Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
cymrudynnion

Homosexuality and Jesus

What are posters thoughts on this.
On another Forum a poster stated/asked what is wrong with homosexuality, what would Christians think if Jesus was gay with the disciple he loved.
I find this interesting since in the first instance, Jesus was a Jew and would have followed Jewish Law which is written in the Old Testament Levicticus 18:20 , therefore in the second instance he would not be physically "in love" with a disciple.
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
What are posters thoughts on this.
On another Forum a poster stated/asked what is wrong with homosexuality, what would Christians think if Jesus was gay with the disciple he loved.
I find this interesting since in the first instance, Jesus was a Jew and would have followed Jewish Law which is written in the Old Testament Levicticus 18:20 , therefore in the second instance he would not be physically "in love" with a disciple.


Being "in love" is a perfectly normal human emotion, probably  the strongest we can ever experience. The sex of the person we feel we are "in love with" is irrelevant ... we have no control over it, even though we can negate it.

Whether or not Jesus was homosexual, we can never know ,,, nor can we know if he had sex with the person he was in love with.

Does it matter? Not in the least, imo. He said that loving God and your neighbour was the heart of his teaching.
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
What are posters thoughts on this.
On another Forum a poster stated/asked what is wrong with homosexuality, what would Christians think if Jesus was gay with the disciple he loved.
I find this interesting since in the first instance, Jesus was a Jew and would have followed Jewish Law which is written in the Old Testament Levicticus 18:20

A, to say the least, dubious proposition at best demonstrating a level of naïveté which is tres charmant in this cynical and world-weary age. I could enlarge upon this point but surely I shouldn't need to.

Quote:
therefore in the second instance he would not be physically "in love" with a disciple.

Why not?
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Leonard James wrote:
Being "in love" is a perfectly normal human emotion, probably  the strongest we can ever experience.

The strongest and dammit, for all its difficulties, the best.
Quote:
The sex of the person we feel we are "in love with" is irrelevant ... we have no control over it, even though we can negate it.

Hence the difference between homosexuality as a psycho-sexual emotional attraction and homosexual behaviour: a difference which some people seem resolutely unable to understand.

Quote:
Whether or not Jesus was homosexual, we can never know ,,, nor can we know if he had sex with the person he was in love with.

Indeed. When guesswork piles upon guesswork, the least that can be said is that any speculation is precisely as good as another.

Quote:
Does it matter? Not in the least, imo.

That.
Jim

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Jesus would certainly have questioned ANY sexual activity outside male-female marriage.
However, given what we read of Him in the Gospels, He would be firm, yet compassionate with those He met.
His love extended to all, as does His forgiveness and understanding.
We should follow His example.
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Jim wrote:
Jesus would certainly have questioned ANY sexual activity outside male-female marriage.

Unless, of course, he was engaged in it.

Where all these assumptions - they're nothing but - about 'Jesus would have thought this' and 'Jesus would certainly have done that' (all needless to say sheer guesswork upon supposition upon speculation) is that they assume an individual of religion X never goes against - those in the club tend to say 'breaks' - the tenets of that religion. This is why it's so charmingly naïve in this day and age actually to hold it to be the case that a member of a given religion keeps it to the letter and in every particular. There are pill-taking, condom-wearing, abortion-having Catholics. There are heavy drinking not to say alcoholic Muslims. (I know a good many of these). There are not just gay but promiscuously gay Orthodox Jews. (I have read their testimonies). Jews 'marry out,' love bacon sandwiches and enjoy cheeseburgers every day of the week. (I know a great many of these too). There are meat-gobbling Buddhists and Hindus. In great numbers in each case.

How these people rationalise the cognitive dissonance between what their religion dictates - not suggests: dictates - and how they actually behave in their real lives is their own affair and not mine. Everybody does what they have to do to sleep soundly at night: if pious Christians can maim, torture and kill in the name of God and east-coast mafiosi can be devout Catholics, how could it be otherwise? If the point that people don't live up to the demands of their religion is made, then the job is done.

People will always find a way to do whatever they want and need to do, and thanks to the gift of rationalisation religion rarely if ever stands in the way. The existence of army chaplains ought to demonstrate this. This is why the attempted argument that "because Jesus was X, he would certainly not have done Y" is merely a pseudo-argument which I simply do not buy. Was there an historical Jesus? Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't matter because it's an irrelevance to anything important. That's the reason I don't and never have entered into any debates about the supposed 'real' Jesus: none of it actually matters either way. If however such an individual existed, was he gay? Same answer. Utter apathy. I do however admit it as a possibility, which is something that others are not prepared to do and that has to be for fixed, ideological and I would say definitely non-rational reasons.
Jim

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

If He was born and raised in a Jewish household, and went around the Jewish settlements, as the Gospel record shows, then I'd be surprised if the authorities and presidents of synagogues were not aware of any extra marital or, indeeed, marital relationships on Jesus' part.
Had they been, they would certainly have used this as ammunition against Him.
Lexilogio

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Jim wrote:
If He was born and raised in a Jewish household, and went around the Jewish settlements, as the Gospel record shows, then I'd be surprised if the authorities and presidents of synagogues were not aware of any extra marital or, indeeed, marital relationships on Jesus' part.
Had they been, they would certainly have used this as ammunition against Him.


I'd agree with that.
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Jim wrote:
If He was born and raised in a Jewish household, and went around the Jewish settlements, as the Gospel record shows, then I'd be surprised if the authorities and presidents of synagogues were not aware of any extra marital or, indeeed, marital relationships on Jesus' part.
Had they been, they would certainly have used this as ammunition against Him.


Quite true, but he could possibly have been a closet case who suppressed his desires, believing them to be "wrong".
cymrudynnion

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Leonard James wrote:
Jim wrote:
If He was born and raised in a Jewish household, and went around the Jewish settlements, as the Gospel record shows, then I'd be surprised if the authorities and presidents of synagogues were not aware of any extra marital or, indeeed, marital relationships on Jesus' part.
Had they been, they would certainly have used this as ammunition against Him.


