dimmo
Bluelighter
Hey btw sohi, I sent u a PM but ur mailbox is full.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
the gay "gene" = misleading media hype
- Thread starter Turbo Monk
- Start date
Hey btw sohi, I sent u a PM but ur mailbox is full.
SoHiAllTheTime
Ex-Bluelighter
sorry...
^Send away, mate!
^Send away, mate!
Isnt it funny Dimmo how it is the same old song and dance only from different people his time?
You would think that maybe you would start getting the point...
You guys just take everything the way you want to take it and still after bitching and moaning about how everybody hates on the christians .. blah blah blah blah ... none of you have addressed a single piece of the information I posted when I was basically the only one trying to have just a discussion direct to the facts with links to credible sources without flaming you in anyway whatsoever. Its no wonder people get so fed up and start throwing insults..
Turbo Monk
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 4, 1999
- Messages
- 739
glowbug,
"But to keep me from being puffed up with pride... I was given a painful physical ailment, which acts as Satan's messenger to beat me and keep me from being proud." (2 Corinthians, 12,7)
I have a painful physical ailment stemming back to an accident from my childhood. This keeps me from being puffed up with pride because I know that any given breath could be my last.
From 1 Corinthians 7:1-3:
"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband."
When Paul states it's good for a man not to marry, he's stating a man can better serve God when he's not catering to the whims of his wife. If you notice the specific sexes associating husband and wife you will clearly see it's a man/woman union.
That quote from the Episcopal bishop is biased to say the least - Episcopalians are libs and are pioneers of sanctioning same-sex marriages.
Trails,
Your questions are loaded and my answers won't make much sense to you as you have your mind closed towards God.
"But to keep me from being puffed up with pride... I was given a painful physical ailment, which acts as Satan's messenger to beat me and keep me from being proud." (2 Corinthians, 12,7)
I have a painful physical ailment stemming back to an accident from my childhood. This keeps me from being puffed up with pride because I know that any given breath could be my last.
From 1 Corinthians 7:1-3:
"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband."
When Paul states it's good for a man not to marry, he's stating a man can better serve God when he's not catering to the whims of his wife. If you notice the specific sexes associating husband and wife you will clearly see it's a man/woman union.
That quote from the Episcopal bishop is biased to say the least - Episcopalians are libs and are pioneers of sanctioning same-sex marriages.
Trails,
Your questions are loaded and my answers won't make much sense to you as you have your mind closed towards God.
Turbo Monk said:
First, as a preliminary matter, you yourself admitted that much of the information I cited was drawn from a published book on the subject. And then you attempted to refute it with a "good mate's" unpublished, uncredentialed blog...nothing like quoting bloggers over published works. 8) At the very least, those blog sources in my link are no less credible than your unpublished mate's blog. If your good mate is an authority on the subject, you sure ain't submitted anything to prove it.
With respect to the "painful physical ailment", if indeed he was a self-loathing homosexual, of course Ru-Paul would call it physical, since A) he was ashamed to admit its true nature, and B) even the Greek literature of the time ascribed sexual arousal as being primarily physical in nature (e.g., Aristotle) rather than psychological.
Moreover, let's use a little common sense here...if indeed the ailment was purely physical in nature, why would Ru-Paul continually beseech God to remove it from him? The answer is, he wouldn't...he would eventually accept his ailment and deal with it, much as you have with your back ailment. Let's assume Ru-Paul was born with 4 fingers instead of the usual 5...now knowing that fingers just don't magically grow no matter how much one beseeches the Creator, why would Ru-Paul continually ask? Was he just stupid that way?
But THOUGHTS and SEXUAL DESIRES, on the other hand, may be repressed to the point of blissful ignorance of their existence, if the person in question works hard enough at it. If the desires in question are so strong, however, as sexual desires typically are, then the person would be unable to repress them completely...hence, Ru-Paul's frequent supplications to God to relieve him of the occasional surfacing of the "wicked" desires.
