Is God a just judge?

Started by bluewaterrider10 pages

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a very good reason for that. He is hiding behind a book, just like people who use videos to hide behind. He can just tell me in his own words, but I think he is too afraid. Or perhaps he feels powerless and needs to pump up his opinion with the perceived authority of the bible.

And stop quoting me from other threads. All you are trying to do is take me out of context. If you continue, I will report it.

No, Shaky.

There is little if anything out of context about that quote, or my use of it.

If I was trying to take you out of context, I wouldn't have linked to the page that quote appears on for people to see.

Report if you feel you must.

There is a point beyond which failure to mention influencing factors becomes a barrier to any meaningful communication.

Whether you intend it or not, you've lain a clever trap here.
Will a man who has a legitimate condition which makes reading comprehension difficult and INHERENTLY leads him to interpret things different from most people be able to counsel dyajeep on whether his communication is, in fact, sufficient for the understanding of the average reader?
Or would efforts, failing for reasons Dyajeep could not guess at, only lead to frustration?

But there's another layer to this. MENTIONING that elephant in the room gives you a weapon to go after anyone who would clarify the difficulty.

Finally, there's another layer still.

Dyajeep is WRONG in the implicit assumption that all translations of the Bible are equally valid. There are some words, that, when changed, alter the meaning of a passage or lesson entire. Sometimes a change as small as a single letter can do that.

The latter we illustrated when we pointed out that "god of this world", because of the simple alteration of the "g" in "god" to lowercase, tells us that, not only are we not referring to Jehovah, God the Father, or God the Son, or even God, the Holy Spirit, we are in fact talking about SATAN, chief adversary of mankind.

For an example of the former, especially in regards to work translated from source written in a different language, as the Bible famously is, read this excellent short article from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translation-what-the-first-line-of-the-stranger-should-be

You've taken it one step further.
Not only asking Dyajeep to use "easy" translations, but for Dyajeep himself to be your "Cliffs Notes" to the Bible. Have his understanding, which may or may not be complete, represent the Bible to everyone on the forum.

That does not work.
Some things cannot be shortcutted and retain their meaning.
This is one such case.

I hope at least some people recognize what you're doing for the trap it is.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
No, Shaky.

Whatever!
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There is little if anything out of context about that quote, or my use of it.

In your opinion, but it is inappropriate in my opinion. Stay to the thread, please.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If I was trying to take you out of context, I wouldn't have linked to the page that quote appears on for people to see.

You know that no one is going to go to the other thread. What I am worried about are people like you taking a joke that I made in another thread and quoting it as if I was serious. You do this on purpose.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Report if you feel you must.

I WILL!
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There is a point beyond which failure to mention influencing factors becomes a barrier to any meaningful communication.

I wish I knew what you are talking about. Then again, maybe I don’t.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Whether you intend it or not, you've lain a clever trap here.

Projecting?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Will a man who has a legitimate condition which makes reading comprehension difficult and INHERENTLY leads him to interpret things different from most people be able to counsel dyajeep on whether his communication is, in fact, sufficient for the understanding of the average reader?

Are you trying to make fun of the fact that I am dyslexic? Didn’t it occur to you that maybe that’s why I have problems with old English, and why it is not unreasonable to request at least a newer translation?
One more thing, you seem to be saying that dyslexic people are stupid. That is ignorant of you.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Or would efforts, failing for reasons Dyajeep could not guess at, only lead to frustration?

WTF Are you drunk?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
But there's another layer to this.

Yes, trolls are like onions.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
MENTIONING that elephant in the room gives you a weapon to go after anyone who would clarify the difficulty.

Did you fart?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Finally, there's another layer still.

Still more?! LOL
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Dyajeep is WRONG in the implicit assumption that all translations of the Bible are equally valid. There are some words, that, when changed, alter the meaning of a passage or lesson entire. Sometimes a change as small as a single letter can do that.

I see, now attack the other guy. Wow! I would never want you on my side.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The latter we illustrated when we pointed out that "god of this world", because of the simple alteration of the "g" in "god" to lowercase, tells us that, not only are we not referring to Jehovah, God the Father, or God the Son, or even God, the Holy Spirit, we are in fact talking about SATAN, chief adversary of mankind.