Quite true, but he could possibly have been a closet case who suppressed his desires, believing them to be "wrong".
I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it. If He did He would not believe them to be wrong He would have known it to be wrong.
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:

I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.


I didn't say he was ... but it is always possible.

Quote:
If He did He would not believe them to be wrong He would have known it to be wrong.


But it isn't wrong! That's just your belief ... and would have been that of Jesus to, I suppose, as he was a Jew. Hence he would have resisted it.
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.

Neither does Leonard.

Neither do I.

Both of us believe it is however possible.

Do you believe it to be possible? If not, why do you not believe it to be possible?
cymrudynnion

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:

I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.


I didn't say he was ... but it is always possible.

Quote:
If He did He would not believe them to be wrong He would have known it to be wrong.


But it isn't wrong! That's just your belief ... and would have been that of Jesus to, I suppose, as he was a Jew. Hence he would have resisted it.
Correct in the U.K. homosexuality isn't a crime, however some are working to bring back the Law on homosexuality in the U.K. pre 1967
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
Correct in the U.K. homosexuality isn't a crime

Congratulations on catching up with a forty six-year-old law.
Quote:
however some are working to bring back the Law on homosexuality in the U.K. pre 1967

An infinitesimally minuscule minority of utterly deranged lunatics, cranks and crackpots, and therefore of absolutely no account whatsoever.
cymrudynnion

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.

Neither does Leonard.

Neither do I.

Both of us believe it is however possible.

Do you believe it to be possible? If not, why do you not believe it to be possible?
The Book of Levicticus
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:

I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.


I didn't say he was ... but it is always possible.

Quote:
If He did He would not believe them to be wrong He would have known it to be wrong.


But it isn't wrong! That's just your belief ... and would have been that of Jesus to, I suppose, as he was a Jew. Hence he would have resisted it.
Correct in the U.K. homosexuality isn't a crime, however some are working to bring back the Law on homosexuality in the U.K. pre 1967


Well on the whole UK residents are more intelligent than that ...but there will always be some idiots.
cymrudynnion

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:

I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.


I didn't say he was ... but it is always possible.

Quote:
If He did He would not believe them to be wrong He would have known it to be wrong.


But it isn't wrong! That's just your belief ... and would have been that of Jesus to, I suppose, as he was a Jew. Hence he would have resisted it.
Correct in the U.K. homosexuality isn't a crime, however some are working to bring back the Law on homosexuality in the U.K. pre 1967


Well on the whole UK residents are more intelligent than that ...but there will always be some idiots.
Yes some moved to Spain, the idiots that is
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
Yes some moved to Spain, the idiots that is


Possibly, but they would meet even more antagonism here than in the UK.  
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.

Neither does Leonard.

Neither do I.

Both of us believe it is however possible.

Do you believe it to be possible? If not, why do you not believe it to be possible?


Because no evidence exists to substantiate such a claim. It would be like saying he was a diebetic. There is no reason why he might not be a diebetic but there is no evidence to support that either.

There is evidence that would suggest he was not a homosexual. His teachings. Jewish traditions and his ministry. I believe that he was married to Mary Magdelene and had children in order to fulfil his role as the Saviour of mankind and as  Rabbi, however, that is my opinion and not doctrine.
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.

Neither does Leonard.

Neither do I.

Both of us believe it is however possible.

Do you believe it to be possible? If not, why do you not believe it to be possible?


Because no evidence exists to substantiate such a claim. It would be like saying he was a diebetic. There is no reason why he might not be a diebetic but there is no evidence to support that either.

There is evidence that would suggest he was not a homosexual. His teachings. Jewish traditions and his ministry. I believe that he was married to Mary Magdelene and had children in order to fulfil his role as the Saviour of mankind and as  Rabbi, however, that is my opinion and not doctrine.
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Yes some moved to Spain, the idiots that is


Possibly, but they would meet even more antagonism here than in the UK.  




That, Len is as a direct result of the misinterpretation of clergy in our religious establishments. That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.
Ketty

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Ralph2 wrote:
That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.


Lots of people say they follow the 'teachings of Christ' - doesn't make them Christian.
Ketty

Christ Jesus'* death and resurrection fulfilled the OT Law, ending its requirements for those born again in Christ*.  Those Christians who are born again in Christ*, ie re-born in Spirit and in Truth, are subject to His* greatest commandment, or in other words, the Law of Christ*:  Matthew 22:37–39; Galatians 6:2.  Having said all that, 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "Every Scripture is God*-breathed (given by His* inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s* will in thought, purpose, and action) . . .".

It is beyond me, why some people obsess with one particular subject . . . the only conclusion is that they feel themselves convicted by the Lord*, and do this as an exercise in deflection.

The OT Laws were for the Jews.  The Law of Christ* is for those who are born again in Him*.  It's not difficult, but people being human do like to use these things to further their own bigotry - whichever side of the fence they sit.


* I AM: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Ralph2 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Yes some moved to Spain, the idiots that is


Possibly, but they would meet even more antagonism here than in the UK.  




That, Len is as a direct result of the misinterpretation of clergy in our religious establishments. That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.


I'm sure that's true, Ralph, but we have been their whipping block for too many years for it to disappear quickly. It will take a couple of generations, I think.
Jim

The problem, though, Ketty, is that non-Christians lump us all in the same camp.
When one person shows a bigoted  attitude, it reflects on all who call Christ Lord.
Let's face it, we can spout the "Love" Gospel till we're blue in the face, but if we don't practice it, people have every right to question the faith we proffess.
I'm disturbed that someone would put the denomination they attend above the name of Christ.
Surely there is no greater honour than to be called "Christian" and know that you're trying to live up to the title?
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Leonard James wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Yes some moved to Spain, the idiots that is


Possibly, but they would meet even more antagonism here than in the UK.  