I've saved my best response for last, though...ah, dear Turbo, you have fallen into a trap of your own making with your explanation of 1 Cor 7:1-2. So Ru-Paul states "a man can better serve God without being hindered by the whims of a woman"...let's play a little logic game here. Under Christian principles and Ru-Paul's doctrine, serving God is one's highest calling, is it not? And logically speaking if anything hinders one's highest calling, it should be removed, correct? So logically speaking, if the "whims of women" hinder men from better serving God, then women are evil creatures of Satan, are they not, and men should cast them aside and have nothing to do with them, should they not?
Does it not follow, then, that marriage between a man and woman is not only NOT sacred, but in fact EVIL? In fact, isn't DIVORCE more sacred to God then, since men will be better able to serve him once freed from the "whims of women"?
Since God is infinitely more logical than Ru-Paul or any of us puny humans, it's logical to assume that under your view God, being a supremely logical being, would also elevate divorce to a sacred place above marriage. Let's hear it for God's holy sacrament of DIVORCE! WHEEE!
Just taking your view to its logical conclusion...wasn't that fun to follow along? Since heterosexual marriage apparently isn't sacred under your view, I'm surprised you Christians aren't BEGGING for those deviant homosexuals to get married...cast them down in that pit of unsacred marriage where they can be led even farther astray!
With respect to your bias comment, ALL opinions are biased, so that's not necessarily a pertinent criticism...the question is whether the bias toward one side of the argument is more well-grounded in reason than the opposing bias. I would note that you had nothing to say about Nock (a Doctor of Divinity and noted Ru-Pauline scholar) agreeing that Ru-Paul's "thorn in the flesh" may very well have been his sexual desires.
Last edited:
DigitalDuality
Bluelighter
dimmo said:LOL.
It truly is laughable reading what people have to say about Christianity on Bluelight.
It's so common for people, like you, to find one verse - thinking it means something it doesn't - and using that as a basis for more ridiculous claims
Why not? Christians give their own culture injected spin on vague scripture quite frequently.
dimmo
Bluelighter
Originally posted by glowbug
First, as a preliminary matter, you yourself admitted that much of the information I cited was drawn from a published book on the subject.
First, as a preliminary matter, you yourself admitted that much of the information I cited was drawn from a published book on the subject.
You quoted Turbo Monk, but I assume you're talking to me.
Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated with you here. There is a book which has been highly disputed called Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality (1980) by Boswell, which discusses the TWO instances where arsenokoitai appears in the Bible (1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:9) and claims that it is about prostitution and not homosexuality. I might add, this is one of the most referenced books by those putting forward the view that homosexuality the issue in the relevant scriptures.
However, Boswell does not try and say that the original Septuagint for 1 Kings 14:24 etc was originally translated to arsenokoitai. And that, is the entire 'reasoning' (with no evidence mind you) your link gives as to why arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 is prostitution and not homosexuality.
More outlines of the arsenokoitai arguments:
B. Malakos and arsenokoitai in I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10
Another major linguistic argument is presented in John Boswell's book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. His argument involves the interpretation of the Greek terms malakos and arsenokoitai found in I Cor. 6:9, with the latter term also found in I Tim. 1:10.
In I Cor. 6:9, Paul states that among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven are malakoi and arsenokoitai. In I Tim. 1:10 Paul states that the law is made for lawbreakers, the ungodly, the sinful, etc., among whom he includes (pornoi and) arsenokoitai. Boswell notes that it is these two terms that have been used to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven.
