with it. As for why the human body loses weight after death, I don't have a clue why. Does that happen? Are we the only living creatures that lose weight after death? What does that have to do with a god or gods? What is it I can't convince myself of?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 You are honest , Let me ask you a question Have you ever read the Bible Cover to cover ? Do you know What Biblical CHRISTianity is all about ? & I am not talking about the guys on TV with the funny hair , mormons, jews,catholics,muslims, etc I am talking about the God of the Bible, Did you know that The Bible has NEVER been Proven Wrong ? But science has been proven wrong many times ? Duncan MacDougall weighed people on a scale that were dying at the moment of death
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I have read the bible cover to cover and that's one reason I don't believe it suggests a true god. The bible has never been proven wrong because it can be (and has been) interpreted in so many different ways. The bible can be manipulated to say anything you want it to say. Science has been proven wrong because it works with empirical, verifiable evidence, which is constantly being revised and updated as new knowledge is gained. Religious belief works with unverifiable superstition.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 You are incorrect about the Bible being " interpreted in so many ways it can be made to say anything you want it to" which tells me you have never read the Bible, Anyone who has read the Bible will tell you it Points to ONE TRUE GOD ! why lie to me about reading the Bible ? have you ever heard of the word hermeneutics, exegesis, eisegesis ? The only way to read the Bible has always been by understanding hermeneutics and exegetical interpretation , Please No more lies .
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor How strange! In your last post you said I was honest. Now you call me a liar! But I guess that's what happens when someone takes their deepest beliefs and gives them to an imaginary friend,who tells them what to think. I have read the bible without 'interpretation' and it is abominable! The OT is the sort of book collection one would expect from bronze age mythology.As for the New Testament, it's central doctrine of atonement is utterly immoral. The idea of one person paying for (cont)
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 I said you were honest in the last post because you admitted that you were unsure about a Final day of Judgement , But now you got caught in a Lie so I am simply telling you that I know you are Lying to me . You did Lie to me because you said that you read the entire Bible and No where in the Bible did you find a One God Theme , so lets do this Please Kindly Provide Chapter and Verse from the Bible which point out that there is Not a Triune God as you claim exist in the Bible !
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I never said there isn't a one god theme in the bible! Of course the bible will say Yahweh is the one true god. Every holy book says their god is the only true one! I never said otherwise! Trust me, I have read the bible cover to cover.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 This is what happens when you Lie , you forget what you said go back and look it up for yourself Let me refresh your memory here is what you wrote " I have read the Bible Cover to Cover and thats one reason I Don`t believe it suggests a true God" That was then this is what you last wrote " I never said there is not a one God theme in the Bible " So which One is it Today ? it is one thing to say you do not believe it is an entirely different thing to say the Bible supports you
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor There is a difference between a one god theme and a true god. The bible, like many other holy books suggests a single god. I never said it didn't. I said I don't believe the bible suggests a TRUE god. Then in my later post, I said "I never said there isn't a one god theme in the bible". So, to spell it out for you, the bible clearly states there is one god (in 3, whatever that means) but I don't believe it is true. I don't believe the god of the bible is a true god. Understand?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 ok I am trying to understand this you say that the Bible teaches a Triune God , but you do not believe in a Triune God , correct ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor Yes, that is correct. I don't believe in a triune god. Or any other god or gods for that matter.
boc1953 5 months ago
Respond to this video... Thanks for the response , you state that you believe that the Bible does not point to a One True God but the Bible does teach that there is a one true God , is that correct on what you said ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor No I said that the bible teaches that there is one true god. That the bible does point to there being one true god but that I do not believe in the teachings of the bible and do not believe there is one true god. ie I don't believe the bible. I don't believe there is a god. I do believe the bible says there is one true god but I don't believe it's true what the bible says. I don't know how many more ways I can state this to you.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 I understand you to say that you do not believe that the Bible teaches a One True God theme , Can you Please kindly Provide Chapter and verse from the Bible that states your point of View ? this is the 3rd time I am asked for this , can you please provide this Information ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I have answered this question 3 times and I think that's enough. But just for you...one more time...I do believe the bible teaches a one true god theme. I just don't believe in the teachings of the bible so I don't believe there is one true god. Anyway, it's bedtime for me now, so goodnight, sleep tight and god bless. I'll answer any other posts tomorrow.
