Israeli ultra-Orthodox MP blames earthquakes on gays

Originally posted by Tim Rout
There are many examples in the Bible where God gives an instruction, expects people to obey it, but never lets them in on the "why" of it. That said, it is important to understand the nature of the human predicament.

Humans are not destined to hell for committing some particular sin (like gay sex). All sin is equally deserving of punishment. We are all destined for hell because we are imperfect [Romans 3:23]. We inherited this imperfection from our original father, Adam, who rebelled against God and infected humanity with the curse of sin and death [1 Corinthians 15:21-22].

Even though we are helpless to escape our impending doom, God sent His perfect Son Jesus to do the impossible -- pay the sin debt for every person who would voluntarily turn from sin and receive His free gift of eternal life [John 1:12, 3:16-18].

In a general sense, we can understand a few things about homosexuality. Firstly, homosexual sex is a sin [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]. Secondly, all sin is harmful to humans [Romans 6:23]. Thirdly, homosexual sin is completely forgivable [1 Corinthians 6:11]. Fourthly, those who do not believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins will face the consequences [John 3:36].

I UNDERSTAND that Homosexuality is a sin. I am asking WHY God chose to classify it as such, when it does not seem to carry any harmful effects. God could declare eating apples as a sin, but in the absence of any inherent wrongness in the act, it would be ludicrous to do so.

Also, a question: did people born before Jesus all go to hell?

Here's a question: when did Jesus ever condemn homosexuality?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I UNDERSTAND that Homosexuality is a sin. I am asking WHY God chose to classify it as such, when it does not seem to carry any harmful effects. God could declare eating apples as a sin, but in the absence of any inherent wrongness in the act, it would be ludicrous to do so.

Also, a question: did people born before Jesus all go to hell?

Funny you should call the forbiddance of a fruit "ludicrous". That's exactly the sort of thinking that got the world into this mess in the first place. Do you remember the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [Genesis 2:16-17]? God never told Adam and Eve why the fruit was forbidden. For all we know, His reasoning may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the chemical content of the fruit itself. That didn't matter. God said "don't eat it", and humans disobeyed. The result was death for all mankind.

Your question is immaterial. You're asking me to offer a humanistic justification for God's sovereign decisions, and there is none to offer. God is God! He has the authority to call any human behavior wrong if He so chooses, and He has clearly chosen to identify homosexual behavior as wrong. And if all sin is by nature harmful, then so too is homosexuality. You're free to disagree if you like. You're even free to disobey, for now. After all, God is the only one to whom you will give an account.

And no...not all people who were born before Jesus went to hell. God introduced the first prophetic promise of His coming Messiah immediately after Adam and Eve disobeyed that first time [Genesis 3:15]. Throughout the Old Testament period, He extended this promise, telling people more and more about the coming Redeemer. Those who believed in God's coming Messiah would be saved "on credit", as it were. When Jesus finally arrived and died on the cross, He settled the bill for all who had trusted in Him beforehand. Remember, Jesus is God, and as such He existed prior to His advent [John 8:58].

So then, Old Testament believers were saved on credit, while New Testament believers (and beyond) are saved on debit.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I UNDERSTAND that Homosexuality is a sin. I am asking WHY God chose to classify it as such, when it does not seem to carry any harmful effects. God could declare eating apples as a sin, but in the absence of any inherent wrongness in the act, it would be ludicrous to do so.

Also, a question: did people born before Jesus all go to hell?

With regard to the question of harm, I am going to segregate my response, since the following is an expression of personal opinion, and not biblical declaration.

As an additional consideration, it would be wise to weigh the effects of sexual sin -- both homosexual and heterosexual -- on the transmission of STDs. While there is some small chance of a person catching AIDS or another blood born disease from non-sexual sources, the probability of being hit with an STD falls substantially when one obeys the Bible. If one virgin man marries one virgin woman, and the two remain faithful throughout their lifetimes, the probability of catching a serious disease through sexual transmission falls to virtually 0%.

We must also consider the extraordinary harm sexual sin inflicts upon a person's emotional health. I can't tell you how many times I've seen teens left nearly suicidal after the break up of a sexualized relationship. This extreme grief is nearly absent from those who abstained from sexual activity. And, of course, unwed girls and women who abstain from sex will never have to worry about unwed pregnancy.

While I have no statistics to offer, I do have the testimonies of countless Christians who live by God's Word every day. Here's an excellent example:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2957472509635178728&q=lika+roman&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Originally posted by Tim Rout
With regard to the question of harm, I am going to segregate my response, since the following is an expression of personal opinion, and not biblical declaration.