Boswell insists that malakos, whose root meaning is 'soft,' means "licentious," "loose," or "wanting in self control" in a moral context. He argues that it is "wholly gratuitous" to apply this to homosexuals.[13] "The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically." The unanimous tradition of the church through Middle Ages, the Reformation and Catholicism into the twentieth century was to understand this word as applying to masturbation. With that no longer censured, Boswell claims that the condemnatory sense of this term has been transferred to homosexuals, especially because of its connection with the term arsenokoitai.[14] Scanzoni and Mollenkott suggest that malakoi could well be translated as "self-indulgent." In I Cor. 6:9 they claim that it refers to men who think of nothing but chasing after women for the sake of sexual conquest. Although Scanzoni and Mollenkott differ from Boswell in their view of the exact meaning of malakoi, they agree with him in insisting that it is improper to understand this term as referring to homosexual behaviour.[15]
The thrust of Boswell's linguistic argument has to do with the term arsenokoitai, used by Paul in both I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10. He claims that this term meant "male prostitute" to Paul and his contemporaries, and it maintained that meaning well into the fourth century. It was only much later that it was confused with and applied to homosexuality.[16]
Boswell's argument involves two components. The first entails the exact meaning of this term. Since examples of its usage are difficult to find prior to Paul, the meaning of the compound word must be determined from the two parts of the compound and the way they function together. These are: arsen and koitai. The first part, arsen is generally agreed as referring to males. The second part, koitai, refers to sleeping. Boswell argues that the second part stresses the coarseness and active licentiousness of the sleeping denoted, and is equivalent to the coarse English word, "fuc**r," that is, the one who takes an active role in intercourse.[17] He also maintains that in no compound words with the prefix arseno- is it ever used as an object of the second half of the compound. It always has an adjectival sense, denoting the gender of the second half of the compound. This understanding leads Boswell to conclude that arsenokoitai refers to "active male prostitutes." The term says nothing about the sex of those served by the prostitutes; they could be either male or female.[18]
The second component of Boswell's argument entails the usage of arsenokoitai in the first two or three centuries of the church. He contends that this term is never used by the patristic Greek writers of the early church.[19] He supports this with the further claim that from the time of the apostle Paul in the first century until Aquinas in the thirteenth century I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 played no role in the development of Christian European attitudes toward homosexuality.[20]
Evaluation
David F. Wright has presented a devastating critique of Boswell's linguistic arguments. He points out that in all other similar compounds ending in -koites the first half specifies the object of the sleeping, or its scene or sphere. That is, the first part always functions in an adverbial sense.[21] This is because koites has a verbal force, in most not all instances, arseno denotes the object.[22] Hence, the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes "'male homosexual activity' without qualification."[23]
Wright also surveys the use of arsenokoites, as well as arsenokoiteo and arsenokoitia, in the patristic literature.[24] Not only does his survey find that church fathers from Eusebius to Chrysostom use these terms to condemn male homosexual activity, but he also discovers numerous appeals to I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 for the same purposes.[25] This certainly undermines Boswell's claims concerning the early church. And it calls into question his scholarly ability, if not his scholarly integrity.[26]
Another element in Boswell's argument is his claim that no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as having authority in condemning homosexual acts.[27] Wright points out that it is precisely this claim that prevents Boswell from seeing the Septuagint translation of these two verses as the probably source of arsenokites and related terms.[28] The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as follows:
Lev. 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos
Lev. 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos
The use of the terms arsenos and koiten in both verses, especially their juxtaposition in 20:13, presents an obvious parallel to Paul's use of arsenokoitai.[29] Since it is clear that the Hellenistic Jews condemned the homosexuality they encountered in the Greek world, the reasonable conclusion is that arsenokoitai came into use in the intertestamental period, under the influence of the Septuagint of Leviticus, to designate that homoerotic activity the Jews condemned. The plausible conclusion[30] is that the verses in Leviticus not only encouraged the formation of the term but also informed its meaning.[31]
Another major linguistic argument is presented in John Boswell's book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. His argument involves the interpretation of the Greek terms malakos and arsenokoitai found in I Cor. 6:9, with the latter term also found in I Tim. 1:10.
In I Cor. 6:9, Paul states that among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven are malakoi and arsenokoitai. In I Tim. 1:10 Paul states that the law is made for lawbreakers, the ungodly, the sinful, etc., among whom he includes (pornoi and) arsenokoitai. Boswell notes that it is these two terms that have been used to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven.