boc1953 5 months ago
@hbav8tor (cont) the sins of another is awful! Only believers who have read the bible will say it points to the one true god. It's reverse engineering. As for the big words (hemeneutics etc), If god wanted to communicate with his creation, he would do so unambiguously. His word would not need to be cryptically analysed and interpreted by men in order to be understood So read the bible as it is written and it is clearly not a divinely inspired document. Man's divine interpretation makes it divine
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 Can we debate without argumentum ad hominem ? Have I attacked you in any way ? if you are unsure of yourself is it not better you find out now as opposed to later before GOD ? So why get mad ? I simply stated fact about you lying , please kindly supply me with the Bible Chapter and Verse that as you claim do not point to a Triune GOD, as far as the reading of the Bible do you not know that ancient languages have changed ? ancient Hebrew, Greek, English words change
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I am not mad at you...I have said nothing to attack you. I am not unsure of myself, I think perhaps it is you who needs assurance and you look for it in religious belief. What you stated is an unfounded belief that I lied. Unfounded belief and fact are not the same thing. As I said before, I am happy to concede that the bible points to a triune god. I know ancient languages have changed, that's one reason why I don't think a god would have used the printed word to communicate with us.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 you have attacked me , again to refresh your memory , " you can call me a liar but I guess thats what happens when someone takes their deepest beliefs and gives them to an imaginary friend " in this sentence you are insinuating that God is Nothing more than a "Imaginary friend" like that of a person who is mentally ill , Is that not an attack ? Again I am not here to attack you ! I am here to get you to look at the evidence and use Logic to come to a conclusion
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor You were the first to insult, by calling me a liar, which I am not! If you are so thin skinned as to take my comment as an attack, then how can we debate at all? As far as I'm concerned, your god IS no more than an imaginary friend. I realise several billion people believe in gods but that doesn't validate their belief. There was a time when everyone thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. That didn't mean they were right, any more than belief in gods makes it true.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 I am not thin skinned at all , I just wanted to point out that you can attack me but that did nothing to support you presuppositional Beliefs thats all , I am still waiting for your response on what Darwin said
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor What response are you waiting for (waiting for my response on what Darwin said). What did Darwin say?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 I am not sure where you stand , you Now say that you are happy to concede that the Bible points to a Triune God , yet you earlier stated that it did not . then you stated that you know that "ancient languages have changed thats one reason why I do not think God would have used printed word to communicate with us " Yet you state that you read the Bible Everyday and keep it by your bed ! Why ? it is not how God would talk to us according to what you earlier wrote
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I never said I read the bible every day. Is English not your first language? You seem unable to understand my writings. You keep misquoting me so I think you either don't understand or don't want to. Which is it?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 You said that you read the Bible cover to cover in 5 Months , did you not ? if you read it in 5 months were you not reading it everyday ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@boc1953 So Now you propose to Put yourself in the place of GOD , so you know Better right ? as far as how he should save mankind ? speak to mankind ? which of his rules are fair and which ones are not fair ? Do you Honestly believe that you are smarter than GOD ? That somehow you have figured it all out ? Lets examine your life , are you working ? where do you live ? How much money do you have ? How much power do you have ? why are you so limited in resources then ? please answer
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I don't put myself in the place of god. I don't believe he exists so how can I replace him? It is you who chooses which rules to obey and which to ignore. Any cursory reading of OT law will show that you don't follow it. My life is perfect. I have a thriving career as a musician, which I love. 4 children all with university degrees, good jobs, husbands. The love of my wife of 32 years. A great house and time on my hands. A love of the beauty of life. All without any need for god(s)!
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 If God does not exist why do you read his Bible ? why do you keep it so close to your bed ? sir because you do not understand the Bible , you do not understand that the O/T has been replaced by the N/T CHRISTians live by the N/T today , When ever you Judge Gods Rules and decisions on why he does what he does you are putting yourself in a position above God , other wise how could you make the statement that That is not how " I believe God would choose to communicate his Word to us "
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor Whoever decided to replace the OT with the NT and all christians who follow that ruling have placed themselves above their god! I am happy to admit that I place myself above your god and all the others. Because gods do not exist as far as I can tell and so I am above them because I do exist. You are the hippocrates because you go against your gods rules and then use man made excuses to justify your defiance! The bible clearly states god's law is eternal and unchanging!
