Gay Billboard

[Igakusei]

consensual sex is not equal to consensual homosexual sex. I understood your argument, and it's still wrong. Again, even if Homosexual sex spreads HIV more readily than heterosexual sex, this has nothing to do with whether the act of homosexual sex itself is immoral.

But regardless, let's remove HIV from the picture for a moment. In a stable homosexual relationship between two members of the same sex, neither of which have an STD, who is getting hurt?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

I still maintain that we as a society rejected slavery on social and moral grounds that had virtually nothing to do with scripture (Remember where the Bible belt is geographically with respect to the civil war). The Bible was actually used by slave-owners for centuries in defense of the practice. Why do you reject the Bibles guidelines on slavery but not its guidelines on homosexuality?

I believe you are mistaken on this. On what moral grounds was slavery rejected? Certainly not from evolution. The prime movers that eventually ended overt slavery based their moral arguments on the very Book that you are trying to dismiss. We are all brothers and sisters by creation and redemption. One cannot truly be a Christian and ignore the command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

True.

I think one can come to the conclusion that slavery is permissable since God permitted it with the Hebrews. God even gave them instructions as to how to treat them. "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him..." Exodus 21:1-6.

When they wanted meat the Lord gave them plenty of it to eat. When they wanted a king to rule over them, the Lord gave them kings until they shouted, "We have no king but Ceasar."

But God is against slavery, meat eating, just as He is against His professed people having a man rule over them instead of Him. He gives the people the desire of their hearts with all the dire consequences that will follow, in the hope that in time they will see the error of their ways and return to Him and His ways which are not only better but perfect. And if they persist in having their own ways, the Lord has no choice but to divorce them from His work, to give them up, and they are left to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

sky

[Gerr]

While evolution may teach common descent from apes or some other more primordial ancestor, it is no distortion that evolution fosters a philosphy of survival of the fittest, and that the weak is just a fodder for the strong.

Yes, you are right, some people also you the Bible to justify slavery, and I might add, many other wicked practices. But when one understands the command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," one cannot mistreat another human being in any way. BTW, the Bible was given for practical purposes. It was given to a world already rampant with slavery. Furthermore, people are not only slow to change, the wicked heart also reject the light it doesn't like.

[Igakusei]

True.

I think one can come to the conclusion that slavery is permissable since God permitted it with the Hebrews. God even gave them instructions as to how to treat them. "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him..." Exodus 21:1-6.

When they wanted meat the Lord gave them plenty of it to eat. When they wanted a king to rule over them, the Lord gave them kings until they shouted, "We have no king but Ceasar."

But God is against slavery, meat eating, just as He is against His professed people having a man rule over them instead of Him. He gives the people the desire of their hearts with all the dire consequences that will follow, in the hope that in time they will see the error of their ways and return to Him.

sky

At the risk of derailing the conversation, please list some theocracies throughout history that weren't directly responsible for incredible amounts of human suffering.

Ancient Hebrews - Repeated genocide, totalitarian rule, complete intolerance of independent ideas, infanticide, Misogyny, and the rape and murder of prisoners of war among many others.

Europe under the Catholic Church - I'm sure you guys are equipped to put plenty of things here (many of which the Israelites were guilty of, only for different theological ideas).

Fundamentalist Islam - Same as the others (see a pattern?)

On the flip side, the most secular and free societies today are the most stable economically and socially (Scandinavia, Japan, etc). Theocratic encroachment is a direct threat to free society, and to claim that a theocratic government is the best, or even an acceptable option is to betray an astounding ignorance of history.

You might claim that those other theocracies were "doing it wrong," but that dodges the point because the fact of the matter is that in all of these cases, the holy scriptures these theocracies were based upon are so muddled, confusing, and contradictory that they were used to justify the most horrible atrocities. The philosophical arguments that brought about free societies have always been secular. You may think that America was founded as "one nation under God," but many of the founding fathers were deists, not theists, and philosophically they were all heavily influenced by the values of the enlightenment.

[skyblue888]

While evolution may teach common descent from apes or some other more primordial ancestor, it is no distortion that evolution fosters a philosphy of survival of the fittest, and that the weak is just a fodder for the strong.

Yes, you are right, some people also you the Bible to justify slavery, and I might add, many other wicked practices. But when one understands the command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," one cannot mistreat another human being in any way. BTW, the Bible was given for practical purposes. It was given to a world already rampant with slavery. Furthermore, people are not only slow to change, the wicked heart also reject the light it doesn't like.

It was the same with polygamy. The nations were rampant with it and the Hebrews saw nothing wrong with it. God winked at it, at their ignorance.

"Truly, these times of ignorance God winked at..." Acts 17:30.

sky

[Gerr]

But regardless, let's remove HIV from the picture for a moment. In a stable homosexual relationship between two members of the same sex, neither of which have an STD, who is getting hurt?

1. Biologically: end of species.

2. Theologically: Denies God's original plan for man & woman.

3. I believe the Bible to be the word of God which says:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Co 6:9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[Igakusei]

While evolution may teach common descent from apes or some other more primordial ancestor, it is no distortion that evolution fosters a philosphy of survival of the fittest, and that the weak is just a fodder for the strong.

