Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Grave_n_idle]

Your entire argument is basically, "Why does the past matter? All that matters is tomorrow.

Not only is that not my entire argument, it's not even part of my argument, and never has been.

[Hakons]

Christ says "the Creator made them male and female," and "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Why does Christ say this? Why Does Jesus cite these particular verses of the Hebrew scripture, in this exact way?

Because of the question he is asked:

They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

The QUESTION involves a man and his wife, and that's why the answer does. too.

...but it shows that Holy Matrimony is strictly heterosexual.

It does no such thing.

In fact, scripturally, gay marriage is the logical scriptural answer to homosexual sin. "It is better to marry than to burn."

Come on Graven, that is clearly not the logical answer. If it is so logical, why did it evade Jesus when He described marriage as the unification of the male and female flesh? Why did neither Christ, any profit, nor any Apostle in the Bible write in support of this "logic." Why did this obvious divine logic that you have somehow obtained evade practically every saint, martyr, pope, patriarch, cardinal, bishop, priest, deacon, laity, and laymen? Well over two billion Christians have not seen this "logical scriptural answer."

I thought I made this clear, but apparently you missed what I said earlier. Your hot new takes (really stemming from modern Liberalism of the 20th and 21st century) on how to interpret the Bible simply don't stand up to the Apostolic interpretations established in the first century. You lack biblical evidence and you ignore contrary evidence to your claim. Practically every Christian Church, from Coptics in Egypt to Evangelists in Canada, know that homosexuality is a sin. Are we seriously supposed to believe the non scriptural, non historical, unorthodox, and frankly unchristian proposal from a random person on the internet that isn't even a Christian? It's absurd even to believe your interpretation over the other learned individuals who have proven you wrong in this thread. This discussion is fruitless, and branches that bear no fruit will be cut off.

[Ashmoria]

It's not being gay that makes it wrong. It's the act of having a gay relationship that makes it wrong. So, you can have an attraction to the same-sex, you just can't act on it.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say that?

jesus said that thinking about it is the same as doing it.

[Eli Islands]

Where in the Bible does Jesus say that?

jesus said that thinking about it is the same as doing it.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say that?

[Diopolis]

Imagine my disappointment when I come back from my lenten hiatus to find yall arguing about whether the bible condemns homosexuality again.

[Ashmoria]

jesus said that thinking about it is the same as doing it.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say that?

when he talks about adultery and says that if you are lusting after a woman who is not your wife it is as bad a sin as if you acted on it.

did you not that that one in sunday school?

[Ashmoria]

Imagine my disappointment when I come back from my lenten hiatus to find yall arguing about whether the bible condemns homosexuality again.

well the bible does, more or less, but jesus never addressed the subject.

[Eli Islands]

Where in the Bible does Jesus say that?

when he talks about adultery and says that if you are lusting after a woman who is not your wife it is as bad a sin as if you acted on it.

did you not that that one in sunday school?

he did say that but what you originally quoted had nothing to do with lust for another women it was about whether being gay was a sin or if only acting upon it was

[Ashmoria]

when he talks about adultery and says that if you are lusting after a woman who is not your wife it is as bad a sin as if you acted on it.

did you not that that one in sunday school?

he did say that but what you originally quoted had nothing to do with lust for another women it was about whether being gay was a sin or if only acting upon it was

oh so you think only lust for the opposite sex counts and that jesus gave a laundry list of exact sins and only those EXACT sins are sins?

I assume that you know you are gay because of the lust you feel for people who are your own gender. a man looking at a man and thinking about having sex with him is as much a sin, according to jesus, as if he and that man had actual physical sex with each other. the only thing that makes it NOT a sin is being joined in holy matrimony.

[Eli Islands]

he did say that but what you originally quoted had nothing to do with lust for another women it was about whether being gay was a sin or if only acting upon it was

oh so you think only lust for the opposite sex counts and that jesus gave a laundry list of exact sins and only those EXACT sins are sins?

I assume that you know you are gay because of the lust you feel for people who are your own gender. a man looking at a man and thinking about having sex with him is as much a sin, according to jesus, as if he and that man had actual physical sex with each other. the only thing that makes it NOT a sin is being joined in holy matrimony.

yes that is true but again you are arguing a different point. you specifically stated "when he talks about adultery and says that if you are lusting after a woman who is not your wife it is as bad a sin as if you acted on it." so when you respond "oh so you think only lust for the opposite sex counts and that jesus gave a laundry list of exact sins and only those EXACT sins are sins?" it seems like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Ashmoria]

oh so you think only lust for the opposite sex counts and that jesus gave a laundry list of exact sins and only those EXACT sins are sins?