Whatever dude. I always call the god of the bible “god”, because it is man-made. You can believe whatever you want, but sometimes people just forget to capitalize the word.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
For an example of the former, especially in regards to work translated from source written in a different language, as the Bible famously is, read this excellent short article from the New Yorker:

I am not going to go to your link.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You've taken it one step further.

Wait! I thought we were done! One more thing… one more thing… one more thing…

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not only asking Dyajeep to use "easy" translations, but for Dyajeep himself to be your "Cliffs Notes" to the Bible. Have his understandding, which may or may not be complete, represent the Bible to everyone on the forum.

That’s right; god wrote the bible in old English.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That does not work.

Then the King James Version doesn’t work. The bible was written in Greek and Hebrew.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Some things cannot be shortcutted and retain their meaning.

Like in the King James Version.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
This is one such case.
I hope at least some people recognize what you're doing for the trap it is.

I told him to not quote. If I was trying to do this silly thing you are accusing me of, I would have insisted on a new translation.
I just have a hard time reading old English. He could just tell me what it said, and I would take his word for it. Where is the trap?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Having sexual urges is not consent. A 15 year old girl can have sexual urges, but she is not old enough to give consent.

Just because I agree with the bible in this case doesn’t mean the bible is correct or even reinvent on other matters.

Feeling natural? You are a sick man if you think that bestiality feels natural. Does that make me a bestiality-phobe? Okay, I’m fine with that label.

Why am I Sick? I was clearly being sarcastic and using your own angle as weight against your argument. Am not religious in the slightest so I don't have an agenda and neigther do I hide behind a book. You are clearly not intelligent enough to enter into a debate without being offensive and you have shown a complete lack of tact on a number of occasions thought this debate. Just because you severely retarded it give you licence to behave like a knob

Doesn't give. Rather

Originally posted by Breno
Why am I Sick? I was clearly being sarcastic and using your own angle as weight against your argument. Am not religious in the slightest so I don't have an agenda and neigther do I hide behind a book. You are clearly not intelligent enough to enter into a debate without being offensive and you have shown a complete lack of tact on a number of occasions thought this debate. Just because you severely retarded it give you licence to behave like a knob

😱 All you had to do was "jk" Instead you decide to be a jerk! I didn't know you were being sarcastic, so I was defending myself. You have no idea how many people would seriously attack me like that? I'm sorry if that helps, but give me a sign post next time. And no need to brake the forum rules and get yourself banned over a misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is morally wrong with loving someone? Again, calling homosexuality immoral is homophobic.

what? really, shak?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Love and sex are not one and the same.

If it were, the law would essentially be saying a person who was raped was loved too much by their rapist.

👆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a very good reason for that. He is hiding behind a book, just like people who use videos to hide behind. He can just tell me in his own words, but I think he is too afraid. Or perhaps he feels powerless and needs to pump up his opinion with the perceived authority of the bible.

my belief is based on the Bible, shak... you are literate and articulate enough to understand my point... you're just denying to "understand" when there's a valid point and you cannot counter immediately...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Dyajeep is WRONG in the implicit assumption that all translations of the Bible are equally valid. There are some words, that, when changed, alter the meaning of a passage or lesson entire. Sometimes a change as small as a single letter can do that.

fair enough... not that all translations are valid but most of it (though not all) has the same essence or flow depending on the argument i'm into, few posts earlier...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You've taken it one step further.
Not only asking Dyajeep to use "easy" translations, but for Dyajeep himself to be your "Cliffs Notes" to the Bible. Have his understanding, which may or may not be complete, represent the Bible to everyone on the forum.

i do have shortcomings and my knowledge is incomplete... but i do understand what's morally correct and not, unlike someone who pretends to not understand the verses i gave... 😛

Originally posted by dyajeep
what? really, shak?

Why not answer the question?

Originally posted by dyajeep
my belief is based on the Bible, shak... you are literate and articulate enough to understand my point... you're just denying to "understand" when there's a valid point and you cannot counter immediately...

