Homophiles 'praying'...

[Avatar4321]

I'm not attacking your character, but your reasoning. If you are doing something even though you know it is a sin, you ARE sinning intentionally. That's not taking shit out of context, or wordsmithing, that's fact.

At the time you are committing this intentional sin, it must be acceptable to you, or you wouldn't be doing it. Feeling sorry and asking forgiveness later or even planning to feel sorry and ask for forgiveness later while you are sinning doesn't mitigate anything IMO.

But, if repentance is this great magic button, can homosexuals be Christians as long as they are sorry about being homosexual? Is there a limit on the frequency of the sin/repent cycle?

Repentance is more than confession of sin. You can tell when a man has repented of his sin because he will confess it and forsake it.

 

[Phaedrus]

(In response to post #62)
Are you some sort of Toddler that doesn't understand the meaning of words? Nobody decides whether you are genuine or not, you know it yourself. You are simply trying to provoke an argument, and this will be my last reponse to you in this thread.

"Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded"

 

[Abbey Normal]

Repentance is more than confession of sin. You can tell when a man has repented of his sin because he will confess it and forsake it.

Yes. After Jesus stopped the stoning of the adultress with the famous quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", he didn't just tell the adultress to "Go". He said, "Go and sin no more".

 

[MissileMan]

(In response to post #62)
Are you some sort of Toddler that doesn't understand the meaning of words? Nobody decides whether you are genuine or not, you know it yourself. You are simply trying to provoke an argument, and this will be my last reponse to you in this thread.

"Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded"

You win!

 

[Nienna]

And there's a special place in hell for people who teach others...in the name of Christ...to hate others.

Who is teaching others (in the name of Christ) to hate?

 

[Nienna]

<blockquote>GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.</blockquote>

<blockquote>GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.</blockquote>

And that's just for starters...

Maybe I'm just hopelessly dense, but I'm not seeing any contradictions.

 

[dmp]

I'm not attacking your character, but your reasoning. If you are doing something even though you know it is a sin, you ARE sinning intentionally. That's not taking shit out of context, or wordsmithing, that's fact.

At the time you are committing this intentional sin, it must be acceptable to you, or you wouldn't be doing it. Feeling sorry and asking forgiveness later or even planning to feel sorry and ask for forgiveness later while you are sinning doesn't mitigate anything IMO.

But, if repentance is this great magic button, can homosexuals be Christians as long as they are sorry about being homosexual? Is there a limit on the frequency of the sin/repent cycle?

You aren't getting it. I 'don't do' things I 'know to be sinful'. If I'm 'doing' a sin, I repent...and fix my heart. Sin is a heart condition, mostly. I don't 'do' blatant sins. When I 'sin' I'm convicted, and repent.

The homos in this story sin, and keep sinning...and ask TheChurch/God to SANCTION their sin because they cannot or will not repent.

 

[dmp]

Maybe I'm Bully is hopelessly dense, Because I'm not seeing any contradictions.

Note edit..

 

[MissileMan]

Maybe I'm just hopelessly dense, but I'm not seeing any contradictions.

C'mon Mom...in Genesis 1, it says God made the animals first, THEN man. In Genesis 2, it says God made man first, THEN the animals. It is a minor contradiction, but a contradiction nonetheless.

 

[dmp]

C'mon Mom...in Genesis 1, it says God made the animals first, THEN man. In Genesis 2, it says God made man first, THEN the animals. It is a minor contradiction, but a contradiction nonetheless.

No - Genesis 2 is saying "...because God made all life, he commanded them to visit Adam, to be named..."

 

[MissileMan]

No - Genesis 2 is saying "...because God made all life, he commanded them to visit Adam, to be named..."

How can I argue with vaporous (like methane) interpretations that so drastically modify what was actually written?

 

[dmp]

they in turn begat Caine and Abel, who begat their wives?

It seems to me that God must have invented lots of Adams and Eves all over the world at the same time.