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 if you would have read the Bible your would have an understanding the God Himself replaced the O/T law with the N/T , So you place yourself Above God , so I ask again If you are above God , why are you living the Only Life you have in Japanese car style ? Still working at 58 ! kids still working ! There is No God according to you , so why the rules ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor Jesus said in the new testament that not one jot of old testament law was to be changed. It is man's interpretation of the bible that has led to NT replacing OT. I don't understand your comment on 'why the rules?' Your not heading towards the 'morals come from god' angle are you? Please don't go there! It was Jesus who said 'Take no thought for the morrow'. If you are living by that rule, I guess you are contributing 0 to society! Your gods rules are too barbaric for me to follow.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 Your life is perfect ? I simply wanted you to be honest with yourself , Now that you spilled the beans , lets have a Look at your perfect life , you have a thriving career as a musician at 58 Years Old ? your Children all have Jobs ? why are they still working for other people ? Only one house ? congrats on being Married for 32 Years that is a Great Thing ! You are enjoying what God Calls Common Grace, the God who you say you do not believe in yet you read his Word daily , why ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I don't see where you are going with this conversation. I didn't say I only had one house, but what do these questions have to do with anything? I am enjoying what your god calls common grace? I don't care what you call it. I just don't believe it has anything to do with your god. You can't see the world through any other glasses than the religious ones you wear! Whoever brainwashed you did a good job! Nothing means anything to you without your god, does it?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 let me ask you this simple question, you say you read the bible everyday , how many chapters did you read a day when you were reading it cover to cover ? Can you answer that ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I do not read the bible every day. I have read the bible from cover to cover and when I was reading it, I probably read 3 or so chapters most days. Do you understand when I say I do not read the bible every day. I do not read the bible at all these days. You seem to be under a misaprehension regarding this.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 this is why I said that you are Lying , you said that you have read the entire Bible Cover to Cover in 5 months Correct ? at 3 Chapters a day you Could Not have finished the Entire Bible in 5 Months !
hbav8tor 5 months ago
Respond to this video... Why do you Continue To Lie to me ? if you are going to lie make up a good one like you are worth Millions of dollars of that you drive a Ferrari or that you are a Very famous Person Etc
Why lie about reading the Bible ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@boc1953 If you promise to not Lie anymore can I trust your word as a Proven Liar ? what would your kids say ? Great going dad you Lied to him ? would your wife be proud My Husband is a Liar ? do you even care about the problems of Lying ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor Thanks for giving me something to laugh about! I didn't keep track of how many chapters per day I read, I have a life! I also don't care if you believe me or not. You obviously prefer to believe the unbelievable on no reliable evidence, so I take it as a compliment that you don't believe me! Why would it be a good lie to say I had millions and a Ferrari? I am not that materialistic! I have not lied to you since our discussion began but you seem really hung up on this!You call me (cont)
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 I asked if you have read the Bible cover to cover , and your reply was yes you have and it took you 5 months and you were reading 3 chapters a day , Now some simple math there are 1189 chapters in the Bible , assuming you read 3 chapters a day for 5 months ( which I doubt ) but will give you credit for since that is your claim 30 days times 5 months equals 150 days times 3 chapters equals 450 chapters that is NOT THE BIBLE ! U cannot stop lying ! This conversation is Over !
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor (cont) "a proven liar" which again, shows that your standards of proof are not very high, something I would expect of a believer. Obviously you are inclined to believe without any evidence! Of course, you are the true liar here, as is evidenced by your posts so far. Most foolish of all is that you are lying to yourself about evidence for the existence of a god. Your chosen god in particular! I mean, really, where is this conversation going? Are we just going to swap insults now?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 but again I ask you why do you read the Bible and have it near your bed if there is No God ? Does your wife think the same way ? Do your Children think the same way ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor Also, a quick search of google revealed that there are many explanations for the loss of weight immediately following death, if indeed this does occur...the jury seems to be still out on that. Surely, if the soul is immortal and immaterial, it would have no weight?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 your hypothesis is Incorrect , "if the soul is immortal and immaterial it would have no weight " thats the whole point the soul is not immaterial and it has a weight , I understand you do not want a God most people do not but closing your eyes to the truth will not help your matter lets both be honest with each other about the facts , is that fair ? have you seen the Movie No Intelligence allowed ? its a quick movie Ben Stein who is not a CHRISTian makes a Fool out of Dawkins idea
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I was not making a hypothesis. Neither you nor I know anything factual or verifiable about the soul, let alone it's existence. The difference between us is that you pretend you do. You are the one closing your eyes to rational truth and suspending the logic that you use in all other areas of your life, if favour of superstitious belief. You are being intellectually dishonest, with yourself and with others. I have not seen the movie, but I know it's subject matter. (cont)
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 I do know that there is a soul you have said you are not sure, This is a great example of how you see things " I have not seen the movie but I know its subject matter " " I have Not read the Bible but Know its subject matter " Let me ask you how long did it take you to read the Bible ? and again you are wrong because the movie is about Dawkins ideas , I do like what you said about finding something wrong with a Theory and fixing it , can you be as brave with evolution ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor It's also a great example of how you see things. "I do know there is a soul", like all religious believers, you pretend to know things you don't know. Again, I HAVE READ THE BIBLE! I read it over 5 months and I still read parts of it now. I keep it in my bedside table draw. Evolution is a real theory. There are no real biblical theories. Evolution has been more thoroughly tested than the theory of gravity! Yet it still stands up. Any holy book cannot stand up to any logical test.
boc1953 5 months ago
@hbav8tor (cont) It is not 'Dawkins idea'. It is the undeniable evidence of thousands of scientific facts, piled one on top of another to reach a conclusion. The idea is attacked by scientists from every angle to find a weak spot and yet it still stands. Weak spots? Yes! But that is how scientific advancement has always worked! By finding something wrong with the theory and using the known facts to fix it. Religion has no honesty, so it can't do that.Honest self examination would be fatal to it.