Let’s break it down:
Originally posted by dyajeep
not in any way, man... there is a reason for everything... if the God of the Bible is not partial:
"For God shows [b]no partiality
."
Romans 2:11
[/B]

The god of the bible is partial. The Jews where his people. The rest of the world was not treated the same. That is partiality. I can’t help if some guy in Rome got it wrong.
Originally posted by dyajeep
then we should not be partial too, as a Christian or as a person:

But you are partial. You have never heard anyone be called a non-believer? Christians are very parial.
Originally posted by dyajeep
"[b]My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory."
James 2:1
[/B]

Okay, that would be nice, but it is not what Christians do now.
Originally posted by dyajeep
which means - homosexual or not, we should not show partiality... in the Bible,it is written that we should:

I don’t see that.
Originally posted by dyajeep
"So then, as we have opportunity, [b]let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
Galatians 6:10
[/B]

Let’s be good to everyone especially other Christians. Does that sound impartial? No.
Originally posted by dyajeep
do good to all people...

…especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Originally posted by dyajeep
"[b]Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor."
I Peter 2:17
[/B]

That’s fine and all, but I don’t see why you are against homosexual loving each other.
Originally posted by dyajeep
respect all people...

You have already covered this.
Originally posted by dyajeep
"And a second is like it, [b]You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Matthew 22:39
[/B]

This still has nothing to do with homosexuals.
Originally posted by dyajeep
love all people...

You are repeating yourself. Just about here I am confused.
Originally posted by dyajeep
it doesn't get any clearer than that... whether it be a woman or a homosexual, we should love them all, with no partiality...

It didn’t answer the question of why homosexuals must stop having relationships with other homosexuals. All you did was saying that people should be good to each other over and over again. That doesn’t make anything clear, and just gives me a headache.

You could have just said that the bible tells us to be good to everyone, but then you still wouldn’t have answered the question of why do you feel that the homosexual act is an abomination.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The god of the bible is partial. The Jews where his people. The rest of the world was not treated the same. That is partiality. I can’t help if some guy in Rome got it wrong.

you told everyone you converted from Christianity to Buddhism... it figures because you never understood Christianity in the first place! the mere fact that you're against the Bible is a proof you don't understand the message it conveys...

"And Peter opened his mouth and said: Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality,
But in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35

i don't care if you purposely delete the verse when you quote me, and you only want to read my interpretation... so here goes:

anyone who's doing good in every nation is acceptable to God, NOT Jews only...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you are partial. You have never heard anyone be called a non-believer? Christians are very parial.

what? the word "non-believer" is a biased term? read the context, man... non-believer of what? non-believer in Christian doctrines! you're a Buddhist, and you can call me a non-believer of your doctrine as well, and i won't get offended...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay, that would be nice, but it is not what Christians do now.

wrong generalization... if you think all Christians are bad, then you're not in your right senses...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t see that.

now, no one's gonna trust what you "see"...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let’s be good to everyone especially other Christians. Does that sound impartial? No.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
…especially to those who are of the household of faith.

maybe you really have reading comprehension problems...

"So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
Galatians 6:10

do you know what that means?

i love all primary colors, especially red... it does not mean i hate blue and yellow... i love blue and yellow!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That’s fine and all, but I don’t see why you are against homosexual loving each other.

because just like bluewaterrider said, love and sex are not one and the same... and i see you having trouble if differentiating those two...

Originally posted by dyajeep
you told everyone you converted from Christianity to Buddhism... it figures because you never understood Christianity in the first place! the mere fact that you're against the Bible is a proof you don't understand the message it conveys...

That was over 20 years ago, and we believed quite differently than you do. Your beliefs are strange to me. The Christianity that I was raised in considered homosexuals to be possessed by demons, and should be put to death. Of course it was against the law, so we just stayed away from them. This separation of the person from the act, is something new.
Originally posted by dyajeep
i don't care if you purposely delete the verse when you quote me, and you only want to read my interpretation... so here goes:
anyone who's doing good in [b]every
nation is acceptable to God, NOT Jews only... [/B]

But in the OT the Jews were god’s people, and everyone else was rejected. I don’t see how that is relevant.
Originally posted by dyajeep
what? the word "non-believer" is a biased term? read the context, man... non-believer of what? non-believer in Christian doctrines! you're a Buddhist, and you can call me a non-believer of your doctrine as well, and i won't get offended...