As an additional consideration, it would be wise to weigh the effects of sexual sin -- both homosexual and heterosexual -- on the transmission of STDs. While there is some small chance of a person catching AIDS or another blood born disease from non-sexual sources, the probability of being hit with an STD falls substantially when one obeys the Bible. If one virgin man marries one virgin woman, and the two remain faithful throughout their lifetimes, the probability of catching a serious disease through sexual transmission falls to virtually 0%.

We must also consider the extraordinary harm sexual sin inflicts upon a person's emotional health. I can't tell you how many times I've seen teens left nearly suicidal after the break up of a sexualized relationship. This extreme grief is nearly absent from those who abstained from sexual activity. And, of course, unwed girls and women who abstain from sex will never have to worry about unwed pregnancy.

While I have no statistics to offer, I do have the testimonies of countless Christians who live by God's Word every day. Here's an excellent example:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2957472509635178728&q=lika+roman&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

perhaps you overlooked the the other 6 billion people in the world who have had sex before marriage. im sure they all want to kill themselves to. ya know cause their all 15-16 american teen women too right?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
saying that because they havent "sinned" and thus havent gotten diseases is ludicrus, a fallacy and a twist of the truth. it has nothing with following the rules of the bible and is them not having sex. period. it isnt up for debate, ur just wrong.

perhaps you overlooked the the other 6 billion people in the world who have had sex before marriage. im sure they all want to kill themselves to. ya know cause their all 15-16 american teen women too right?

Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

You really like that word "ludicrous". You paste it broadly across anything your subjective intuitions find disfavorable. Yet for all your wild assertions and audacious posturing, the fact remains that those who obey God live better lives than those who don't. And it is a fact -- proven again and again in the lives of Christians everywhere. Obedience brings blessing. Not always wealth and health that some desire...but blessing nonetheless. You're really missing out.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

You really like that word "ludicrous". You paste it broadly across anything your subjective intuitions find disfavorable. Yet for all your wild assertions and audacious posturing, the fact remains that those who obey God live better lives than those who don't. And it is a fact -- proven again and again in the lives of Christians everywhere. Obedience brings blessing. Not always wealth and health that some desire...but blessing nonetheless. You're really missing out.

"Christians have better lives", that is clearly subjective, as you have zero concrete proof to back this up, besides, doesn't a Christian's "better life" start after they're dead and they fly up into your magical kingdom?

As far as your seatbelt analogy goes, it is ludicris. We know that buckling-up is safer as it's been proven by accidents to injure rates; we have yet to see anyone go into heaven though. So don't accuse others of blind subjectiveness.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I'm not sure what authority you're basing that statement on, but the Bible is replete with examples of God using natural disasters to punish people who displease Him. In fact, Jesus specifically predicted that famines and earthquakes would precede the day of judgment [Matthew 24:7]. When the Book of Revelation speaks of God pouring out His wrath, this virtually always has a natural disaster attached to it.

I was hoping you'd pounce on this one.

My opinion concerning the mercy of God is largely based off of Genesis 18:24-32. Remember, you are making an argument that God actually sends earthquakes and hurricanes to punish society for not fighting homosexuality.

I just looked up Matthew 24:7.

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

God doesn't make wars occur. What makes you think he makes diseases and earthquakes happen?

Matthew: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.
Tim Rout: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes because of the gays.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I was hoping you'd pounce on this one.

My opinion concerning the mercy of God is largely based off of Genesis 18:24-32. Remember, you are making an argument that God actually sends earthquakes and hurricanes to punish society for not fighting homosexuality.

I just looked up Matthew 24:7.

God doesn't make wars occur. What makes you think he makes diseases and earthquakes happen?

[B]Matthew: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.
Tim Rout: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes because of the gays. [/B]

Matthew 24 deals with signs of the end times. The book of Revelation describes these last events in detail. Included in God's final judgments are a whole string of "natural" disasters. Here's an example:

"The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of His wrath. Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible." [Revelation 16:19-21/NIV]

The Lord will judge humanity for its wickedness, and that wickedness includes (but is not limited to) the sin of homosexuality. For a more specific example, there is good textual evidence to suggest God obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah for their flagrant homosexual practices [Genesis 19:1-29]. If you are suggesting that Genesis 18:24-31 somehow mitigates this, I can't see how, since Yahweh did in fact blow them sky high.

In addition to personally inflicting disease on the disobedient[Deuteronomy 29:22] God most certainly DOES cause wars [Exodus 17:16].

Originally posted by Tim Rout
18:22

[Leviticus 18:22/NASB]

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Leviticus 18:22

Originally posted by Tim Rout
[Genesis 9:11].

[2 Peter 3:5-7]

Originally posted by Tim Rout
[Leveticus 19:22/NLT]

Originally posted by Tim Rout
[Matthew 7:1-5]

Originally posted by Tim Rout
[Matthew 5:48].