Yes, you are right, some people also you the Bible to justify slavery, and I might add, many other wicked practices. But when one understands the command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," one cannot mistreat another human being in any way. BTW, the Bible was given for practical purposes. It was given to a world already rampant with slavery. Furthermore, people are not only slow to change, the wicked heart also reject the light it doesn't like.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

True.

I think one can come to the conclusion that slavery is permissable since God permitted it with the Hebrews. God even gave them instructions as to how to treat them. "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him..." Exodus 21:1-6.

When they wanted meat the Lord gave them plenty of it to eat. When they wanted a king to rule over them, the Lord gave them kings until they shouted, "We have no king but Ceasar."

But God is against slavery, meat eating, just as He is against His professed people having a man rule over them instead of Him. He gives the people the desire of their hearts with all the dire consequences that will follow, in the hope that in time they will see the error of their ways and return to Him.

sky

At the risk of derailing the conversation, please list some theocracies throughout history that weren't directly responsible for incredible amounts of human suffering.

Ancient Hebrews - Repeated genocide, totalitarian rule, complete intolerance of independent ideas, infanticide, Misogyny, and the rape and murder of prisoners of war among many others.

Europe under the Catholic Church - I'm sure you guys are equipped to put plenty of things here (many of which the Israelites were guilty of, only for different theological ideas).

Fundamentalist Islam - Same as the others (see a pattern?)

On the flip side, the most secular and free societies today are the most stable economically and socially (Scandinavia, Japan, etc). Theocratic encroachment is a direct threat to free society, and to claim that a theocratic government is the best, or even an acceptable option is to betray an astounding ignorance of history.

You might claim that those other theocracies were "doing it wrong," but that dodges the point because the fact of the matter is that in all of these cases, the holy scriptures these theocracies were based upon are so muddled, confusing, and contradictory that they were used to justify the most horrible atrocities. The philosophical arguments that brought about free societies have always been secular. You may think that America was founded as "one nation under God," but many of the founding fathers were deists, not theists, and philosophically they were all heavily influenced by the values of the enlightenment.

Igakusei

______________________________

What if I tell you I agree with you? Since the coming of Christ into this world there are no true theocracies for Jesus said that there won't be another theocracy until He comes again.

The theocracy in the Old Testament was of God but because the Isrealites, after the Red Sea episode, elected to use the sword against their enemies, which was opposed to God's way, and since God in His mercy was not willing to abandon them to the nations around them which were skilled in weilding the weapons of war, many atrocities could not be avoided. But if they had followed God's way, none of these things would have happened the way they happened.

Does not that explain the words of Jesus, "He who takes the sword will perish by the sword." The Jews perished by the sword at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

sky

[Gerr]

[On the flip side, the most secular and free societies today are the most stable economically and socially (Scandinavia, Japan, etc). Theocratic encroachment is a direct threat to free society, and to claim that a theocratic government is the best, or even an acceptable option is to betray an astounding ignorance of history.

Ignorance? Hmmmm. Have you forgotten the French Revolution and the reign of terror? Atheist communism and the millions they exterminated? And the Nazis?

The Catholic Church's attempt to exterminate "heretics" took place precisely because it departed from the Bible. The Hebrews' extermination of the Canaanites, I agree, is more problematical. All I know is that "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that whos0ever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." So then why did He command the Israelites to perform genocide? All I can tell you is that those pagans had descended into such abominable practices such as child sacrifice, that He had to put an end to them. Because of wickedness, He did the same to the antediluvians, to Sodom & Gomorrah, and someday soon, this present wicked world of ours also.

Here's God's dilemma. If wickedness and suffering are rampant, we complain how God could tolerate it and do nothing. Then when He does something about it, we fault Him for being merciless.

[Igakusei]

The French revolution was hardly "rational" (or free, or even a society for that matter), communism was hardly "free," and I get so tired of people mentioning Hitler, as neither he nor his party were either atheists or "Darwinists."

So you ignored my examples of secular and free societies and listed several societies which where certainly not free and secular. Try again.

God himself resorted to child sacrifice, so that's hardly a good reason to order the extermination of the Canaanites. The correct answer is that monotheism is horribly intolerant of other ideas and faiths, and genocide is the inevitable result. What is your second coming, other than yet another genocide of ideas and cultures?

[skyblue888]

If wickedness and suffering are rampant, we complain how God could tolerate it and do nothing. Then when He does something about it, we fault Him for being merciless.

Gerry

________________

But when the Lord does something about it, it does not mean what most of us think. "I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." E.G. White.

And it is not true that God becomes "merciless" at any time for it is written, "Your mercy, O God, endures forever." Ps.138:8.

sky

[skyblue888]

God himself resorted to child sacrifice, so that's hardly a good reason to order the extermination of the Canaanites. The correct answer is that monotheism is horribly intolerant of other ideas and faiths, and genocide is the inevitable result. What is your second coming, other than yet another genocide of ideas and cultures?

Igakusei

___________________________________________

Is this you Card with a different user name?

If it is not you, you sound just like him.