No! It is used as a word of derision. I know, I have been called one in very nasty ways.
Originally posted by dyajeep
wrong generalization... if you think all Christians are bad, then you're not in your right senses...

I was pointing out the error in your generalization. That is one of the problems with quoting the bible. I don’t know how you want me to take it. You put it out as if I should read it like you do, and I don’t.
Originally posted by dyajeep
now, no one's gonna trust what you "see"...

Why do you say that? You were drawing a conclusion that wasn’t there.
Originally posted by dyajeep
maybe you really have reading comprehension problems...

Or maybe you are so indoctrinated that you can’t see outside of your point of view.
Originally posted by dyajeep
do you know what that means?

It means that Christians should take care of other Christians.
Originally posted by dyajeep
i love all primary colors, especially red... it does not mean i hate blue and yellow... i love blue and yellow!

Now you are just being silly.
Originally posted by dyajeep
because just like bluewaterrider said, love and sex are not one and the same... and i see you having trouble if differentiating those two...

We are not talking about that. We are talking about the bible and rather it is homophobic or not. You claim that by spreading the person from the action, that makes the bible not homophobic. However, my counter is that separation is false and meant to hide the homophobic nature of the bible.
Now let’s more on: why is the homosexual act considered an abomination? I think you will find that the answer is that the bible is homophobic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was over 20 years ago, and we believed quite differently than you do. Your beliefs are strange to me. The Christianity that I was raised in considered homosexuals to be possessed by demons, and should be put to death. Of course it was against the law, so we just stayed away from them. This separation of the person from the act, is something new.

and you still considered your former religion as "Christianity"? weird... Christians are group of people who follow the doctrines of Christ! if your religion does not follow Christ, wake up dude! that's not Christianity! Jesus Himself said that you will know the correct religion because of its doctrine (John 7:17-18), if it's in accord with the teachings of Christ written in the Bible or not...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But in the OT the Jews were god’s people, and everyone else was rejected. I don’t see how that is relevant.

we are talking about God's justice/fairness/impartiality as was written in the Bible... and yes, in the OT because the story is centered on the Israelites... not everyone is rejected, when the Israel committed grave sins, God left them too (II Chronicles 15:3)... moreover, we are not part of OT anymore, we are in the NT now, move on dude... it says that anyone who's doing good in every nation is acceptable to God... deal with it...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No! It is used as a word of derision. I know, I have been called one in very nasty ways.

just because you once felt offended or ridiculed, doesn't mean it's some sort of a mockery... your emotions does not represent the entire people... hell, your silly arguments does not even show you understood Christianity in the first place...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was pointing out the error in your generalization. That is one of the problems with quoting the bible. I don’t know how you want me to take it. You put it out as if I should read it like you do, and I don’t.

you are heavily implying that all Christians and all people who believe in Christianity is bad... i'll break it to you in a simple way - one member does not represent the whole! a Christian commits sin, hell everyone commits sin but that does not mean the Christian doctrine is wrong...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or maybe you are so indoctrinated that you can’t see outside of your point of view.

maybe, but i'm more to believe in the doctrine i hold, rather than just reject Christianity because i'm too lazy to understand what's written in the Bible... you are obviously a former member of a false Christian group and you did not even realize it... you blindly followed your leader and did not even managed to look at the Bible if your doctrines are in accord with it or not... how can you be that gullible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It means that Christians should take care of other Christians.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now you are just being silly.

nope, YOU are being silly... do you know the meaning or usage of the word "especially"?

more than usually, used to indicate something that deserves special mention, for a particular purpose or person

"food seems cheaper, especially meats"

same banana, "let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith"