That, Len is as a direct result of the misinterpretation of clergy in our religious establishments. That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.


I'm sure that's true, Ralph, but we have been their whipping block for too many years for it to disappear quickly. It will take a couple of generations, I think.


Sadly, that is true.
trentvoyager

Quote:
The problem, though, Ketty, is that non-Christians lump us all in the same camp.


Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse other of there Jim?

I'm a non-Christian and I certainly do not lump you in with Cymru or even Hope.

I disagree with some of the arguments you make - but I do recognise that you are a decent human being striving in your own way to make sense of this world and to apply the rules of your religion in a caring and thoughtful way.

It diminishes us all when we start pigeon-holing people into easily identifiable, stereotypical groups which essentially allows us to stop thinking of the people in those groups as individuals - it then becomes much easier to let those little devils called prejudice and hatred into our hearts.
Derek

Jim wrote:
The problem, though, Ketty, is that non-Christians lump us all in the same camp.
When one person shows a bigoted  attitude, it reflects on all who call Christ Lord.
Let's face it, we can spout the "Love" Gospel till we're blue in the face, but if we don't practice it, people have every right to question the faith we proffess.
I'm disturbed that someone would put the denomination they attend above the name of Christ.
Surely there is no greater honour than to be called "Christian" and know that you're trying to live up to the title?


Well, it is the Born Again Christian religion who profess that they are the only organisation who will gain entry into the Kingdom of God. The only organisation who have made additions to the scriptures through interpretations by old men dating back to the third century who claimed the existence of the trinity and God incarnate. It is very silly to throw stones from your glass house. You believe people who lived in a completely different era to ours with a culture and practices alien to us. I believe in the scriptures the interpretations of which are for me and no one else. I do not need to be told what to believe and not to believe. If I make it into the kingdom of God then it will be as a result of my own merits. If I am excluded than that to is also down to me. Neither of us will have the option to blame our clergy. It is our choice to either follow man or God. God has provided scriptures that the simplest of minds can comprehend.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Christ Jesus'* death and resurrection fulfilled the OT Law, ending its requirements for those born again in Christ*.  Those Christians who are born again in Christ*, ie re-born in Spirit and in Truth, are subject to His* greatest commandment, or in other words, the Law of Christ*:  Matthew 22:37–39; Galatians 6:2.  Having said all that, 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "Every Scripture is God*-breathed (given by His* inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s* will in thought, purpose, and action) . . .".

It is beyond me, why some people obsess with one particular subject . . . the only conclusion is that they feel themselves convicted by the Lord*, and do this as an exercise in deflection.

The OT Laws were for the Jews.  The Law of Christ* is for those who are born again in Him*.  It's not difficult, but people being human do like to use these things to further their own bigotry - whichever side of the fence they sit.


* I AM: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.


The Old and the New Testament are both relevant to us. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled and merged into the Abrahamic Law. The same words that are found in the old testament regarding homosexuality can be found in the new testament

17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Romans 1:27

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their alust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Corinthians 6

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Timothy 1

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Jude 1

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the evengeance of eternal fire.
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.


Lots of people say they follow the 'teachings of Christ' - doesn't make them Christian.


Tell me about it. We have some prime examples right here.
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.


Lots of people say they follow the 'teachings of Christ' - doesn't make them Christian.


Tell me about it. We have some prime examples right here.
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.


Lots of people say they follow the 'teachings of Christ' - doesn't make them Christian.


Tell me about it. We have some prime examples right here.


As I have grown weary repeating, it depends on their interpretation of the scriptures. All of you think you are Christians because you follow your interpretation of the scriptures.

Since the scripture writers are no longer around, there is no way of knowing what they actually meant.

Christians are those people who follow and try to live up to their interpretation of the Bible.
Farmer Geddon

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Shaker wrote:
Jim wrote:
Jesus would certainly have questioned ANY sexual activity outside male-female marriage.

Unless, of course, he was engaged in it.

Where all these assumptions - they're nothing but - about 'Jesus would have thought this' and 'Jesus would certainly have done that' (all needless to say sheer guesswork upon supposition upon speculation) is that they assume an individual of religion X never goes against - those in the club tend to say 'breaks' - the tenets of that religion. This is why it's so charmingly naïve in this day and age actually to hold it to be the case that a member of a given religion keeps it to the letter and in every particular. There are pill-taking, condom-wearing, abortion-having Catholics. There are heavy drinking not to say alcoholic Muslims. (I know a good many of these). There are not just gay but promiscuously gay Orthodox Jews. (I have read their testimonies). Jews 'marry out,' love bacon sandwiches and enjoy cheeseburgers every day of the week. (I know a great many of these too). There are meat-gobbling Buddhists and Hindus. In great numbers in each case.

How these people rationalise the cognitive dissonance between what their religion dictates - not suggests: dictates - and how they actually behave in their real lives is their own affair and not mine. Everybody does what they have to do to sleep soundly at night: if pious Christians can maim, torture and kill in the name of God and east-coast mafiosi can be devout Catholics, how could it be otherwise? If the point that people don't live up to the demands of their religion is made, then the job is done.

People will always find a way to do whatever they want and need to do, and thanks to the gift of rationalisation religion rarely if ever stands in the way. The existence of army chaplains ought to demonstrate this. This is why the attempted argument that "because Jesus was X, he would certainly not have done Y" is merely a pseudo-argument which I simply do not buy. Was there an historical Jesus? Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't matter because it's an irrelevance to anything important. That's the reason I don't and never have entered into any debates about the supposed 'real' Jesus: none of it actually matters either way. If however such an individual existed, was he gay? Same answer. Utter apathy. I do however admit it as a possibility, which is something that others are not prepared to do and that has to be for fixed, ideological and I would say definitely non-rational reasons.