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 Lets talk about Science shall we , have you heard of the LAW ( not theory) of Irreducible Complexity ? it states that a multi component system of parts that work together to perform a specific function must all be present at the same time in order to function, if you loose just one component of the system , the whole thing Fails ! just one of the Many examples is the Eyeball , Please Explain using evolution THEORY the existence of the eyeball . please respond Thank You.
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I am not a scientist, so am not really able to talk science. However, I can't believe that you chose the eye to prove irreducible complexity! Why not the bacterial flagellum? I will give you a link but you are obviously intellectually dishonest. This stuff has been refuted over and over again and a 2 minute search on google will answer the question for you. Here is one link (Richard Dawkins, I'm afraid).
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 You Tell me that Evolution is a Fact and proved by science , then when I ask you to Please Explain the Law of Irreducible Complexity, you now say you are not a scientist , so why are you talking about evolution then ? Did you know that darwin himself Said " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,slight modifications, My theory would absolutely break down " ? How would you reply to that ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor I believe in evolution because it is supported by mountains of tested, reliable evidence and seems to be a reasonable theory. I do know what Darwin said and no irreducible complexity has ever been proven so far, despite many desperate attempts to find something to fit the bill. Are you a scientist?
boc1953 5 months ago
@boc1953 You said " I believe in evolution because it is supported by mountains of tested reliable evidence and it seems to be a reasonable theory But I am not a Scientist so i cannot talk about it " Well then How is it you believe in something you do not understand and cannot talk about ?
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@boc1953 irreducible complexity has been proven that is why it is call the LAW of irreducible complexity , unlike evolution which is called the THEORY of Evolution , LAW versus THEORY lol
sleep well and we can talk tomorrow , However there is still the matter of you reading the entire Bible cover to cover in only 5 months at only 3 chapters a day to address
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@boc1953 this is funny I did a search on irreducible complexity and the first thing that pops up is the bacterial flagellum lol I am glad that you are looking up what I am saying but are you reading what I am saying ? ; )
You made my day ! ok so lets use the bacterial flagellum with the Law of Irreducible complexity , show me how it works according to darwin , and yes you can look it up , I know you are not a scientist
hbav8tor 5 months ago
@hbav8tor If the bacterial flagellum was the first thing that popped up, you can do your own research on why it is not irreducible complex. It won't be hard to find if you want to look for it. Many peer reviewed papers are available to read online. But I know you won't look! You don't want the truth, only your feelgood delusions. That's fine with me but I wish you would keep it to yourself! I sincerely hope you have a nice life and it has been exasperating trying to communicate with you.
boc1953 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hbav8tor Here is the eyeball evolution link. h t t p : / / w w w . youtube . com / watch ? v = PhDWCujcFEY I don't know if you will watch it and I'm sure you will say it is full of lies and conspiracy etc. I don't know if there is any point to us continuing to discuss. I think you might be intellectually dishonest, with yourself and with others. If you can't engage in honest discussion, what's the point?
boc1953 5 months ago
Other than that, Im done here. Bye
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2
...More comparable to heterosexual marriage of Biblical times in which Hebrew women were OWNED like animals.
"Other than that, Im done here. Bye"
Take care, Eltron.
And God Bless.
clay56 6 months ago
Clay, I don't support animal-human marriage. I support heterosexual marriage. Marriage that is defined by one flesh, an idea that harks back to the Edenic idea that God created woman for man, and that woman comes from man's rib. You haven't defined to me marriage is for gays because it is obvioiusly not one flesh. I dont support animal-human marriage because there is a lack of consent. I simply dont support it because humans are not MEANT to be one flesh with animals.
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You haven't defined to me marriage is for gays because it is obvioiusly not one flesh."
Christ didn't define precisely what being "one flesh" was for men and women, so how can we truly know what it isn't beyond our own personal beliefs?
"I simply dont support it because humans are not MEANT to be one flesh with animals."
Personally I agree. But consent is also a vital consideration. Eliminating it to pave the way for legalized beastiality again ironically makes the practice... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
9. You avoid contradiction that way. But as I showed below, bringing up "consent" is a silly way to object to human-animal marriage.