"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
I Timothy 4:10

* food are cheaper, including meats as special mention
* do good to all men, including those in the household of faith as special mention
* God is the savior of all men, including believers as special mention

and when i say i love all primary colors especially red, it does NOT by any means i hate blue and yellow... my goodness, shak, this is elementary!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are not talking about that. We are talking about the bible and rather it is homophobic or not. You claim that by spreading the person from the action, that makes the bible not homophobic. However, my counter is that separation is false and meant to hide the homophobic nature of the bible.
Now let’s more on: why is the homosexual act considered an abomination? I think you will find that the answer is that the bible is homophobic.

you just THINK the Bible is homophobic... because you are against Christianity... and i am telling you that what you think is wrong... and to prove that, i need to gather Bible verses for proof, which you - because of your stubborn nature - reject... clearly i'm not hiding behind the Bible, but quoting it to prove a point, which is clearly in contrast with what you formerly (being in a false Christian group) believe...

homosexual acts are prohibited in the Bible, no one's denying that... but the homosexual person is not rejected... in I Corinthians 6:9-11, which i quoted before, some Christians in Corinth were once doing homosexual acts, but when they converted to Christianity, they are still homosexuals but STOPPED the homosexual acts which made them candidates to salvation...

Originally posted by dyajeep
and you still considered your former religion as "Christianity"? weird... Christians are group of people who follow the doctrines of Christ! if your religion does not follow Christ, wake up dude! that's not Christianity! Jesus Himself said that you will know the correct religion because of its doctrine (John 7:17-18), if it's in accord with the teachings of Christ written in the Bible or not...

I’m sure they would not have considered you to be Christian also. There is no “true” Christian religion. All Christianity is man-made.
Originally posted by dyajeep
we are talking about God's justice/fairness/impartiality as was written in the Bible... and yes, in the OT because the story is centered on the Israelites... not everyone is rejected, when the Israel committed grave sins, God left them too (II Chronicles 15:3)... moreover, we are not part of OT anymore, we are in the NT now, move on dude... it says that anyone who's doing good in every nation is acceptable to God... deal with it...

None of that was ever part of our discussion. No wonder you were confusing the hell out of men.
Originally posted by dyajeep
just because you once felt offended or ridiculed, doesn't mean it's some sort of a mockery... your emotions does not represent the entire people... hell, your silly arguments does not even show you understood Christianity in the first place...

Look at yourself now. You are so filled with hate that you can’t even stay with the conversation that we were having. I bet you would call me a Non-believer and a few other words right now. You are just confirming what I already knew.
Originally posted by dyajeep
you are heavily implying that all Christians and all people who believe in Christianity is bad... i'll break it to you in a simple way - one member does not represent the whole! a Christian commits sin, hell everyone commits sin but that does not mean the Christian doctrine is wrong...

I’m telling you that all Christians are human, and their religion was created by humans. That means you are human. Just look at yourself right now.
Originally posted by dyajeep
maybe, but i'm more to believe in the doctrine i hold, rather than just reject Christianity because i'm too lazy to understand what's written in the Bible... you are obviously a former member of a false Christian group and you did not even realize it... you blindly followed your leader and did not even managed to look at the Bible if your doctrines are in accord with it or not... how can you be that gullible?

You are so filled with hate that all you can do is cures me and insult me. What happened to the love all people? Admit it, you only love other Christians, and only people who agree with you are considered by you to be Christian, regardless of rather they call themselves Christian or not.
Originally posted by dyajeep
nope, YOU are being silly... do you know the meaning or usage of the word "especially"?

Talking about this color or that color was very entertaining, but also just silly. But that’s just my opinion. Don’t get filled with hate over it.
Originally posted by dyajeep
more than usually, used to indicate something that deserves special mention, for a particular purpose or person
"food seems cheaper, especially meats"
same banana, "let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith"
* food are cheaper, including meats as special mention
* do good to all men, including those in the household of faith as special mention
* God is the savior of all men, including believers as special mention
and when i say i love all primary colors especially red, it does NOT by any means i hate blue and yellow... my goodness, shak, this is elementary!

