Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[One Bad Pig]

No, but Paul sure did seem to hate himself, didn't seem to like women much, stayed clear of them, never did marry, and some of the things he said concerning himself, self loathing and the like, makes me wonder.

You sure seem confident that you can accurately psychoanalyze someone from a time and culture you can't be bothered to understand just by reading a few texts he wrote.

[JimL]

You sure seem confident that you can accurately psychoanalyze someone from a time and culture you can't be bothered to understand just by reading a few texts he wrote.

I didn't say it was accurate, I said it makes one wonder.

[Tassman]

No it doesn't Tassman. Yes it was against prostitution of any kind, but the clear translation shows that the bible is against any form of homosexuality. It is a liberal lie that the bible is only against temple prostitution. And not a particularly good lie.

Regardless of what Paul said and may have meant, the fact remains that Jesus himself never says a word about it. Mathew 19. 9 OTOH Jesus never mentions abortion or LGBT behaviour. One can only wonder why the two latter are condemned so strongly by Evangelicals, whilst they overlook or minimise the "adultery" of divorce and remarriage.

[Sparko]

Regardless of what Paul said and may have meant, the fact remains that Jesus himself never says a word about it. Mathew 19. 9 OTOH Jesus never mentions abortion or LGBT behaviour. One can only wonder why the two latter are condemned so strongly by Evangelicals, whilst they overlook or minimise the "adultery" of divorce and remarriage.

Jesus never mentioned a lot of things Tassy. He never mentioned anything about Nazis, or Confederate Statues, or Meth Labs, or Ponzi Schemes, or Australians.

But Tassy, Jesus is God, and GOD did mention homosexuality is a sin. And miscarriage due to violence is covered also, which would cover abortion. As does the command against murder, which Jesus did cover. Also his admonishment of sexual immorality also covers homosexuality

[JimL]

Jesus never mentioned a lot of things Tassy. He never mentioned anything about Nazis, or Confederate Statues, or Meth Labs, or Ponzi Schemes, or Australians.

Well, that is probably because those things didn't exist and Jesus probably had no idea that they would.

But Tassy, Jesus is God, and GOD did mention homosexuality is a sin.

If you believe the word of Moses, otherwise, and that which is more likely, the idea that homosexuality was immoral was just a cultural meme.

And miscarriage due to violence is covered also, which would cover abortion. As does the command against murder, which Jesus did cover. Also his admonishment of sexual immorality also covers homosexuality

The Biblical God of fiction also commanded his people to murder, men, women, and children. I know, you don't believe that the biblical god is fiction, but I do, and I'm explaining why your claims concerning his moral admonitions support my perspective that your belief in his reality is ridiculous.

[Tassman]

Jesus never mentioned a lot of things Tassy. He never mentioned anything about Nazis, or Confederate Statues, or Meth Labs, or Ponzi Schemes, or Australians.

Hypocrisy much!

But Tassy, Jesus is God, and GOD did mention homosexuality is a sin.

The tribal God of Israel was against any sexual act that did not produce the necessary offspring to maintain the tribe...including masturbation. Homosexuality seems not to have been an issue during Roman times when Jesus was around...not enough for him to mention anyway. And yet homosexuality was very common during the classical period

And miscarriage due to violence is covered also, which would cover abortion. As does the command against murder, which Jesus did cover.

The standard Jewish position, with some exceptions, was that the prenatal entity did not attain person-hood until birth.

Also his admonishment of sexual immorality also covers homosexuality

Of course it does...in your mind. Interesting how this coincides with your personal bigotry!

[Sparko]

Hypocrisy much!



The tribal God of Israel was against any sexual act that did not produce the necessary offspring to maintain the tribe...including masturbation. Homosexuality seems not to have been an issue during Roman times when Jesus was around...not enough for him to mention anyway. And yet homosexuality was very common during the classical period



The standard Jewish position, with some exceptions, was that the prenatal entity did not attain person-hood until birth.



Of course it does...in your mind. Interesting how this coincides with your personal bigotry!

if God was against it in Moses' time then he was against it in Jesus' time. The mentions of it in the NT make that clear and the context makes it clear that he wasn't talking just about prostitution.

and you are wrong about the "Jewish Position" as we have shown you in the past. I believe Adrift kicked you to the curb on that issue a few times. Yet you still just repeat yourself yet again.

[Tassman]

if God was against it in Moses' time then he was against it in Jesus' time.

The mentions of it in the NT make that clear and the context makes it clear that he wasn't talking just about prostitution.

and you are wrong about the "Jewish Position" as we have shown you in the past. I believe Adrift kicked you to the curb on that issue a few times. Yet you still just repeat yourself yet again.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...ewish-thought/

[Sparko]

God didn't say it was to "conserve sperm"


Translation: Liberal Christians who want to embrace homosexuality have an excuse they like to parade around.

Except there is no support for this view. It is a transparent rationalization. The old testament calls it an abomination and the new testament condemns it very clearly. In Romans 1 it even describes it pretty damn clearly:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Nothing about prostitution there. Just plain old lust between lesbians and homosexuals.


I have given up hoping that you or JimL would ever pay attention to anything we say and learn something. The only reason I even respond to your posts any more to correct you is because other people read the threads.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...ewish-thought/

right, an opinion from a liberal jew. Worth as much as your opinion gathered from liberal Christians on homosexuality.

[Tassman]

God didn't say it was to "conserve sperm"

Of course not, but tribal priority was to maintain the tribe at full strength. Anything that impeded this was proscribed, including by the tribal god made in their own image.

Translation: Liberal Christians who want to embrace homosexuality have an excuse they like to parade around.

As opposed to judgemental Evangelicals who just know they are right and their fellow Christians are wrong. Wars have started for less.

Except there is no support for this view. It is a transparent rationalization. The old testament calls it an abomination and the new testament condemns it very clearly. In Romans 1 it even describes it pretty damn clearly:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Nothing about prostitution there. Just plain old lust between lesbians and homosexuals.

Looking at you Trump!

I have given up hoping that you or JimL would ever pay attention to anything we say and learn something. The only reason I even respond to your posts any more to correct you is because other people read the threads.

right, an opinion from a liberal jew. Worth as much as your opinion gathered from liberal Christians on homosexuality.

[Sparko]

Of course not, but tribal priority was to maintain the tribe at full strength. Anything that impeded this was proscribed, including by the tribal god made in their own image.



As opposed to judgemental Evangelicals who just know they are righLooking at you Trump!

Shunyadragon amened you. That pretty much refutes everything you said right there.

[Charles]

Shunyadragon amened you. That pretty much refutes everything you said right there.

You might want to try going for something substantial next time.

[Sparko]

You might want to try going for something substantial next time.

When Tassman gives something substantial I will respond in kind.

Charles, you are starting your net nanny thing again. It is not appreciated. Mind your own business, m'kay?

[Tassman]

Shunyadragon amened you. That pretty much refutes everything you said right there.

This counts as a rebuttal, does it?

[Charles]

When Tassman gives something substantial I will respond in kind.

Charles, you are starting your net nanny thing again. It is not appreciated. Mind your own business, m'kay?

I am just pointing to the fact that you are avoiding substance by going for personal attacks. Calling it a "net nanny thing" is just more of the same. And are we here to mind our own business?