John MacArthur - Homosexuality IS Sin in Gods Eyes!

Confronting the Mayor of San Francisco, John MacArthur accurately defines the sin of homosexuality, regardless of ones compromising religious view.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• John
• MacArthur
• homosexuality
• Bible
• Christian
• Jesus
• Christ
• God
• Larry
• King

[taofist]

@cqqrzgth The measure is science, and the basic laws of epistemology... one of which is that a book can't prove very much by itself. Another is that the highly unlikely (eg the "supernatural") needs a proportionate amount of quality evidence to prove its existence. Your Doctrine fails as plausible fact; as a belief-system, it qualifies as delusional. That's why you are on here, doing harm, believing that you are doing good.

[chicraig6421]

@cqqrzgth There you go again with the name calling...quite Your're a fag right?"

No Im a homosexual what are you? You are sure not following Christ's teaching are you?

Then you want to put all sexual deviates in the same box, and you include homosexuality but not heterosexuality. So again you are wrong as there is not difference between hetro or homosexuality except who they fall in love with. Then on you call me a sick pervert without knowing me. WOW very Christ like, are you a Christian?

[Danny75566]

You can read my other post, however, I just wanted to say that the information you just relayed probably came from a book or was gleaned from some idea you received in a book, therefore, I must use the scientific method or try to verify your ideas.

[Danny75566]

Can I measure your statements by the scientific method. Scientific method is based on observation of repeatable events. How do we measure God's word by the scientific method? Beyond that, if their is good evidence that the Bible is a supernatural book then it is plausible that it comes from a supernatural being, one who would have the right to lay down right and wrong, deontological ethics. For good reasons to believe in the inspiration of scripture see William Lang Craig, reasonable faith.

[taofist]

@Danny75566 The reasons for believing that any book is "God's Word" are so insufficient as to be classified as wishful-thinking, and, worse, delusional.

Written text can offer you ideas - but can't, in itself, verify those ideas.

The "objective standard" is the scientific method, and measurable consequence. Anything else is just someone trying to get folk to do & believe things THEIR way.

[Danny75566]

A goal of communication is clarity and your statement or argument is unclear. "A book can't prove very much by itself." It does if it's God's word.John MacArthur argues that people need some objective truth that defines right and wrong or everything is subjective. There is no clear standards if everything is subjective. These other men are saying their personal beliefs that they think is right. He says, "What is ur authority, U? His is the Bible because it is God's word and he has reasons.

[taofist]

@cqqrzgth Hmmm.... the Socratic Reductio you were using made you seem clever for a while, but you're not applying it to yourself, and you're not giving us anything new. Just the same tired old bundle of arbitrary premises, ill-defined & inadequately supported assertions & non-sequiturs, and emotional manipulation that the Church has used for centuries to take advantage of the naive, and which you, John M, and others are still using to bully homosexuals and others.

Shame on you all!!!

[taofist]

@cqqrzgth gtg teach Tai Chi. See u back here in a few hours. :)

[cqqrzgth]

@taofist See you can criticize my standard but it is based on the One who rose from the dead (Christ) and your's is based on...nothing but ASSumption.

[taofist]

@cqqrzgth Repeatability.

[cqqrzgth]

@taofist I asked what the standard was and what I got was rhetoric. So, dumb ass, when you witness a experiment, by what standard do you determine the results? Please don't appeal to an ifininite regress of societal results to refer to.