No God never resorted to child sacrifice. It was an abomination to Him. The heathen had perverted ideas of the true sacrifice. The extermination of the Canaanites was done according to the way of the sword and we know that the way of the sword is not God's way for Jesus said, "He who takes the sword will perish by the sword."

The history of the Jewish nation is a perfect example of that. They refused to live according to God's way and they perished by the way they clung to. God's intructions as to how to use their swords was in mercy to themselves and to their enemies if we are able to understand. May the Lord open the eyes of the blind that they may see His ways, that His ways are not man's ways. In fact His ways are as different from man's as the heavens are higher than the earth. (Isa.55:9)

sky

[Igakusei]

Numbers:

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

What purpose did this serve? This isn't just God winking at ignorance, this is him specifically endorsing rape, murder, and pedophilia. There is literally no other way to explain this. Why only the girls? Why were the little boys killed?

[skyblue888]

Numbers:

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

What purpose did this serve? This isn't just God winking at ignorance, this is him specifically endorsing rape, murder, and pedophilia. There is literally no other way to explain this. Why only the girls? Why were the little boys killed?

And what does this have to do with "sacrificing" children in reference to worship? This is not about worship but about war and according to the way of the sword. Your argument is the same as trying to prove that the Lord believed in polygamy. He allowed both the sword and polygamy and Kingly power among them but against His own will because of the ignorance.

sky

[Igakusei]

Sky,

I changed the subject a bit, I should have been more clear. When I said God himself practiced child sacrifice I was making a reference to the crucifixion.

The passage I quoted from Numbers (this is far from the only example of this type of thing in Numbers 31) is God specifically commanding his people to murder all the men, married women, and male children while keeping the female children for themselves.

He is not "allowing" these things due to Hebrew ignorance, he is "commanding" them. How can you not see this?

Furthermore, the God of the OT is one who personally visits with and talks to his people. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy again if you can't remember the level of detail with which he instructs them, many of which made them quite unique among their neighbors.

Are you really saying that a God that cares enough to tell them exactly how many times to sprinkle blood on each side of the altar and which earlobe to smear it on can't say "oh yeah, raping female children is wrong."

No, not only does he neglect to tell them that, he tells them to do it!

[skyblue888]

The fact that God "commanded" them to do these things is not to be taken or interpreted as being God's way. You cannot be helped until you see that and you cannot see that unless the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of your understanding.

sky

by the way, where does God command anyone to "rape" anybody?

[Igakusei]

The fact that God "commanded" them to do these things is not to be taken or interpreted as being God's way. You cannot be helped until you see that and you cannot see that unless the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of your understanding.

sky

This is a total cop-out. Frankly, I'm shocked that people can still say things like this with a straight face.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The fact that God "commanded" them to do these things is not to be taken or interpreted as being God's way. You cannot be helped until you see that and you cannot see that unless the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of your understanding.

sky

This is a total cop-out. Frankly, I'm shocked that people can still say things like this with a straight face.

Where did God ever command His professed people to "rape" little girls?

The Lord may be winking at your ignorance right now. I pray that you will look at Him with a straight face and ask Him to teach you His ways.

And who can teach like Him?

sky

[Igakusei]

Did you even read the verses I quoted? Do you know what "take the virgins for yourselves" means to a soldier?

[skyblue888]

"keeping the female children for themselves" meant that they could "rape" them at will?

sky

[Bravus]

We discussed this here a while ago. They were not necessarily children, just virgins, so young women. They were being kept to be taken as wives by the soldiers. But, given that these were the soldiers who had mercilessly slaughtered their whole families, these girls were hardly in any position, or likely, to freely consent to become the wives and sexual partners of these soldiers. Sex without consent is rape - and no doubt in many cases this meant rape with violence and disregard for the girls. These were iron age soldiers who had spent their lives cutting people to pieces, not paragons of gentleness.

Read that whole chapter, skyblue, and then imagine that it was Mahomed ordering his soldiers to do that to a Christian village. Would you be defending it?

[Sonny]

Again, nobody is getting hurt.

Sodomy is a health issue. HIV is directly related.

Romans 1:27 ....men, giving up natural relations with the opposite sex, burn with lust for one another, men committing shameful acts with other men and receiving in their own bodies the penalty appropriate to their perversion.

And don't blame this on God. He doesn't give men HIV/AIDS....They destroy themselves.

[Sonny]

In a stable homosexual relationship between two members of the same sex, neither of which have an STD, who is getting hurt?

God's creation, which is already fallen, takes a turn for the worse. If they feed their natures society reaps the consequences. Ask Lucifer the guy who invented the concept of self-seeking....

[Dr. Shane]

The passage I quoted from Numbers (this is far from the only example of this type of thing in Numbers 31) is God specifically commanding his people to murder all the men, married women, and male children while keeping the female children for themselves.

God's purpose was to rid the area of idolatry. That method seems most effective. What is the difference between what God commanded Israel to do here and what God Himself will do in the end?

[Dr. Shane]

let's remove HIV from the picture for a moment. In a stable homosexual relationship between two members of the same sex, neither of which have an STD, who is getting hurt?