LOL Can you answer my question?
Originally posted by dyajeep
you just THINK the Bible is homophobic... because you are against Christianity... and i am telling you that what you think is wrong... and to prove that, i need to gather Bible verses for proof, which you - because of your stubborn nature - reject... clearly i'm not hiding behind the Bible, but quoting it to prove a point, which is clearly in contrast with what you formerly (being in a false Christian group) believe...

Stop the hate. All Christian groups are the same. There is no true Christian group.
Originally posted by dyajeep
homosexual acts are prohibited in the Bible, no one's denying that... but the homosexual person is not rejected... in I Corinthians 6:9-11, which i quoted before, some Christians in Corinth were once doing homosexual acts, but when they converted to Christianity, they are still homosexuals but STOPPED the homosexual acts which made them candidates to salvation...

I find that homophobic. You are trying to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.

There is one question you have not answered. Why is the act of homosexuality considered by the bible to be an abomination?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Look at yourself now. You are so filled with hate that you can’t even stay with the conversation that we were having. I bet you would call me a Non-believer and a few other words right now. You are just confirming what I already knew.

😱 what?! just because i became serious doesn't mean i'm full of hate...

is that how you argue with someone, shak? tell them they are filled with hate so that they become "the bad guy"? take a shot at looking at YOURself, shak...

you are just proving how ignorant you are about the book you're always criticizing...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are so filled with hate that all you can do is cures me and insult me. What happened to the love all people? Admit it, you only love other Christians, and only people who agree with you are considered by you to be Christian, regardless of rather they call themselves Christian or not.

wow... just wow...

when did i insult you? when did i curse you?

was that an insult? by telling you you're too lazy to read and understand the Bible? by telling you how gullible you are by blindly following your leader and didn't even manage to check the Bible if what he's saying is true or not?

truth hurts, dude...

no wonder you hate Christianity... it's because you do not - and choose not to - understand the Bible...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Talking about this color or that color was very entertaining, but also just silly. But that’s just my opinion. Don’t get filled with hate over it.

no, you just don't - and choose not to - understand my point... you took the word "especially" into your own twisted interpretation... "especially" does not mean "only", dude...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stop the hate. All Christian groups are the same. There is no true Christian group.

no... YOU stop the hate... YOU hate Christianity, YOU hate the Bible, and everybody who defends it... it's all written on your post, man...

the Bible preaches love... you, on the other hand, want to say that it's otherwise... stop criticizing the book you don't understand, man...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I find that homophobic. You are trying to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.

that's not what it means... as usual, you're wrong... not surprised though...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is one question you have not answered. Why is the act of homosexuality considered by the bible to be an abomination?

i've already answered it... and it all came down to not all natural "urges" are morally correct...

Originally posted by dyajeep
😱 what?! just because i became serious doesn't mean i'm full of hate...

You should go back and read what you wrote. It was quite funny. At one point you accused me, a Buddhism, of being a false Christian. I about fell out of my chair laughing.
Originally posted by dyajeep
is that how you argue with someone, shak? tell them they are filled with hate so that they become "the bad guy"? take a shot at looking at YOURself, shak...

Are you done with the attacking me?
Originally posted by dyajeep
you are just proving how ignorant you are about the book you're always criticizing...

This is just hate. All you are doing is spitting hate at me.
Originally posted by dyajeep
wow... just wow...
when did i insult you? when did i curse you?

Sure did sound like it to me.
Originally posted by dyajeep
was that an insult? by telling you you're too lazy to read and understand the Bible?

What do you think? Everything you said was filled with little insults like that. That is why I called it hate.
Originally posted by dyajeep
by telling you how gullible you are by blindly following your leader and didn't even manage to check the Bible if what he's saying is true or not?

Now you are making stuff up. Don’t worry, you cracked me up.
Originally posted by dyajeep
truth hurts, dude...

Please keep your ego in check.
Originally posted by dyajeep
no wonder you hate Christianity... it's because you do not - and choose not to - understand the Bible...

I think you are projecting here.
Originally posted by dyajeep
no, you just don't - and choose not to - understand my point... you took the word "especially" into your own twisted interpretation... "especially" does not mean "only", dude...