This                                                    
Farmer Geddon

Ketty wrote:





Having said all that, 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "Every Scripture is God*-breathed (given by His* inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s* will in thought, purpose, and action) . . .".




Really, "EVERY" Scripture is god breathed?
Lexilogio

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
The problem, though, Ketty, is that non-Christians lump us all in the same camp.
When one person shows a bigoted  attitude, it reflects on all who call Christ Lord.
Let's face it, we can spout the "Love" Gospel till we're blue in the face, but if we don't practice it, people have every right to question the faith we proffess.
I'm disturbed that someone would put the denomination they attend above the name of Christ.
Surely there is no greater honour than to be called "Christian" and know that you're trying to live up to the title?


Well, it is the Born Again Christian religion who profess that they are the only organisation who will gain entry into the Kingdom of God. The only organisation who have made additions to the scriptures through interpretations by old men dating back to the third century who claimed the existence of the trinity and God incarnate. It is very silly to throw stones from your glass house. You believe people who lived in a completely different era to ours with a culture and practices alien to us. I believe in the scriptures the interpretations of which are for me and no one else. I do not need to be told what to believe and not to believe. If I make it into the kingdom of God then it will be as a result of my own merits. If I am excluded than that to is also down to me. Neither of us will have the option to blame our clergy. It is our choice to either follow man or God. God has provided scriptures that the simplest of minds can comprehend.


Actually - Born again Christians are not one group, but several.

There are a number of Christian groups who proclaim they are the only ones going to heaven. In fact, in my personal experience, there are members of all who proclaim that. Apparently I have to be Baptist, Pentecostal, CofE, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Reformist, LDS and a Jehovah's Witness to go to heaven so far (in my personal experience). If I stick to the actual teachings of the organisation, then the only one I can drop from that list is CofE. Equally, I have met members of all who are more inclusive.

Additions to the scriptures? Well - that was one of the major problems which led to the Catholic - Protestant split. And yet, I see this, in one way or another, in most churches, again. The Book of Common Prayer, for example, is added, but often treated as a form of scripture.  LDS have an added book (the Book of Mormon).

It is all a bit of a minefield in many ways, and we are left, like Martin Luther, trying to figure out what is correct. Wherein, I think, lies Ketty's view, that you concentrate on the gospels. If it fits with the gospels, then its ok. There are a large number of protestant denominations which go down that route.
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Leonard James wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That has nothing to do with Christianity, that is, those who follow the teachings of Christ.


Lots of people say they follow the 'teachings of Christ' - doesn't make them Christian.


Tell me about it. We have some prime examples right here.


As I have grown weary repeating, it depends on their interpretation of the scriptures. All of you think you are Christians because you follow your interpretation of the scriptures.

Since the scripture writers are no longer around, there is no way of knowing what they actually meant.

Christians are those people who follow and try to live up to their interpretation of the Bible.


I couldn't agree more. My post was for the benefit of someone else. Three points though.

1. Christians believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. Written by man but compiled by God. We can, therefore, get access to their correct interpretations via prayer and the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Now I know you don't believe that and I, for one, am not asking you, or anybody else, to.

2. Most Christians in the world today do not try and live their lives according to their interpretation of scriptures, they live their lives according to their clergymens interpretations of scripture, hence our current problem. Clergymen make the mud balls and their congregations throw them.

3. Now one must ask the question that if they live their lives according to the teachings of their religion and not by the direct word of God can they call themselves Christians. Clergymen are as carnal as any of us are. They CAN be enticed by Satan. Surely by cutting out the middleman we are more likely to receive accurate interpretations.
Derek

[quote="Lexilogio:97874"]

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
The problem, though, Ketty, is that non-Christians lump us all in the same camp.
When one person shows a bigoted  attitude, it reflects on all who call Christ Lord.
Let's face it, we can spout the "Love" Gospel till we're blue in the face, but if we don't practice it, people have every right to question the faith we proffess.
I'm disturbed that someone would put the denomination they attend above the name of Christ.
Surely there is no greater honour than to be called "Christian" and know that you're trying to live up to the title?


Well, it is the Born Again Christian religion who profess that they are the only organisation who will gain entry into the Kingdom of God. The only organisation who have made additions to the scriptures through interpretations by old men dating back to the third century who claimed the existence of the trinity and God incarnate. It is very silly to throw stones from your glass house. You believe people who lived in a completely different era to ours with a culture and practices alien to us. I believe in the scriptures the interpretations of which are for me and no one else. I do not need to be told what to believe and not to believe. If I make it into the kingdom of God then it will be as a result of my own merits. If I am excluded than that to is also down to me. Neither of us will have the option to blame our clergy. It is our choice to either follow man or God. God has provided scriptures that the simplest of minds can comprehend.


Quote:
Actually - Born again Christians are not one group, but several
.

Yes, that is something that I do not quite understand. How can you tell who is who.

Quote:
There are a number of Christian groups who proclaim they are the only ones going to heaven. In fact, in my personal experience, there are members of all who proclaim that. Apparently I have to be Baptist, Pentecostal, CofE, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Reformist, LDS and a Jehovah's Witness to go to heaven so far (in my personal experience). If I stick to the actual teachings of the organisation, then the only one I can drop from that list is CofE. Equally, I have met members of all who are more inclusive
.

I agree. I think we will be surprised who will be there and who will be hanging around the Pearly Gates.

Quote:
Additions to the scriptures? Well - that was one of the major problems which led to the Catholic - Protestant split. And yet, I see this, in one way or another, in most churches, again. The Book of Common Prayer, for example, is added, but often treated as a form of scripture.  LDS have an added book (the Book of Mormon).


Yes, I agree again, however, like you, I recognise it and choose not to be a part of it.

Mormons will tell you that their BoM is not an addition but a companion having the exact same principles and precepts as the Bible. They will tell you that it is the word of God so there has been no addition by men, as with the Triune and God incarnate. For me, I mainly use the Holy Bible now.

