God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil?

[Goddess]

20 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Which part of the 'made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife...........So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate' did you not understand?

Which part of "He was answering a question about divorce and not making a statement on homosexuality" did you not understand?  You can quote it back to me 100 times and bold the man and woman part, highlight it red, use giant fonts and snarky smilies - it doesn't change the context.  He was not talking about whether homosexuality was acceptable or not.

You cannot use the answer to one question to make assumptions about something totally different that was not a part of the discussion.

What you are saying is:

The Pharisees, who wanted to get rid of their older wives to marry younger ones, were looking for Jesus to confirm that they could do so.  He answered that question and that question only.

His answer about divorce was not "Homosexuality is wrong."

You're being absurd.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Goddess

[Goddess]

22 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Keep that in mind next time we talk about the Quran.

Don't worry about me.  Worry about the jihadis in your religion.

[Goddess]

18 minutes ago, Tdot said:

The passage had everything to do with homosexuality, by excluding it, where the scripture specifically uses context when it mentions Jesus applying this way of living to males and females. Notice that the scripture didn't say "males and males" nor "females and females". Therefore your claim is simply not based in, logic, unless the 2 terms are in fact interchangeable. 

He was talking to heterosexuals who wanted to get rid of their older wives, so he framed his answer for them.  If he was talking to homosexuals, he would have framed his answer for them.

The fact is - Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.  So his followers should not, either.

This is how people start coming up with nonsense rules and harmful religious regulations - they start reading more into Bible verses and begin going beyond what Jesus said. 

 

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The passage had everything to do with homosexuality, by excluding it,

No, it doesn't.

If I say "I like bananas and apples" - would you assume that I hated grapes and pears because I excluded them?

Surely you are smarter than that.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Great Yahweh with your Heil mein Furer as he leads you through hell gate.

Stalin sends his love. He has a bunk reserved for you, right next to his.

[Tdot]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

The fact is - Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.  So his followers should not, either.

 

 

The fact is, he was talking about all humans since we are who his words encompass. You have provided no proof that Jesus' audience was only heterosexual in that moment.  According to your reasoning and logic here, when an employer calls all employees in for a huge meeting...he's only talking to the employees that he actually makes eye contact with, when panning the room as he orates a new policy which applies to everyone.

Today it is a fact that Homosexuals have a mom and a dad too which they also must choose to leave, in order to go live with their spouse. Now just as easily as I said that, Jesus could also have said it even easier ---if he meant to  include homosexuals within that "spousal" doctrine we are discussing here. Homosexuality had already long been deemed immoral, so Jesus would not be expected to have to reexplain that at every discussion of human intimacy..

And for you to take it out of context like you did here, means we also have to remove the context from every place in the bible where God said 'males should not lay with other males' if you can explain how that scripture actually means males can lay with other males.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Tdot

[Tdot]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

If I say "I like bananas and apples" - would you assume that I hated grapes and pears because I excluded them?

 

If I say "there's a big difference between fruits and vegetables" ---would you assume that I don't include bananas and apples as fruits nor vegetables, since I did not mention them specifically?

Keep in mind, homosexuality had already been deemed immoral so it is not necessary for Jesus to rehash it in every discussion Jesus has about human/gender intimacy. What is important is that Jesus did not contradict God's rule (about homosexuality) within that scripture about "males and females" which we are discussing here.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Tdot

[Marocc]

10 hours ago, Goddess said:

His answer about divorce was not "Homosexuality is wrong.

with your logic Christianity doesn't condemn pedophilia either. There's no law against incest and yes, you can marry your cousin.

[betsy]

13 hours ago, Goddess said:

Jesus was not talking about sexual orientation there.  He was answering a question that was asked by the hypocritical Pharisees regarding the grounds for divorce.  He quoted the scripture in Genesis to show that divorce was not to be taken lightly.  Given the awful treatment of divorced and used women in his day, his purpose in quoting the passage in Genesis was to defend women.

The passage you quoted has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Context is everything.

 

See how foolishly people like you try to corrupt the Scriptures!n  Or.....you utterly lack any comprehension with what you read.  here, read this over and over again - maybe, something will click in.

 

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”"

 

Yes. it was a question about divorce!   So - sit back and think.   Ask yourself:  Who gets divorced, doh?  People who are married!  

 

Quote

 

The Pharisees, who wanted to get rid of their older wives to marry younger ones, were looking for Jesus to confirm that they could do so.  He answered that question and that question only.

His answer about divorce was not "Homosexuality is wrong."

 

 

The question by the Pharisees may have been about casting aside older wives, but Jesus' answer HIGHLIGHTED God's  definition of marriage! 