[Genesis 2:23-25

[1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

Originally posted by Tim Rout
[Genesis 2:16-17]

[Genesis 3:15]

[John 8:58]

Originally posted by Tim Rout
[Genesis 19:1-29]

Genesis 18:24-31

So, what's the "real" meaning of the 3rd word on the 198th page of the 10th volume of the the 12th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, what's the "real" meaning of the 3rd word on the 198th page of the 10th volume of the the 12th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

😄 I know. It must seem weird. I'm sure seeing all those Bible addresses can even be annoying for some people. But if I'm going to stipulate that the Bible says something, I must be careful to demonstrate where the Bible says it. Anything less would be academically irresponsible.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Matthew 24 deals with signs of the end times. The book of Revelation describes these last events in detail. Included in God's final judgments are a whole string of "natural" disasters. Here's an example:

"The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of His wrath. Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible." [Revelation 16:19-21/NIV]

Yes, but that didn't come from gays.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Lord will judge humanity for its wickedness, and that wickedness includes (but is not limited to) the sin of homosexuality. For a more specific example, there is good textual evidence to suggest God obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah for their flagrant homosexual practices [Genesis 19:1-29]. If you are suggesting that Genesis 18:24-31 somehow mitigates this, I can't see how, since Yahweh did in fact blow them sky high.

You don't get what I'm saying about Genesis 18:24-31? Here...

God was exceedingly merciful to Sodom and Gomorrah in that if he'd found even fifty righteous households he would have sparred the city. That degree of mercy might just have been because Abraham pleaded with him, but you have to give God some credit for the leeway he gives anyway. When he punishes a population, the ratio of evil to good is probably pretty high.

But the point I would like to emphasize is that pointing fingers at a single practice or organization simply piles onto the sin...

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

You really like that word "ludicrous". You paste it broadly across anything your subjective intuitions find disfavorable. Yet for all your wild assertions and audacious posturing, the fact remains that those who obey God live better lives than those who don't. And it is a fact -- proven again and again in the lives of Christians everywhere. Obedience brings blessing. Not always wealth and health that some desire...but blessing nonetheless. You're really missing out.

2nd tell that christians lead happier better lives to the priests that get mugged and also the ones that rape little boys. i think im leading aMUCH happier life than them

Originally posted by Tim Rout
😄 I know. It must seem weird. I'm sure seeing all those Bible addresses can even be annoying for some people. But if I'm going to stipulate that the Bible says something, I must be careful to demonstrate where the Bible says it. Anything less would be academically irresponsible.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
its so sad that you wasted part of your brain memorizing bible references when you could be using that memory to A: remember a girls phone number so you can call her and have unmarrital sec with her. B: remember that being logical is better and quit the christian faith.

great idea!

*memorizes chickenlover's mom's number*

😐

Originally posted by Tim Rout
😄 I know. It must seem weird. I'm sure seeing all those Bible addresses can even be annoying for some people. But if I'm going to stipulate that the Bible says something, I must be careful to demonstrate where the Bible says it. Anything less would be academically irresponsible.

Such stipulation and selective demonstration IS ACADEMICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

Originally posted by Alliance
Such stipulation and selective demonstration IS ACADEMICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

Not to mention that a book as old as the bible is, and has been scrutinized for as long as it has, can be twisted to mean just about anything.

But my real point is that he should try reading other books too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
great idea!

*memorizes chickenlover's mom's number*

😐

He's the secret son of Chuck Norris. Remember?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

Is this an argument for using condoms?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Are you under the impression that I am commanding you to do something? If so, you are mistaken. I merely present the message of the Bible and allow people to make up their own minds -- as clearly you have made up yours.

It's easy to call someone a bigot, an idiot, a mindless fool, or any number of other insulting terms that people throw around. But insults are not arguments. Acerbity is not evidence. Pronouncements are not truth. You stand on your opinions and call them logic. I unapologetically stand on the Bible and let it speak for itself.

I say that I'm not commanding you to do anything, and you somehow interpret it as thinking that you're commanding me to do something? That...that doesn't even begin to make sense. It's like arguing with deficient AI.

Everything you say is tainted with this kind of confirmation bias.

And yeah, I can call you a bigot if I think you are one....which is rather evident by your opinions toward anyone who doesn't follow your preordained rules (that lack any justification..."Why is the Bible God's Word? Becuase it's the Bible, and God says so." ...it's circular logic). In any case, most systems of morality are uch more loving and accepting of variant lifestyles. Thankfully so, since people have lost their lives, their families, their jobs, their happiness, over such petty beliefs.

Open your eyes and see your own hatred...and you don't have to literally hate a group of people for your beliefs, words, and actions to be hateful.