Quote:
It is all a bit of a minefield in many ways, and we are left, like Martin Luther, trying to figure out what is correct. Wherein, I think, lies Ketty's view, that you concentrate on the gospels. If it fits with the gospels, then its ok. There are a large number of protestant denominations which go down that route.


That is not the impression that I get from Ketty. I get the impression that she adheres to the teachings of her faith, rigorously. Personal interpretation of scripture. I whole heartedly agree with that principle, so you would think that we would be best buddies. If you like to be in a congregation on Sunday then make it a congregation that fits in with your interpretations and not visa versa. Men are invariably wrong. .
Jim

What "born again Christian religion", Ralph?
This is a denomination of which I remain (blissfully) ignorant.
As far as I see it, the answer, as per John 3:3-9, to the question
"born again Christian?"
is "What other kind is there, then"?
Derek

Jim wrote:
What "born again Christian religion", Ralph?
This is a denomination of which I remain (blissfully) ignorant.
As far as I see it, the answer, as per John 3:3-9, to the question
"born again Christian?"
is "What other kind is there, then"?


We have done this Jim. It is true that we are all born again, however, it is equally true that their exists those who ascribe themselves to the Billy Graham ethos. The, we are the only ones who will be in heaven, mentality, and if you do not believe what we believe then you are not a Christian, belief system.

John 3:3-9 only tells us to be baptised and receive the Holy Ghost. To be baptised is to clean the slate and to have the Holy Ghost with you is to have a constant source to insure that the slate stays clean.

4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit , he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jim

Oy!
Leave Billy Graham alone!
God has used the man to change the lives of tens of thousands of people, bringing them into a new life with Christ - which is, after all, what being "born again" is.
I was not converted through his preaching, but I was privileged to be a counsellor at his crusade in Celtic Park, Glasgow, where I saw people changed..and remain in contact with two whom I counselled.

Just because some brothers in Christ are self opinionated and somewhat narrow minded in their outlook should not negate the work of the Holy Spirit in Dr Graham.

Nor should it blind us to the imperative that, to be complete in Christ, one must be born again, completely, by the indwelling of Christ.
Farmer Geddon

Any hoops.

What about Mark and his naked, unnamed and suggestively erotic youth who was obviously very close to Jesus. (Mark 14:51-53).

This mysterious young man was expanded on in The Secret Gospel of Mark, fragments of which were contained in the controversial Mar Saba letter by Clement of Alexandria. ["Every Scripture is God Breathed"]
The Secret Gospel of Mark states that Jesus taught the secrets of the Kingdom of God alone to a partially clothed youth during one night.

Which conveniently brings us to:

The Disciple whom Jesus Loved (Greek: ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous) or AKA; The Beloved Disciple (Greek: ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho Iēsous).

Another mysterious , unnamed character found only in John. Could the two be the same???
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Ralph2 wrote:
Because no evidence exists to substantiate such a claim. It would be like saying he was a diebetic. There is no reason why he might not be a diebetic but there is no evidence to support that either.

So you seem to be conceding that just as Jesus may have been diabetic - no evidence for it but in your own words, no reason why he may not have been - he may also have been homosexual, on the same terms: no evidence for it but no reason why he may not have been.
Quote:
There is evidence that would suggest he was not a homosexual. His teachings. Jewish traditions and his ministry.

This point has already been covered earlier in the thread.
Quote:
I believe that he was married to Mary Magdelene and had children in order to fulfil his role as the Saviour of mankind and as  Rabbi, however, that is my opinion and not doctrine.

Indeed.
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I don't believe Jesus was a closet case as you put it.

Neither does Leonard.

Neither do I.

Both of us believe it is however possible.

Do you believe it to be possible? If not, why do you not believe it to be possible?
The Book of Levicticus

That's not an answer to the question I posed.
Quizzimodo

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
What are posters thoughts on this.
On another Forum a poster stated/asked what is wrong with homosexuality, what would Christians think if Jesus was gay with the disciple he loved.
I find this interesting since in the first instance, Jesus was a Jew and would have followed Jewish Law which is written in the Old Testament Levicticus 18:20 , therefore in the second instance he would not be physically "in love" with a disciple.


I've only just found this thread so apologies if this point has been covered:

I find it interesting that you think Jesus wouldn't gay because of Leviticus but he is used as the excuse for christians to ignore other parts of Leviticus

Surely he was either bound by it or he wasn't
Leonard James

Farmer Geddon wrote:

The Secret Gospel of Mark states that Jesus taught the secrets of the Kingdom of God alone to a partially clothed youth during one night.


I know the feeling!  
Truster

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

cymrudynnion wrote:
What are posters thoughts on this.
On another Forum a poster stated/asked what is wrong with homosexuality, what would Christians think if Jesus was gay with the disciple he loved.
I find this interesting since in the first instance, Jesus was a Jew and would have followed Jewish Law which is written in the Old Testament Levicticus 18:20 , therefore in the second instance he would not be physically "in love" with a disciple.


The sin of sodomy brings down wrath from heaven as seen in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Before wrath is poured forth the Sodomites are allowed free rein as a proof of their own condemnation and eternal destruction.
Homosexuality is a judgement upon a society for the irreverence and injustice of the society. This doctrine Paul taught and can be found in Romans.
Farmer Geddon

I thought "Jesus" circumvented the need to follow the JewishBible?
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Truster wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
What are posters thoughts on this.
On another Forum a poster stated/asked what is wrong with homosexuality, what would Christians think if Jesus was gay with the disciple he loved.
I find this interesting since in the first instance, Jesus was a Jew and would have followed Jewish Law which is written in the Old Testament Levicticus 18:20 , therefore in the second instance he would not be physically "in love" with a disciple.


The sin of sodomy brings down wrath from heaven as seen in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Before wrath is poured forth the Sodomites are allowed free rein as a proof of their own condemnation and eternal destruction.
Homosexuality is a judgement upon a society for the irreverence and injustice of the society. This doctrine Paul taught and can be found in Romans.