Boswell insists that malakos, whose root meaning is 'soft,' means "licentious," "loose," or "wanting in self control" in a moral context. He argues that it is "wholly gratuitous" to apply this to homosexuals.[13] "The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically." The unanimous tradition of the church through Middle Ages, the Reformation and Catholicism into the twentieth century was to understand this word as applying to masturbation. With that no longer censured, Boswell claims that the condemnatory sense of this term has been transferred to homosexuals, especially because of its connection with the term arsenokoitai.[14] Scanzoni and Mollenkott suggest that malakoi could well be translated as "self-indulgent." In I Cor. 6:9 they claim that it refers to men who think of nothing but chasing after women for the sake of sexual conquest. Although Scanzoni and Mollenkott differ from Boswell in their view of the exact meaning of malakoi, they agree with him in insisting that it is improper to understand this term as referring to homosexual behaviour.[15]
The thrust of Boswell's linguistic argument has to do with the term arsenokoitai, used by Paul in both I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10. He claims that this term meant "male prostitute" to Paul and his contemporaries, and it maintained that meaning well into the fourth century. It was only much later that it was confused with and applied to homosexuality.[16]
Boswell's argument involves two components. The first entails the exact meaning of this term. Since examples of its usage are difficult to find prior to Paul, the meaning of the compound word must be determined from the two parts of the compound and the way they function together. These are: arsen and koitai. The first part, arsen is generally agreed as referring to males. The second part, koitai, refers to sleeping. Boswell argues that the second part stresses the coarseness and active licentiousness of the sleeping denoted, and is equivalent to the coarse English word, "fuc**r," that is, the one who takes an active role in intercourse.[17] He also maintains that in no compound words with the prefix arseno- is it ever used as an object of the second half of the compound. It always has an adjectival sense, denoting the gender of the second half of the compound. This understanding leads Boswell to conclude that arsenokoitai refers to "active male prostitutes." The term says nothing about the sex of those served by the prostitutes; they could be either male or female.[18]
The second component of Boswell's argument entails the usage of arsenokoitai in the first two or three centuries of the church. He contends that this term is never used by the patristic Greek writers of the early church.[19] He supports this with the further claim that from the time of the apostle Paul in the first century until Aquinas in the thirteenth century I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 played no role in the development of Christian European attitudes toward homosexuality.[20]
Evaluation
David F. Wright has presented a devastating critique of Boswell's linguistic arguments. He points out that in all other similar compounds ending in -koites the first half specifies the object of the sleeping, or its scene or sphere. That is, the first part always functions in an adverbial sense.[21] This is because koites has a verbal force, in most not all instances, arseno denotes the object.[22] Hence, the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes "'male homosexual activity' without qualification."[23]
Wright also surveys the use of arsenokoites, as well as arsenokoiteo and arsenokoitia, in the patristic literature.[24] Not only does his survey find that church fathers from Eusebius to Chrysostom use these terms to condemn male homosexual activity, but he also discovers numerous appeals to I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 for the same purposes.[25] This certainly undermines Boswell's claims concerning the early church. And it calls into question his scholarly ability, if not his scholarly integrity.[26]
Another element in Boswell's argument is his claim that no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as having authority in condemning homosexual acts.[27] Wright points out that it is precisely this claim that prevents Boswell from seeing the Septuagint translation of these two verses as the probably source of arsenokites and related terms.[28] The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as follows:
Lev. 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos
Lev. 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos
The use of the terms arsenos and koiten in both verses, especially their juxtaposition in 20:13, presents an obvious parallel to Paul's use of arsenokoitai.[29] Since it is clear that the Hellenistic Jews condemned the homosexuality they encountered in the Greek world, the reasonable conclusion is that arsenokoitai came into use in the intertestamental period, under the influence of the Septuagint of Leviticus, to designate that homoerotic activity the Jews condemned. The plausible conclusion[30] is that the verses in Leviticus not only encouraged the formation of the term but also informed its meaning.[31]
More info on arsenokoitai and homosexuality here: HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE
dimmo
Bluelighter
Glowbug (et al), and here as well:
THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY by James B. De Young, Professor of New Testament.
It's 28 pages long - it deals with Boswell's / et al arguements once again.
Here is his conclusion, you can look at the rest yourselves.
THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY by James B. De Young, Professor of New Testament.