I assume that you know you are gay because of the lust you feel for people who are your own gender. a man looking at a man and thinking about having sex with him is as much a sin, according to jesus, as if he and that man had actual physical sex with each other. the only thing that makes it NOT a sin is being joined in holy matrimony.

yes that is true but again you are arguing a different point. you specifically stated "when he talks about adultery and says that if you are lusting after a woman who is not your wife it is as bad a sin as if you acted on it." so when you respond "oh so you think only lust for the opposite sex counts and that jesus gave a laundry list of exact sins and only those EXACT sins are sins?" it seems like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

do you actually have a problem with my contending that a man lusting after a man is a sin according to jesus?

[Eli Islands]

yes that is true but again you are arguing a different point. you specifically stated "when he talks about adultery and says that if you are lusting after a woman who is not your wife it is as bad a sin as if you acted on it." so when you respond "oh so you think only lust for the opposite sex counts and that jesus gave a laundry list of exact sins and only those EXACT sins are sins?" it seems like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

do you actually have a problem with my contending that a man lusting after a man is a sin according to jesus?

you are still arguing for the sake of arguing but, yes I do because what if said man was not married is he not allowed said feelings?

[Ashmoria]

do you actually have a problem with my contending that a man lusting after a man is a sin according to jesus?

you are still arguing for the sake of arguing but, yes I do because what if said man was not married is he not allowed said feelings?

id say talk to jesus.

I think it is a ridiculous standard that every person with sexual feelings violates.

[Hakons]

Imagine my disappointment when I come back from my lenten hiatus to find yall arguing about whether the bible condemns homosexuality again.

It's the preferred topic of new people that enter the thread. I suppose we could stop answering to that particular question. It gets tiresome to constantly say, no Christianity has not changes its position that it has had for 2,000 years.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If history is rigorous as science, then we have to discount virtually everything we know about the past, because writings are NOT sufficient to prove with a scientific consensus. History is NOT a science.

Your take on history might not be.

There's no inherent conflict between history and science, except when people people do it in an unscientific way. And even that can be useful. You can use the mythological 'history' they trade in to add texture to the real history.

Okay, tell me how to apply the scientific method to history.

[The Archregimancy]

Your take on history might not be.

There's no inherent conflict between history and science, except when people people do it in an unscientific way. And even that can be useful. You can use the mythological 'history' they trade in to add texture to the real history.

Okay, tell me how to apply the scientific method to history.

At this point this is veering into a derail.

If you'd like to discuss this topic, you're very welcome to start another thread.

Thank you.

[Luminesa]

Imagine my disappointment when I come back from my lenten hiatus to find yall arguing about whether the bible condemns homosexuality again.

0 Days Without Discussing Homosexuality In The Bible on the CDT.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Changing the subject, what is your opinion about the Coptic Church and other Christian aspects?

Keeping the faith while being constantly under persecution for 1400 years takes guts. I would like to attend a Coptic Catholic liturgy at least once before I die.

exactly

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Imagine my disappointment when I come back from my lenten hiatus to find yall arguing about whether the bible condemns homosexuality again.

0 Days Without Discussing Homosexuality In The Bible on the CDT.

It would be a shame if I started this again

[Luminesa]

0 Days Without Discussing Homosexuality In The Bible on the CDT.

It would be a shame if I started this again

BOI DON'T YOU DO IT.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

It would be a shame if I started this again

BOI DON'T YOU DO IT.

okey :c
Now suggesting a topic, what do you think about medical drugs? As the Bible has always said, we must love the other as we love ourselves, as a professional I will do my best to live the other, even using these drugs.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

BOI DON'T YOU DO IT.

okey :c
Now suggesting a topic, what do you think about medical drugs? As the Bible has always said, we must love the other as we love ourselves, as a professional I will do my best to live the other, even using these drugs.

Nothing against medical drugs.

I mean, they're used to treat a patient, so there's nothing wrong in their application.

[Auristania]

Christ is risen Hallelujah!
He is risen indeed Hallelujah!

[Philjia]

Christ is risen Hallelujah!
He is risen indeed Hallelujah!

Well, yes.
He has been for about 2022 years.
Do keep up.

[Distruzio]

Christ is risen Hallelujah!
He is risen indeed Hallelujah!

Not yet.... but soon.