Blimey, the rot you guys can delude yourselves into believing is astounding!
Farmer Geddon

Mark 14:51-53

New International Version (NIV)

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Why, what, who?


As for the 2 excerpts from the Secret Gospel. The first is to be inserted, as Church Father Clement states; between what are verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10:

   "And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

Don't forget: "All Scripture is God breathed" and all that!!.!
Leonard James

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Mark 14:51-53

New International Version (NIV)

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Why, what, who?


As for the 2 excerpts from the Secret Gospel. The first is to be inserted, Clement states, between what are verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10:

   "And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

Don't forget: "All Scripture is God breathed" and all that!!.!


Oh my, oh my, oh my! Such goings on! I love it!  
Farmer Geddon

Was this youngster his lover, or just his special one?
Farmer Geddon

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Ketty wrote:





Having said all that, 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "Every Scripture is God*-breathed (given by His* inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s* will in thought, purpose, and action) . . .".




Really, "EVERY" Scripture is god breathed?


EVERY Scripture?
Derek

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Shaker

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Because no evidence exists to substantiate such a claim. It would be like saying he was a diebetic. There is no reason why he might not be a diebetic but there is no evidence to support that either.

So you seem to be conceding that just as Jesus may have been diabetic - no evidence for it but in your own words, no reason why he may not have been - he may also have been homosexual, on the same terms: no evidence for it but no reason why he may not have been
.

No, I am saying that their is evidence in the form of His Teachings, the Jewish Traditions, and the nature of his ministry. Circumstantial, may be, but it still tips the scales from possible to improbable. There is one further method of finding out though. Tap into t he influence of the Holy Ghost and his truth will be revealed to you, even hidden truths.

Quote:
Quote:
There is evidence that would suggest he was not a homosexual. His teachings. Jewish traditions and his ministry.

This point has already been covered earlier in the thread.


Sorry, i was not aware of that. It was, however, necessary for me to use it in order to back up my assertion.

Quote:
Quote:
I believe that he was married to Mary Magdelene and had children in order to fulfil his role as the Saviour of mankind and as  Rabbi, however, that is my opinion and not doctrine.

Indeed
.

Yes, indeed, however, an opinion based on circumstantial evidence that makes it more likely than unlikely. Some of the things that he did and said would only be expected from a married man, for example
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality and Jesus

Ralph2 wrote:
No, I am saying that their is evidence in the form of His Teachings, the Jewish Traditions, and the nature of his ministry. Circumstantial, may be, but it still tips the scales from possible to improbable.

Not really.

Quote:
There is one further method of finding out though. Tap into t he influence of the Holy Ghost and his truth will be revealed to you, even hidden truths.

I'll stick with something a bit more ... well, real, for starters.
cymrudynnion

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
The problem, though, Ketty, is that non-Christians lump us all in the same camp.


Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse other of there Jim?

I'm a non-Christian and I certainly do not lump you in with Cymru or even Hope.

I disagree with some of the arguments you make - but I do recognise that you are a decent human being striving in your own way to make sense of this world and to apply the rules of your religion in a caring and thoughtful way.

It diminishes us all when we start pigeon-holing people into easily identifiable, stereotypical groups which essentially allows us to stop thinking of the people in those groups as individuals - it then becomes much easier to let those little devils called prejudice and hatred into our hearts.
Trent accepting that you are not a Christian makes you not bound by the Rules of Faith. You may attend a Church, and, if it was Anglican you would receive instruction regarding the Book of Levicticus. Once an individual has attended an Anglican Church and has decided to become a member or as in the case of children or babies they become members at the behest of their parents, they still have the opportunity to reject Faith if that is their wish or Confirm their membership, again if that is their wish.
Jim

On about labels, again?
What do they matter?
Jim

Why are Christian homophobes fixated on Leviticus...or one part of it, excluding all other parts in their fervent desire to discriminate?
Haven't you got it, yet?
The Law was ultimately, supremely and finally superceded in Christ.
The Old Covenant is transient for believers...let it go if you're trying to follow Jesus.
The New Covenant is in place, sealed in His blood, set in motion with His commandments.

http://outoftheoverflow.com/2009/...venant-new-covenant-in-the-bible/
Ketty

Jim wrote:
Why are Christian homophobes fixated on Leviticus...or one part of it, excluding all other parts in their fervent desire to discriminate?
Haven't you got it, yet?
The Law was ultimately, supremely and finally superceded in Christ.
The Old Covenant is transient for believers...let it go if you're trying to follow Jesus.
The New Covenant is in place, sealed in His blood, set in motion with His commandments.

http://outoftheoverflow.com/2009/...venant-new-covenant-in-the-bible/



Yes and Amen, and well done for keep trying; but people who don't want to hear, won't listen Jim.   It was ever thus.

Too bound by   Legalism because it fits in with their personal agenda.

Derek

Jim wrote:
Why are Christian homophobes fixated on Leviticus...or one part of it, excluding all other parts in their fervent desire to discriminate?
Haven't you got it, yet?
The Law was ultimately, supremely and finally superceded in Christ.
The Old Covenant is transient for believers...let it go if you're trying to follow Jesus.
The New Covenant is in place, sealed in His blood, set in motion with His commandments.

http://outoftheoverflow.com/2009/...venant-new-covenant-in-the-bible/


Matthew 5

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven
Jim

And?
Christ fulfilled His own words on Calvary, and, if you want proof....take a look at Luke's account of the last supper, where He institutes a New Covenant.
The LAW was impossible for man to keep perfectly.
Only one person ever did, and He was the fulfillment of the LAW He Himself instituted...Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
And?
Christ fulfilled His own words on Calvary, . . .

Only one person ever did, and He was the fulfillment of the LAW He Himself instituted...Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.