It's 28 pages long - it deals with Boswell's / et al arguements once again.
Here is his conclusion, you can look at the rest yourselves.
CONCLUSION
It seems quite likely that Paul himself coined a new term which he virtually derived from the LXX of Lev 20:13. No other current explanation is as practical as this. If this be true, there are significant consequences, assuming that Paul wrote prescriptively. Obviously he viewed the moral law (derived from Leviticus 18`20; Exodus 20) as authoritative for his Christian audience. Since he and his readers in Corinth and Ephesus knew also about same-sex orientation or condition, sufficient reason exists to apply his term to those today who are inverts or homosexuals in orientation.45 English translations are justified in their use of words such as "homosexuals" or "sodomists."
Besides, these terms should not be limited to acts or behavior. Just as an adulterous orientation or condition is wrong, so is a homosexual one. In addition, it appears that lexicons and dictionaries (e.g., BAGD, TWNT, NIDNTT, EDNT) are too narrow in limiting, explicitly or implicitly, the term to male sexual activity with men or boys. However, since he referred to behavior in his lists in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, he excluded from the kingdom of God all those who engage in same-sex behavior, including forms of pederasty, prostitution, or "permanent mutuality." The term malakoi used with arsenokoitai probably refers to the passive agent in same-sex activity and comes under similar condemnation. Other applications follow from the contexts involved. First, homosexual behavior is cause for church discipline in light of the context of 1 Corinthians 5-6. Certain religious bodies that approve a homosexual lifestyle have rejected scriptural authority. In addition, homosexual orientation should be a concern for church counsel and exhortation with a view toward molding a heterosexual orientation. Second, homosexual behavior is a proper focus and concern of legislation in society and of the sanction of law, according to the context of 1 Tim 1:8-11. This suggests that "gay rights" is a misnomer. The movement has no legitimate claim to protection by the law.
It seems quite likely that Paul himself coined a new term which he virtually derived from the LXX of Lev 20:13. No other current explanation is as practical as this. If this be true, there are significant consequences, assuming that Paul wrote prescriptively. Obviously he viewed the moral law (derived from Leviticus 18`20; Exodus 20) as authoritative for his Christian audience. Since he and his readers in Corinth and Ephesus knew also about same-sex orientation or condition, sufficient reason exists to apply his term to those today who are inverts or homosexuals in orientation.45 English translations are justified in their use of words such as "homosexuals" or "sodomists."
Besides, these terms should not be limited to acts or behavior. Just as an adulterous orientation or condition is wrong, so is a homosexual one. In addition, it appears that lexicons and dictionaries (e.g., BAGD, TWNT, NIDNTT, EDNT) are too narrow in limiting, explicitly or implicitly, the term to male sexual activity with men or boys. However, since he referred to behavior in his lists in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, he excluded from the kingdom of God all those who engage in same-sex behavior, including forms of pederasty, prostitution, or "permanent mutuality." The term malakoi used with arsenokoitai probably refers to the passive agent in same-sex activity and comes under similar condemnation. Other applications follow from the contexts involved. First, homosexual behavior is cause for church discipline in light of the context of 1 Corinthians 5-6. Certain religious bodies that approve a homosexual lifestyle have rejected scriptural authority. In addition, homosexual orientation should be a concern for church counsel and exhortation with a view toward molding a heterosexual orientation. Second, homosexual behavior is a proper focus and concern of legislation in society and of the sanction of law, according to the context of 1 Tim 1:8-11. This suggests that "gay rights" is a misnomer. The movement has no legitimate claim to protection by the law.
scottahit
Bluelighter
There is still so little we know about genetics and sexuality. I really think the court will be out on this one for quite sometime yet.
But That is just typical of the christian mindset to "Know for sure, based on so little evidence". How does that saying go. "The ignorant don't know enough to realise their ignorance" or "The more a person knows, the more they realise, the little they know"
something like that anyway. 8( 8(
But That is just typical of the christian mindset to "Know for sure, based on so little evidence". How does that saying go. "The ignorant don't know enough to realise their ignorance" or "The more a person knows, the more they realise, the little they know"
something like that anyway. 8( 8(
Your questions are loaded and my answers won't make much sense to you as you have your mind closed towards God.