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
9. same-sex marriage. A person that wants to marry an animal can say also that because Jesus did not include human-animal marriages in his definition of marriage, then they too have the right to marry. It doesn't matter how "uncommon" or "unnatural" you think it is. And yeah I know you want to use "consent" as an argument because you want to avoid saying that human-animal marriages are "unnatural" and "uncommon" which is what Paul and we think of when we think of gay marriages.
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
9. any interesting insights on this idea of one flesh (which is how Jesus describes marriage, albeit for heterosexuals), then I would love to hear it. Beyond a definition that Jesus gives us, we go for a semantic free for all on the notion of marriage. If you want to place same-sex marriage under standards, then you would have to grant the same right to those that want to marry an animal (which again, does happen). Consent is merely a provisional convention you use to somehow legitimize
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"Beyond a definition that Jesus gives us, we go for a semantic free for all on the notion of marriage."
Christ gave a description of marriage for men and women because that's all the Pharisees were asking Him about.. And since you deem consent unneccessary in your beastiality cause, you place the practice closer in such regard to hetero marriage in Biblical times in which women were little more than slaves, who themselves did not have any real option of consent.
clay56 6 months ago
9. Does not come out of the man's rib. Considering this, he cannot be "one flesh" with the man. One flesh, by studying the context, indicates that at the origins of creation, man and woman were literally one. Verse 24 says "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Marriage biblically done harks back to this Edenic restoration. Now, if you have
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
9. was written. The one flesh thing was written in the context of the creation of men and women. In Genesis 2:23-25 it says: "The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." Woman is meant to be with man, and is meant to be one flesh with her because she is literally the rib of man, the bone of his bones, the flesh of his flesh. Now, I have a difficult time picturing how two men can be "one flesh" because a man
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
9. flesh is a kind of emotional, physical, and spiritual form of committment (the highest form of committment--one that was formerly shown to ones parents) that allows the couple to bring about new families, and protect it. I think that's what people experience when they partake in the mystery of marriage. But from a theological standpoint, marriage is a form of Edenic restoration. Do note that Jesus gave his definition based on the verse Genesis 1:27. But notice also the context of which it.
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
9. Now, we get the ball rolling with the one flesh thing. Now, this is a thing that's worthy of study on its own because a clear understanding of what marriage entails would prove helpful to couples. I believe the one flesh occurs as a process throughout one's marriage. So it occurs at the exchange of vows, it occurs at the physical act of sex, it occurs when you have a child together. I don't think it is embodied in one act, it is a "process" like salvation/sanctification. And this one
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
8. marriage, so it must be okay to do it! The standard he gives only applies to heterosexual couples!" is quite silly. I just used the animal-human marriage argument to show how silly the argument is. You see now why I say I don't feel you're following my argument?
9. Sounds silly right? Thats why the "consent" thing you bring up with animal-human marriages is just silly. We don't deny it because of "consent". We deny it because its just plain wrong, and plain unnatural (or uncommon)
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2
...State your OWN personal interpetation of a verse then declare no other is proper context.
"I just used the animal-human marriage argument to show how silly the argument is."
Oh, I don't believe you really condone beastiality if you say so. But it's you who's not following my argument since again Im not saying Christ said nothing about SG couples because He neccessarily believed it okay, but to remind others who'd abuse His teachings to even vaguely suggest He didn't.
clay56 6 months ago
"Thats why the "consent" thing you bring up with animal-human marriages is just silly.
Tell you what, if and when our Lord sees fit to give animals the cognitive ability to enter a contract (a form of CONSENT) that would allow them to do thngs like open a bank account, purchase property and yes, enter marriage, I may take your pro-beastiality cause you say you don't support more seriously. 'Til then, it's just a smear/fear tactic that's been tried before and DIDN'T work.
clay56 6 months ago
6. do with my arguments. That's all.
7. What is the proper context? Read the chapter again. I am not going to get into this with you. You need to learn how to read Scripture and respect the context by which verses are written. I could give you a lesson on taking a verse out of context, but no, I feel it is a waste of time.
8. Again, what? No, I do not want to marry an animal nor do I support it. I am just saying that the argument that states that "Oh Jesus did not BAN same sex ..."
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
What is the proper context? Read the chapter again. I am not going to get into this with you.
So you don't know what the contest is only what it isn't?
"You need to learn how to read Scripture and respect the context by which verses are written."
Since you admitted you didn't have insights into Biblical directives on slavery and womens' roles, you're not one to be giving advice.
"I could give you a lesson on taking a verse out of context, but no, I feel it is a waste of time."
You... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
5. confusion, Clay. I dont care if there are 100 denominations in America. If they want to discuss the truth, then we get together in the name of Jesus, and study scripture together to glean the truths from it. I have faith that the Spirit will reveal himself if we do that sincerely and humbly.
6. No Clay, I do not care if you have a dissenting view. I welcome it. I just felt in the discussion that you didn't follow my arguments and brought out weird strawman arguments that has nothing to
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"I just felt in the discussion that you didn't follow my arguments and brought out weird strawman arguments that has nothing to confusion,..."
More likely, since I don't agree with your arguments you use terms like "distortion" and "strawman" to try to condemn my own when you can't initially counter them.
"If they want to discuss the truth, then we get together in the name of Jesus, and study scripture together to glean the truths from it."
And if they still differ what then?
clay56 6 months ago
3. talk about the standards for marriage between human and animal, just like he doesnt talk about marriage standards between same-sex couples.
4. Ok dude, just for the sake of the argument: "Men give up their COMMON relations with women and lie with men. Read it again." It still does not take away from the fact that he saw the decline of society and the abandonment of God in the occurence of MEN giving up their COMMON relations to lie with other men.
5. The Spirit is not a Spirit of ...
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It still does not take away from the fact that he saw the decline of society and the abandonment of God in the occurence of MEN giving up their COMMON relations to lie with other men."
...In a PEGAN practice which makes the passage irrevelent to gay Christians. Comparing the acts of the people of this passage to all SG relationships is like comparing all Christians to people like Jim Jones or Fred Phelps.
clay56 6 months ago
1. Clay, I am not gonna address the slave thing and the women teaching thing. I honestly do not have any insights on that.
2. Rape? No, silly idea there. God does not bring people together through rape, Clay. You cannot use conservative "hermenumerics" (?) to justify rape.
3. Consent in marriage of course applies to a man and a woman who are brought together by God, but does not apply to animal and human marriages because their standards for marriage are different, and Jesus does not
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"I am not gonna address the slave thing and the women teaching thing. I honestly do not have any insights on that."
Perhaps then, you should take the time to research and pray in order to acquire the insights, unless of course they may cause you to question your views.
"Rape? No, silly idea there. God does not bring people together through rape,"
You said consent was arbitrary backing it with the argument that Christ said nothing about it. The problem is He said NOTHING about consent... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
Part 2
...And if our Lord is not adverse to certain animal killings for man's sustenance and survival, as Christ demonsted, I fail to see how He could be so to adopting an animal for it's own survival. BOTH of these are LIGHTYEARS removed from the sexual abuse of an animal simply for a SINGLE person's gratification. It's why such activity must be be expressly agreed upon by BOTH parties, otherwise it's abuse or even rape.
clay56 6 months ago
Part 3
Make you appear like a true proponent for beastiality. If this is the case, I have to say while I don't agree with you, I would support your right to voice your cause!
clay56 6 months ago
7. God, nothing is impossible. It has nothing to do whether animal-human marriags are possible or not.
8. If I see that you are not following my argument, I'm not even gonna bother to reply to you again.
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"Wow you used this one way out of context."
More likely you're confusing context with your personal interpetation. Afterall what is the proper context for "...All Things Are Possible?"
"(which is a shame because you deny the right to those who want to marry their pets--where is the social justice?)"
So your against SG marriage yet want to legally marry an amimal? Sorry but it truly sounds like your being fecetious. I've responded to matter of animal killings which you seem to ignore...(Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
6. consistent with the word "consent" then you would have to apply it to not only animal marriage, but to animal killings, and animal adoptions. As I see it, you only use it provisionally to condemn human-animal marriages (which is a shame because you deny the right to those who want to marry their pets--where is the social justice?).
7. Matthew 19:26--Wow you used this one way out of context. Jesus here was talking about how difficult it is for rich people to be saved--but because God is
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"You can say I have a closed mind or heart."
I say many who use the words "twisting" and "distortion" in reference to dissenting views say so because they can't see their belief and our Lord's will as anything OTHER than copletely the same. Again I in the main respect your view overall, it just doesn't sound mutural with your use of the terms. And the largely rhetorical question was how two people emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and physically committed to each other could not be one.
clay56 6 months ago
4. would bless same sex couples because he's doing it in the name of social justice? What would Jesus do? You look at the Scripture, and you humbly ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you. That's really the only way you can ask "what would Jesus do".
5. You can say I have a closed mind or heart. Or you can be more honest and clinical and say "where have I twisted things, or where have I trailed off from the discussion?" I like focussed discussions.
6. Well yeah, if you want to be ...
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"Men give up their natural relations with women and lie with men. Read it again."
We've repeatedly talked about the word "natural" and Paul's dubious view of it. Are you sure it isn''t YOU who isn't following the discussion?