Yes, and Amen.  Keep preaching it!  
Derek

Jim wrote:
And?
Christ fulfilled His own words on Calvary, and, if you want proof....take a look at Luke's account of the last supper, where He institutes a New Covenant.
The LAW was impossible for man to keep perfectly.
Only one person ever did, and He was the fulfillment of the LAW He Himself instituted...Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.


You talk with the spirit of man, words that you think they want to hear and words that exalt you rather then God. You make reference to His word in which He instigated the sacrament and you assign a meaning to those words that are  false and negate the true meaning of that event.

The Mosaic Law is still very much in fall force this very day. The tripe that is always mentioned about Shell Fish and Cotton has been fulfilled. There is no more necessity for it. Like the sacrifice of the first lamb has been fulfilled by the coming of Christ so has most of the laws of the old testament been fulfilled 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. The law forbidding anal sex is still in full force. I believe that is regardless as to whether it is between heterosexual or homosexuals, it is a sin regardless. It is also a part of the New Testament mentioned four times, I believe.

Quote:
Christ fulfilled His own words on Calvary, and, if you want proof....take a look at Luke's account of the last supper, where He institutes a New Covenant


How did Christ fulfil his own words. Do you mean the words of the old testament prophecying of His mission and demise or his words to the disciples saying what would happen to Him. I say that as his life was prophesied several hundreds of years before he arrived in the flesh, the literal son of God, separate and distinct. So did He fulfil His words or were the words of the old testament fulfilled.

What connection have you made between the sacrament and the Mosaic Law? Particularly the verses in Leviticus.

Quote:
The LAW was impossible for man to keep perfectly


If the law was impossible to live then God would not have instigated them. What kind of God do you believe in? A God that sets impossible task?

Quote:
Only one person ever did, and He was the fulfillment of the LAW He Himself instituted...Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.


Jesus instigated the Abrahamic Covenant and lived it from the start of his ministry. He lived both laws in perfection. "He was the fulfilment of the law he instigated" What does that mean. What point are you trying to make. How was Christ, the personification of his father in heaven, desperate and distinct, able to use himself to fulfil anything when he acted in the name of his father, also desperate and distinct. Everything that Jesus Christ did he did in the name of the father.
Jim

Can I respectfully suggest that you read what Paul wrote concerning our efforts to fulfill the lLaw?
And Jesus' words "This is a New Covenant, sealed with My blood..."?
Are they a figment of my imagination?

And, speaking of imagination, remember, All scripture* is God-breathed. I spek as one who has Christ within me (Galatians 2:19-20). I boast, yes. But I boast only of God, who is triune in nature, and the gift He has given us.


*Scripture. The Old and New Testaments. Any material written since then and claimed as Scripture is false, misleading and deserving of approbrium and ridicule.
trentvoyager

I always used to love pick'n'mix at Woolies - I had, until a post or two ago, forgotten that it was originated by some religious people.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Can I respectfully suggest that you read what Paul wrote concerning our efforts to fulfill the lLaw?
And Jesus' words "This is a New Covenant, sealed with My blood..."?
Are they a figment of my imagination?

And, speaking of imagination, remember, All scripture* is God-breathed. I spek as one who has Christ within me (Galatians 2:19-20). I boast, yes. But I boast only of God, who is triune in nature, and the gift He has given us.


*Scripture. The Old and New Testaments. Any material written since then and claimed as Scripture is false, misleading and deserving of approbrium and ridicule.


Nothing in my scriptures mentions "This is a New Covenant, sealed with My blood..."

I to believe that all scripture are God breathed, which is why I believe in the God  head and not the triune.

I am not sure what your reference to 'Scripture' is suppose to mean.
Jim

http://biblehub.com/luke/22-20.htm

gives a reasonable selection of Luke 22:20.
"in my"; "sealed"; "ratified"; confirmed" all add up to the same thing.
The New Covenant was instituted through Jesus' actions on Calvary.

And, by Scripture, I mean that only the old and new Testaments are reliable sources for the God-inspired Scripture (though the deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha are "useful for study" as well)
All other documeents purporting to be scripture and seen as such by so-called christian (small 'c' deliberate) sects are not accepted as Scripture and seen as anathema, false prophesy and worthy of rejection on every ground and considered fit only for waste disposal.
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
I always used to love pick'n'mix at Woolies - I had, until a post or two ago, forgotten that it was originated by some religious people.


How can something that is totally harmless and very rewarding to the taste be made detrimental just because you resent the people that came up with the idea? It is the same as Cymru saying that he will not teach gay people and you condemn him for that. It would be like me changing my dentist and fish and chip shop because they are both gay. It causes disharmony amongst groups. I cannot imagine someone like Leonard James saying that. It is discriminatory and, quite frankly, antagonistic effectively boycotting pick and mix based on the religious convictions of those who invented it. I am hoping that you said this in jest.
Sebastian Toe

Ralph2 wrote:
It would be like me changing my dentist and fish and chip shop because they are both gay..


You have a gay fish and chip shop?

Would that be the sole reason for a change?
Shaker

Sebastian Toe wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It would be like me changing my dentist and fish and chip shop because they are both gay..


You have a gay fish and chip shop?

Would that be the sole reason for a change?


I think we should skate over this sort of thing.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
How can something that is totally harmless and very rewarding to the taste be made detrimental just because you resent the people that came up with the idea? It is the same as Cymru saying that he will not teach gay people and you condemn him for that.


People condemn him for that because the moral zeitgeist of the age holds it to be generally the case that discrimination on the grounds of something one cannot choose and cannot change - gender; sexual orientation; physical (dis)ability; ethnicity; age and so forth - is a bad thing, because it puts people at an unfair disadvantage on grounds which they didn't opt for and are unable to alter.