When God drowned the whole world except for Noah and his family, did he invent some more Adams and Eves to help repopulate the world or are we all offspring of incestuous relationships?

Just a couple of basic questions that seem to contradictions in themselves.

It's quite possible God created MORE people than Adam and his family - I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't say they were the ONLY humans created - just the first.

And Incest could have been how it happened, too.


Keep in mind, Noah and his family included Noah's son's wives, and such. No incest had to take place - yes, the rest of us are offspring of Noah and his family.

 

[dmp]

How can I argue with vaporous (like methane) interpretations that so drastically modify what was actually written?

Uh? It's about CONTEXT. You are willfully ignoring context.


NIV:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.


READ the words friend...then PRAY for (a modicum) of wisdom to 'understand'.

 

[dmp]

If you are looking for contradictions you will find many when comparing old testament with new.

Except that's not true either. The New Testiment 'changes' things from the Old - but that's not contradiction.

See? What some of y'all - especially the most obtuse - aren't understanding is the Bible is a series of STORIES...NOT a rule book. The bible is a History book more than a recipe book. We read the bible; we follow 'how' things developed. We get several perspectives of a single event at times. Again, those aren't contradictions.

Generally, people use 'context' to help them understand. Pulling out one or two verses and shouting "CONTRADICTION!!" is simply stupid.

 

[MissileMan]

Uh? It's about CONTEXT. You are willfully ignoring context.

It's about LANGUAGE. First it says one thing, then it says its direct opposite. Don't interpret, just read.

 

[dmp]

Your first answer is a cop out.


Incest would have to take place, all children would be blood related.It would take an expert in geneology to sort that one out I dare say.

Should I just go back to chat and my drink?

Your answer to my answer is a Cop out. Geesh.

 

[dmp]

So it is ok that the new testament changes things from the old?Does that mean the old testament is a load of rubbish or just some of it is rubbish so they fixed it?

Your reply is a load of rubbish. You take ONE thing - (The OT and how the NT relates to the OT) and make an absurd conclusion with your question.

If that what you say is true, which perspective of single events would you believe to be true, given that they contradict each other. If it is a history book, is it historically accurate?

Now you FURTHER that absurd conclusion with ANOTHER pointed question.

 

[dmp]

It's about LANGUAGE. First it says one thing, then it says its direct opposite. Don't interpret, just read.

LMAO.

Don't interpret, just read? Are you being dense on purpose? Answer that. Nobody - NO Adult, save Ms. McKinney from Congress, could be so dense.

LOOK at the language - RESEARCH the language...THEN you'll get an understanding. You don't seek TRUTH however - you are agenda-driven. You'd be so bothered with a translation which said 'Happy' when Another said "Glad" that you'd miss the entire point.

 

[Nienna]

Your first answer is a cop out.


Incest would have to take place, all children would be blood related.It would take an expert in geneology to sort that one out I dare say.

Should I just go back to chat and my drink?

I agree, roomy... I believe that God created Adam & Eve. (period)

However, in the Garden, the world was perfect. No disease, death, mutations. Adam & Eve had NO genetic imperfections to pass on to their children. Their children could have then reproduced with each other without a high risk of genetic mutation.

 

[Nienna]

<blockquote>GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.</blockquote>

<blockquote>GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.</blockquote>

And that's just for starters...

A)LaFawnda ate grapes on Tuesday. LaFawnda ate chocolate on Tuesday.

B)LaFawnda ate chocolate on Tuesday. LaFawnda ate grapes on Tuesday.

Do A & B contradict? No! Both sets of statements convey that LaFawnda ate grapes & chocolate on Tuesday. They list the foods in different orders. But, since neither set of statements explicitly says "LaFawnda ate chocolate FIRST," or "LaFawnda ate grapes FIRST," the statement sets do not conflict. The order is simply left unknown.

Same with the Genesis verses.