"You look at the Scripture, and you humbly ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you."
And again, the different answers at which Christians arrive explain the HUNDREDS of demoninations in the U.S.
clay56 6 months ago
3. "This again happened AFTER they had abandoned Christianity. And the "exchange" was part of a pegan fertility ritual which describes the word "orgy" TOO well." A perfect case of someone reading too much into the text. Read the text again. Men give up their natural relations with women and lie with men. Read it again.
4. "ALL of it the reader must ask: "What Would Jesus Do?" " Good advice, but howh would you do this practically? Do you use your Liberal hermeneutic to say that Jesus
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"Consent is an arbitrary element that you make necessary for your own definition of marriage."
Based on this "reasoning," people could be forced into marriage. Husbands could force intimate relations upon their wives. Yes Paul said for husbands to love their wives in Ephesians. But he also said for wives to submit to their husbands. As such a husband could justify his actions stating he was administering "tough love" to his unsubmissive wife.
And we've already talked about kidnapping.
clay56 6 months ago
3. Does not apply to marriages between animal and humans. In marriages between human and animals, "consent" is not necessary. Consent is an arbitrary element that you make necessary for your own definition of marriage. Furthermore, if rape (because the animal does not consent to having sex with hsi spouse) is a concern for you, is abduction also a concern for you? Seeing as many animals around the world are being taken up as pets without their "consent", why wont you fight for their rights?
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
Part 3
Teachers, ministers, heads of industry, government and other areas since Paul EXPRESSLY stated they were not to teach or be in charge over men (1 Tim. 2:11-15). If this seems ludicrous to you, then you may be able see how and why your animal argument would seem ludicrous to others.
It again comes down to the question "What Would Jesus Do" at which Christians often arrive at different answers.
clay56 6 months ago
1. different from the definition of marriage that Christ gives between men and women, then it is possible that animals and humans getting married can be potentially acceptable. To support this even further, there is no clear and direct injunction against animal and human marriages in Scripture, so it seems alright to do so, provided that there is no idolatry involved in the marriage of course.
2. You are adding your own definition of marriage here. What applies to hetero/homo marriages...
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
Part 2
...Marriage and TOO likely won't work with SG marriages. And this "potential" you mention goes both ways. If SG marriage is banned, then it's possible certain conservatives may use their own "hermenumerics" to argue that a virgin who is raped must marry and become "one flesh" with her rapist (Deu. 22:28-29) which Christ did not refute.
Slavery which Paul advocated in Ephesians 6:5 could also be argued. And going by the scriptures women could be taken out of their positions as... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
Clay, I'm going to stop this soon because you cannot or deliberately do not follow the logic of my arguments.
1. So what if people used the animal argument to invalidate interracial marriage? Does that make it wrong? What does it have to do with I have to say? My reason for using the animal argument is that since gays subscribe to a different definition of marriage, then there is potential that it is acceptable. In the same manner, since animal-human marriages follow different norms
2.
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 6 months ago
"I'm going to stop this soon because you cannot or deliberately do not follow the logic of my arguments,"
Sometimes I make my own arguments or expand on yours to show you the problem with them. Disagreement aside, I, in the main, respect your overall view.
"So what if people used the animal argument to invalidate interracial marriage?"
The point is people have used fear/smear tactics to discredit and condemn what they personally find objectionable. It didn't work with interracial... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
"My reason for using the animal argument is that since gays subscribe to a different definition of marriage,..."
The problem is that Christ, in His description of marriage for men and women did not state, EXACTALLY when and how their becomming "one flesh" actually occurred. Does it happen after the ceremony, or the consummation, or somewhere in the course of the marriage? In light of this, what would constitute the ACTUAL difference of "oneness" between the orientations?
clay56 6 months ago
Part 2
...In regard to ANY pairing. Thus you flung the door WIDE open to other possibilities. Your pro-beastiality argument may have worked better in Biblical times. Wives were little more than slaves and consent was not a real option for them as it wouldn't be for animals in a beastiality pairing. This makes beastiality closer in such respect to heterosexual marriage of the time. And I have to say in your efforts to compare it to SG marriage you're starting to sound like a TRUE... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
4. About the "uncommonness" of such relationships and the lack of consent in such relations. Scripture does not outrightly forbid it, just like it doesn't (according to you) forbid homosexuality.
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
4. Marriage between an animal and a human takes on a different meaning, inasmuch as marriage between gays vis-a-vis marriage between man and a woman. Since Jesus only defines marriage in the context of heterosexuality and leaves out animal-to-human and gay marriages, then that offers the possibility that the Lord can bless those kinds of marriages. Inasmuch as consent might be important in a gay marriage, consent does not apply to marriages between animals and humans, in spite of what you feel
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
3. nice about those words and speaks strongly than silence. If Jesus or Paul said "hey homosexuality is ok" then that would be acceptable. Instead, Paul uses langauge that appears very condemning.