He made it clear that God's definition of marriage is a union between a male and a female!

 

Why did He have to explain about genders along with  the definition of marriage, if the question is all about getting rid of old wives???   

Look at it! If the answer was solely about casting aside wives -  What's gender got to do with the question of casting aside old wives???

 

 

Jesus' answer really slapped down any ideas that same-sex marriage can also be a marriage recognized by God!  Lol, maybe even during that time - some fools were already floating the idea of same-sex marriage! 

 

You think Jesus will ever give an IRRELEVANT answer?  He probably meant this answer for generations of the distant future - like ours! 

He probably gave this as a rebuttal to be used by Christian apologists............. like us!

 

 

He also directly responded to  your foolish opinion that same-sex marriage is acceptable in the eyes of God. 

Here.  Just so you don't miss it.  He's like talking to you......

 

"Goddess,"   (yes, I imagine He must be rolling His eyes with that monicker)

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning

made them male and female,

 

 

"Have you not read........"

It's like...... He's questioning whether you really read and understood the Bible! 

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by betsy

[betsy]

19 hours ago, Goddess said:

What did Jesus say about it?

 

1 Cor 6

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

 

Romans 1

²⁶ For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. ²⁷ Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

1 Timothy 1

⁹ understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, ¹¹ in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

[Guest]

I haven't been keeping up, (no time, the line up at Costco yesterday!) but the way I see it, in the same way no-one has any right to try to force a homosexual relationship on someone who doesn't want one, no one has any right to try to prevent a homosexual relationship between two people (or more) who want one.  And if they want to get married, have kids, etc, well, it's the same as anyone else. Why not?

Hating it all, on the other hand, is allowed.

It really is quite irrelevant what Jesus or Allah is reported to have said about it, unless one wants to make it relevant to their own behaviour.

It's so simple.   I guesss it's the simplicity of the notion that bothers some people.

Edit>  If I missed the bit where we all agreed there was nothing wrong with homosexual relations, gay marriage, adoption, etc, and had moved on to a simple theological discussion of the idea, from a historical perspective, I apologise.  Like I said, I didn't have time to read back.

Edited April 18, 2020 by bcsapper
Men never try and prevent sex they find icky so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Not Blaise Pascal

[French Patriot]

On 4/17/2020 at 11:03 AM, Marocc said:

There's a difference between the two in that God is Just.

To you, god can kill just as easily as he can cure.

What makes killing instead of curing, the opposite of what Jesus said he came to do, just?

You show an immoral double moral standard and that is immoral.

Answer my little question and make your argument or apologetic.

Regards

DL

[Guest]

On 4/17/2020 at 3:17 AM, betsy said:

They may be Christians....but, are they following the doctrine

 

I forgot to answer this point in my last response to you.  If you still want to forget it, I'll understand, but, we weren't talking about doctrine in this case.  We we were talking about whether or not having religion would prevent one from doing evil more than someone who has no religious beliefs.  I still maintain the answer is no, and I would postulate that, given religion's intolerance, in many cases,  of those who veer from the rules and regulations of their various manifestations around the world, the chances of finding nastiness in the name of some God or other are up there with any other motivation. 

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It really is quite irrelevant what Jesus or Allah is reported to have said about it, unless one wants to make it relevant to their own behaviour.

I don't think you are quite getting it.  The pronouncements of God are only irrelevant to those who don't believe.   For those who do believe, God (in whatever form he's imagined) provided rules for all humans, not just the ones who believe in him.  Consequently, if God said "no sex with men" or "don't be an adulterer" or "don't covet your neighbors cattle", that applies to all humans - believers or not.  People who believe in God, therefore, also believe that they are righteous in disapproving of that which God disapproves.  There are also scriptures in the Bible (dunno about the Koran) directing believers to make sure everyone has been notified of God's disapproval, so no - they can't really ignore what non-believers are doing.   

 

[Marocc]

26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I guesss it's the simplicity of the notion that bothers some people.

The simplicity must be the reason why part of Christians welcome gay priests and others can't overcome the fact that fornication happens. The Bible is such a simple book; we live forever, we die. Jesus died, jesus can't die. Cover your hair, don't cover your hair. Obey your husband, get a wife instead.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Marocc

[French Patriot]

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

On 4/17/2020 at 11:08 AM, French Patriot said:

while you are saying it is justice to kill instead of cure.

When did I say that?

When you endorsed Yahweh's genocide of man where he killed instead of cured.

If you are going to be such a hypocrite, forget my request above.