I'm not an atheist. If you had been here longer you would have seen me arguing pro gods existance for many years on this board...
Your anwser is nothing more then a cop out...
The questions are considered "loaded" because they actually make sense ...
Anyway ... I'm out ... discussion with you guys aren't even discussions.. I am now convinced that there is no point .. You guys are truly lost .. Its a shame..
I'm not an atheist. If you had been here longer you would have seen me arguing pro gods existance for many years on this board...
Your anwser is nothing more then a cop out...
The questions are considered "loaded" because they actually make sense ...
Anyway ... I'm out ... discussion with you guys aren't even discussions.. I am now convinced that there is no point .. You guys are truly lost .. Its a shame..
No Nay Xes
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 257
I'm pretty sure Turbo Monk, Dimmo, and Sohi are all repressed homosexuals.
aren't we all?
anyways.. turbo monk - it seems very unlikely that there will be one specific gene that is on or off for homosexuality. rather, that one gene might have been present in many homosexuals, which suggests that this specific gene (and most likely a set of other genes) make the human more prone to homosexuality.
Anyway ... I'm out ... discussion with you guys aren't even discussions.. I am now convinced that there is no point .. You guys are truly lost .. Its a shame..
it took you this long to figure that out? > : )D
it's interesting that such religions that are so oppresive and close minded are so popular, and the open minded and accepting religions (judaism) are so unpopular. makes you wonder..
and turbo monk (or sohi or whoever) - how is it that you yourself are allowed to read the bible and make a "correct" interpretation of it? what makes your view that much more correct than anyone elses?
just because you have the title "christian" doesn't mean you speak the word of god.. that's jesus' title. once you start walking on water then that'll be another story.
aren't we all?
anyways.. turbo monk - it seems very unlikely that there will be one specific gene that is on or off for homosexuality. rather, that one gene might have been present in many homosexuals, which suggests that this specific gene (and most likely a set of other genes) make the human more prone to homosexuality.
Anyway ... I'm out ... discussion with you guys aren't even discussions.. I am now convinced that there is no point .. You guys are truly lost .. Its a shame..
it took you this long to figure that out? > : )D
it's interesting that such religions that are so oppresive and close minded are so popular, and the open minded and accepting religions (judaism) are so unpopular. makes you wonder..
and turbo monk (or sohi or whoever) - how is it that you yourself are allowed to read the bible and make a "correct" interpretation of it? what makes your view that much more correct than anyone elses?
just because you have the title "christian" doesn't mean you speak the word of god.. that's jesus' title. once you start walking on water then that'll be another story.
mariacallas
Bluelight Crew
DAmn this thread gave me a fucking headache 
Turbo Monk
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 4, 1999
- Messages
- 739
Trails,
Previously you asked:
.. to which I replied with scriptural reference. You then posted opposing views from religious tolerance, which leads me to believe you already had your counterpost ready and waiting, hence a loaded question.
I have a gut feeling you already know what my response will be and what your counter will be regarding these questions as well:
My answer to you regarding these questions is simple, found in James 4:6, "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you."
If you think I'm purposely ducking the questions, so be it, but to answer each and every one of them would take weeks and accomplish nothing, as you're trivializing God's existence from the get-go.
Previously you asked:
.. to which I replied with scriptural reference. You then posted opposing views from religious tolerance, which leads me to believe you already had your counterpost ready and waiting, hence a loaded question.
I have a gut feeling you already know what my response will be and what your counter will be regarding these questions as well:
My answer to you regarding these questions is simple, found in James 4:6, "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you."
If you think I'm purposely ducking the questions, so be it, but to answer each and every one of them would take weeks and accomplish nothing, as you're trivializing God's existence from the get-go.
Last edited:
dimmo
Bluelighter
crystalcallas said:DAmn this thread gave me a fucking headache
crystalcallas: nice avatar
mariacallas
Bluelight Crew
^^thanks