Whatever…
Originally posted by dyajeep
no... YOU stop the hate... YOU hate Christianity, YOU hate the Bible, and everybody who defends it... it's all written on your post, man...

Defiantly projecting. You were the one almost yelling at me. Did you yell in your head while you wrote it? Are you yelling now?
Originally posted by dyajeep
the Bible preaches love... you, on the other hand, want to say that it's otherwise... stop criticizing the book you don't understand, man...

I don’t see any love. I don’t see any caring. All I see is someone yelling.
Originally posted by dyajeep
that's not what it means... as usual, you're wrong... not surprised though...

How can I be wrong about my own opinion?
“I find that homophobic.” That is my opinion. That is what it sounded like when I read it out loud.
Here is what you said:
“homosexual acts are prohibited in the Bible, no one's denying that... but the homosexual person is not rejected... in I Corinthians 6:9-11, which i quoted before, some Christians in Corinth were once doing homosexual acts, but when they converted to Christianity, they are still homosexuals but STOPPED the homosexual acts which made them candidates to salvation...”
What can I say?
Originally posted by dyajeep
i've already answered it... and it all came down to not all natural "urges" are morally correct...

Okay, why is the particular urge of homosexuality not moral?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You should go back and read what you wrote. It was quite funny. At one point you accused me, a Buddhism, of being a false Christian. I about fell out of my chair laughing.

if you're laughing about it, why do you consider it as an insult? 🙄 and you, of all people, took the term "false Christian" as an insult? are you kidding me? you hate Christianity! you attack Christianity in almost every thread that involves it... don't pass your "hate" stuff on me, dude...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please keep your ego in check.

i do, seems like you don't...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Defiantly projecting. You were the one almost yelling at me. Did you yell in your head while you wrote it? Are you yelling now?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t see any love. I don’t see any caring. All I see is someone yelling.

yelling? or almost yelling? i'm not, i'm just stressing a point... how about you? you said you're laughing... i think you're hurt, ego stepped on because the truth hurts... you criticize a book you don't understand, what does that make you? a genius? look at yourself, shak...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How can I be wrong about my own opinion?

deliberately misinterpreting my statement makes you wrong obviously... you can take a look at the quotes to check the flow of conversation...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
“I find that homophobic.” That is my opinion. That is what it sounded like when I read it out loud.

you left out the "You are trying to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals" -part... or are you doing it intentionally to make me look like a bad guy again? that's what's wrong, because i did not say or mean that...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay, why is the particular urge of homosexuality not moral?

back to square one? homosexual acts, that's what the Bible says wrong and immoral and not the person... in same logic, as i've stated earlier, there are people who has urges to do bestiality... is it natural for them, yes... is it morally correct, no...

Originally posted by dyajeep
if you're laughing about it, why do you consider it as an insult? …

You think you insulted me. That tells me a lot about your intent. My beliefs are very different from your, and you are offended by that, just get over it.
Originally posted by dyajeep
i do, seems like you don't...

“I know you are, but what am I?” LOL
Originally posted by dyajeep
yelling? or almost yelling? i'm not, i'm just stressing a point...

You are stressing alright.
Originally posted by dyajeep
deliberately misinterpreting my statement makes you wrong obviously... you can take a look at the quotes to check the flow of conversation...

That was my reaction, and still is.
Originally posted by dyajeep
you left out the "You are trying to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals" -part... or are you doing it intentionally to make me look like a bad guy again? that's what's wrong, because i did not say or mean that...

You didn’t say that, but that is the result.
Originally posted by dyajeep
back to square one? homosexual acts, that's what the Bible says wrong and immoral and not the person... in same logic, as i've stated earlier, there are people who has urges to do bestiality... is it natural for them, yes... is it morally correct, no...

Bestiality is immoral because an animal cannot give consent. Now, why is the act of homosexuality immoral.

dyajeep, I don't think you can answer the question; In the bible, why is the act of homosexuality immoral?

I can answer it; the people who wrote the bible did not like homosexuals. In the OT they killed the homosexual, but in the NT they tried to change the homosexuals into heterosexuals or forbid them sex altogether.