Regards

DL

 

[French Patriot]

6 hours ago, Marocc said:

with your logic Christianity doesn't condemn pedophilia either. There's no law against incest and yes, you can marry your cousin.

The Vatican has been protecting pedophiles forever.

They also promoted gay marriage for a time.

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Regards

DL

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I don't think you are quite getting it.  The pronouncements of God are only irrelevant to those who don't believe.   For those who do believe, God (in whatever form he's imagined) provided rules for all humans, not just the ones who believe in him.  Consequently, if God said "no sex with men" or "don't be an adulterer" or "don't covet your neighbors cattle", that applies to all humans - believers or not.  People who believe in God, therefore, also believe that they are righteous in disapproving of that which God disapproves.  There are also scriptures in the Bible (dunno about the Koran) directing believers to make sure everyone has been notified of God's disapproval, so no - they can't really ignore what non-believers are doing.   

 

Yeah, one has to find a way of letting religious types know that such is utterly, absolutely wrong, and they have no right whatsoever to expect anyone else on Earth to act according to their beliefs. 

That's just my way of giving it a shot.

I understand it's been tried before, to little avail.  But what the hell!

Edited April 18, 2020 by bcsapper
Men never do pointless so completely and cheerfully as when try and oppose religious conviction. But what the hell! - Not Blaise Pascal.

[Marocc]

8 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

What makes killing instead of curing, the opposite of what Jesus said he came to do, just?

I don't know what is just in all matters. I know God gives everyone what they deserve. I know justice will happen. I don't now how in practice it will come about.

5 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

When you endorsed Yahweh's genocide of man where he killed instead of cured.

I doubt such a thing happened.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Marocc said:

The simplicity must be the reason why part of Christians welcome gay priests and others can't overcome the fact that fornication happens. The Bible is such a simple book; we live forever, we die. Jesus died, jesus can't die. Cover your hair, don't cover your hair. Obey your husband, get a wife instead.

Could be.  It's been a while since I was forced to read it.

[dialamah]

On 4/17/2020 at 8:03 AM, Marocc said:

There's a difference between the two in that God is Just.

How is he "just", exactly?  Killing innocent people is never just, yet God encouraged the killing of innocents throughout the OT.  Even if he's not actively encouraging it, he allows it all the time - as demonstrated by certain elements of Islam today.  If God was just, he'd punish the evildoers and not allow his own innocent people to suffer as proof of their 'faith'.  Clearly, God is either extremely unjust, or he is too weak and ineffectual to protect those who worship him, and so must pretend that these things are a 'test of faith'.   Nobody victim-blames like God!

[French Patriot]

5 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I don't know what is just in all matters. I know God gives everyone what they deserve. I know justice will happen. I don't now how in practice it will come about.

I doubt such a thing happened.

You denied that it was evil for god while saying it is evil for man.

You show how big of a hypocrite you are. I have no time for your vile ilk.

Regards

DL

[French Patriot]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

How is he "just", exactly?  Killing innocent people is never just, yet God encouraged the killing of innocents throughout the OT.  Even if he's not actively encouraging it, he allows it all the time - as demonstrated by certain elements of Islam today.  If God was just, he'd punish the evildoers and not allow his own innocent people to suffer as proof of their 'faith'.  Clearly, God is either extremely unjust, or he is too weak and ineffectual to protect those who worship him, and so must pretend that these things are a 'test of faith'.   Nobody victim-blames like God!

I think you will watch and weep and endorse the verdict.

I do not expect the Christian moral coward to do so as they have a satanic moral sense.

Regards

DL

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I don't know what is just in all matters. I know God gives everyone what they deserve.

Children being raped 'deserve' it?  Innocent people being forced from their homes, killed en mass for land, or resources or just because they believe in God differently 'deserve' it?   Why do they deserve it, exactly?  What makes God blameless in any evil visited on humans, but deserving of all praise for whatever good humans experience?  How can an all-powerful, loving God demand extreme suffering and pain as proof of 'devotion' and not lift a finger to protect 'innocents' for thousands of years and still be considered just or loving?

[Marocc]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If God was just, he'd punish the evildoers and not allow his own innocent people to suffer as proof of their 'faith'. 

—as a whole. You cannot try to measure and define the justice because you are not all-knowing. I am not talking about limited situations like an incident of violence or war. Everyone will get what they deserve in the hereafter. What if the punishment of an evildoer is that they are allowed to go on sinning, doing more and more evil deeds — once they're dead, it is too late to repent and they will be punished with a punishment much worse than a punishment in this world. While the innocent who suffer in this world, will be rewarded for their patience.