4. I would also say that there is nothing really to indicate that marriage to an animal save for the fact that it could be done out of idolatrous purposes. But there are weird people out there that really WANT to marry their dog or something. We ought to give them the right to do so because
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
" If Jesus or Paul said "hey homosexuality is ok" then that would be acceptable."
Paul did not speak to all SG relationships, not the least of which is marriage. Christ said nothing about them at all, meaning the condemnation of all SG relationships may not itself be acceptable. And I think you're trying to "argue" the legal right for a person to "marry an animal to make your condemnation SEEM more valid. It's important to note many argued that many made the same arguments to...(Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
Part 2
...Try to invalidate efforts to legalize interacial marriage in certain regions of the US. Seems deplorable and silly at the same time now, as it could be in times ahead since it is people being addressed in BOTH situations.
"consent does not apply to marriages between animals and humans, in spite of what you feel.'
It's most likely that VITAL consent that's why SG marriage is legal in several states and animal marriage isn't. And while nothing's outside the realm (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
3. In idolatrous orgies were having sex with women. That's why Paul says that as a result of these idolatrous orgies (with women), God gave them up to do what they want, and allowed them to EXCHANGE natural relations with women and engage in gay sex. Perhaps he is talking about it in the context or orgies and idolatry, but the fact remains: the occurence of homosexuality (not homosexual orgy) in society or the gayifing of society indicates that God has abandoned society. There is nothing
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"That's why Paul says that as a result of these idolatrous orgies (with women), God gave them up to do what they want, and allowed them to EXCHANGE natural relations with women and engage in gay sex."
This again happened AFTER they had abandoned Christianity. And the "exchange" was part of a pegan fertility ritual which describes the word "orgy" TOO well. Gay Christians are NOT guilty of this and would very likely deplore the acts Paul described, as hetero Christians would if they... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
Part 4
... ALL of it the reader must ask: "What Would Jesus Do?" The different answers at which Christians arrive are a big explanation for the OVER 400 Christian denominations in the U.S. alone.
clay56 6 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 6 months ago
2. Us taking a dog as a pet without the dog's consent is abduction. I don't think consent is the main issue here, as killing an animal to eat it is much worse than marrying it and engaging in sexual activity with it. I don't think an animal will be psychologically scarred from having sex with its human spouse. You make a silly point and even contradict your own point by saying that animals do not share the same legal and divine considerations as human beings.
3. Dude, the people engaging
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
Part 2
...Had involved UNwed men and women. Yet again there is debate over the Greek term from which comes the word "natural." If the word "common" is actually correct, then such wouldn't neccessarily be a measure of how good or bad Paul believed the "function" was since something "common" isn't neccessarily good any more than something "uncommon" is neccessarily bad. And we've repeatedly discussed Paul's dubious view of what was "natural" as seen in 1 Cor. 11:13-15 IF it was the intended word.
clay56 6 months ago
Part 3
...Of possibility, as Christ stated in the latter half of Matt. 19:26, it truly appears ASTROMICALLY less possible that a union between human and animal would be acceptable to our Lord since animals can't consent to intimacy as people do and truly do not appear to have as high a devine consideration as people which is why Christ and our Father advocated their killing and consumption for human survival. But there are many things that are not covered in the Gospels which after reading...
clay56 6 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 6 months ago
Not the last time, because I feel there is some twisting and turning here.
1. Again, this is not about personal views or what you and I believe. Not to the same degree as "is alcohol ok to drink?". I feel the church has been getting a lot of flack from people for not "accepting gays" into the fold, and I want to provide some understanding as to why the church for the most part does not tolerate gay activity.
2. Us taking the life of an animal constitutes murder. And who says the marriage
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
6. particular instance I'm talking about) in a good light. This is and other verses in the Bible that I will not talk about (because I have no time to) provides to me compelling Scriptural support for the condemnation of homosexual activity. Now, if you are willing to take up the challenge to dismantle my interpretation in a sincere and honest way, I am up for it. And again, please pray that the Spirit will open my eyes if your interpretation is really the true interpretation. Bless
eltronrangamma 6 months ago
"Now, if you are willing to take up the challenge to dismantle my interpretation in a sincere and honest way, I am up for it."
Thanks, but Im satisfied with honestly pointing out the fact that none of the scriptures appearing to address homosexuality speak to all SG relationships, not the least of which is marriage. This again offers merrit to the possibility that our Lord may, under certain circumstances, actually accept such relationships.
clay56 6 months ago