Why did they hate homosexuals? Hatred and bigotry doesn't always have a reason, but it was probably fear. In the time of the bible, if you didn't have enough children, then everyone died. The more people you had the better your chances of survival. However, in a world with 7 billion people, these out dated ideas are not needed.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You think you insulted me. That tells me a lot about your intent. My beliefs are very different from your, and you are offended by that, just get over it.

now, i'm offended? no, i'm not...

you claim you are insulted when i called you a "false Christian"? you're a terrible liar, man... you hate Christianity! calling you a false Christian is similar to giving you a trophy or a medal... no one will believe that shtick, dude...

and please put a decent argument here, man... you know what you're good at? fallacies! what you're doing is appeal to spite and/or appeal to ridicule... a desperate, pathetic attempt to attack and malign Christianity and the Bible at my expense...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You didn’t say that, but that is the result.

Bestiality is immoral because an animal cannot give consent. Now, why is the act of homosexuality immoral. [/B][/QUOTE]

oh? so poor animals, aren't they? wasn't that an absurd explanation? bestiality is immoral NOT because an animal cannot give consent... bestiality is immoral it is wrong and not meant to be that way!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
dyajeep, I don't think you can answer the question; In the bible, why is the act of homosexuality immoral?

I can answer it; the people who wrote the bible did not like homosexuals.

no... in the Bible, those people who engage in homosexual acts are not homosexuals perse, they are heterosexuals who gave up natural relations with women (Romans 1:27)... which means their hearts are full of lust that they lost appetite to the opposite sex...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the OT they killed the homosexual, but in the NT they tried to change the homosexuals into heterosexuals or forbid them sex altogether.

no one can change the person... but one can stop the act...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did they hate homosexuals? Hatred and bigotry doesn't always have a reason, but it was probably fear. In the time of the bible, if you didn't have enough children, then everyone died. The more people you had the better your chances of survival. However, in a world with 7 billion people, these out dated ideas are not needed.

these "outdated" ideas are outdated even in the Bible that's why there are written in the OLD Testament, not in the NEW... if you keep using OT then bash the Bible because of it, you are just proving that you are ignorant of the book you are attacking...

you cannot prove that "chances of survival" is taught in the NT... even Jesus did not pursue to have a wife...

How do you maniacs keep this up, I feel sorry for you're keyboards, wrists and most of all, fingers!

Originally posted by dyajeep
oh? so poor animals, aren't they? wasn't that an absurd explanation? bestiality is immoral NOT because an animal cannot give consent... bestiality is immoral it is wrong and not meant to be that way!

At least I can up with an answer. “Just because” is not an answer. Anyway, we were not talking about bestiality. You keep bringing that up as the reason why homosexuality is wrong.
So, what you are telling me is that sense bestiality is wrong, just because, then homosexuality is wrong? That is just silly.
Originally posted by dyajeep
no... in the Bible, those people who engage in homosexual acts are not homosexuals perse, they are heterosexuals who gave up natural relations with women (Romans 1:27)... which means their hearts are full of lust that they lost appetite to the opposite sex...

I don’t know about the Romans, but homosexuals are not heterosexuals that gave up having sex with the opposite sex. Homosexuals are people who have a sexual orientation toward their own sex.
Originally posted by dyajeep
no one can change the person... but one can stop the act...

Why would you want to change a homosexual?
Originally posted by dyajeep
these "outdated" ideas are outdated even in the Bible that's why there are written in the OLD Testament, not in the NEW... if you keep using OT then bash the Bible because of it, you are just proving that you are ignorant of the book you are attacking...

If my answer is not sufficient, then you answer the question:

In the bible, why is the act of homosexuality immoral?

And try to do better than just because.

Originally posted by dyajeep
you cannot prove that "chances of survival" is taught in the NT... even Jesus did not pursue to have a wife...

Well, that is another matter. I think Jesus did marry. But that’s another topic for another day.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
How do you maniacs keep this up, I feel sorry for you're keyboards, wrists and most of all, fingers!

😂 This is my third keyboard this week. 😛 jk