This sort of general feeling 'in the air' as it were has been around maybe since the last war and perhaps since the 1960s especially. Sometimes public opinion, which happens for other reasons, leads legislation: sometimes legislation leads public opinion. There's the famous old saying that you can't make men moral by Act of Parliament, but I do wonder if this is everywhere and always the case. I suspect not: I think that you probably could make a good case that public opinion has changed for the better where it has been led by legislation. Nobody thinks society is perfect so let's not build a strawman this close to Bonfire Night: that said, few would argue that Britain generally isn't a more broad-minded, open, free-thinking, tolerant, accepting society than it was in 1953, say.

Patently not everybody has got the memo yet but most have by now, meaning that the minority who haven't are subject to societal disapproval and censure. They are perceived to be obnoxious and unpleasant because they hold attitudes which slight people on unfair and unjust grounds. So when people condemn cymruddinnion for not fulfilling the full remit of his job on the basis of his own personal dislike of the unchosen sexual orientation of some of those he may come into contact with, a dislike based on something which he can choose, they are perfectly right to do so.
Derek

Jim wrote:
http://biblehub.com/luke/22-20.htm

gives a reasonable selection of Luke 22:20.
"in my"; "sealed"; "ratified"; confirmed" all add up to the same thing.
The New Covenant was instituted through Jesus' actions on Calvary.

And, by Scripture, I mean that only the old and new Testaments are reliable sources for the God-inspired Scripture (though the deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha are "useful for study" as well)
All other documeents purporting to be scripture and seen as such by so-called christian (small 'c' deliberate) sects are not accepted as Scripture and seen as anathema, false prophesy and worthy of rejection on every ground and considered fit only for waste disposal.


Right, I could not find it in my scriptures because it is not in my scriptures. I am sure that you have the correct version of scripture though and I have the denounced KJV authorised translation.

Luke 22:19-20

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

This is the sacrament, or Eucharist, as Lexi would call it. On the night before His Crucifixion, Jesus Christ met with His Apostles and instituted the sacrament (see Luke 22:19–20). Today the sacrament is an ordinance in which Church members partake of bread and water/wine in remembrance of Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. This ordinance is an essential part of worship and spiritual development. Through this ordinance, Church members renew the covenants they made with God when they were baptized.

When He instituted the sacrament, Jesus Christ said, “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. . . . This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20). The sacrament provides an opportunity for Church members to ponder and remember with gratitude the life, ministry, and Atonement of the Son of God. The broken bread is a reminder of His body and His physical suffering, especially His suffering on the cross. It is also a reminder that through His mercy and grace, all people will be resurrected and given the opportunity for eternal life with God.

The water is a reminder that the Savior shed His blood in intense spiritual suffering and anguish, beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane and concluding on the cross. In the garden He said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” (Matthew 26:38). Submitting to the will of the Father, He suffered more than we can comprehend: “Blood came from every pore, so great was his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people” He suffered for the sins, sorrows, and pains of all people, providing remission of sins for those who repent and live the gospel. Through the shedding of His blood, Jesus Christ saved all people from what the scriptures call the “original guilt” of Adam's transgression.

Partaking of the sacrament is a witness to God that the remembrance of His Son will extend beyond the short time of that sacred ordinance. Part of this ordinance is a promise to remember Him always and a witness of individual willingness to take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ and to keep His commandments. In partaking of the sacrament and making these commitments, Church members renew the covenant they made at baptism.

In return, the Lord renews the promised remission of sin and enables Church members to “always have his Spirit to be with them” The Spirit's constant companionship is one of the greatest gifts of mortality

Corinthians 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

The New Covenant, as you call it, involves the whole thing from the atonement in the garden of Gethsemane, the crucifixion at Golgotha, the place of the skull, and eventually his resurrection. Interestingly enough two of these events brought Jesus to the brink of imperfection. In Gethsemane was the closest as God had to send an angle after Christ proclaimed that if there is another way then can I do it because, although I said I would do it, now I am here about to do it I don't know if I can. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

And then at Golgotha at about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? I often wonder how much more He could have endured this awful situation.

So, I have to now ask, after being reminded of the suffering my saviour endured, just where is the connection between the new and everlasting covenant and Leviticus and the Mosaic Law, other than Christ was being crucified under the old Mosaic Law that had been fulfilled on the Mount of Olives.

As far as your need to have a dig at the BoM is concerned, I will ignore it as argumentative and unnecessary. Mormons see them as accepted and do not consider themselves to be sects or not accepted them as Scripture and see themselves as anathema, false prophesies worthy of rejection on every ground and considered fit only for waste disposal. I would never be so nasty to other people's religious conviction to say such vitriolic and narcissistic words about there belief. All the time there are people in existence willing to discredit other people's faith there will always exist religious disharmony. And you were doing so well up to that negative and discourteous remark.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
How can something that is totally harmless and very rewarding to the taste be made detrimental just because you resent the people that came up with the idea? It is the same as Cymru saying that he will not teach gay people and you condemn him for that.


People condemn him for that because the moral zeitgeist of the age holds it to be generally the case that discrimination on the grounds of something one cannot choose and cannot change - gender; sexual orientation; physical (dis)ability; ethnicity; age and so forth - is a bad thing, because it puts people at an unfair disadvantage on grounds which they didn't opt for and are unable to alter.

This sort of general feeling 'in the air' as it were has been around maybe since the last war and perhaps since the 1960s especially. Sometimes public opinion, which happens for other reasons, leads legislation: sometimes legislation leads public opinion. There's the famous old saying that you can't make men moral by Act of Parliament, but I do wonder if this is everywhere and always the case. I suspect not: I think that you probably could make a good case that public opinion has changed for the better where it has been led by legislation. Nobody thinks society is perfect so let's not build a strawman this close to Bonfire Night: that said, few would argue that Britain generally isn't a more broad-minded, open, free-thinking, tolerant, accepting society than it was in 1953, say.

Patently not everybody has got the memo yet but most have by now, meaning that the minority who haven't are subject to societal disapproval and censure. They are perceived to be obnoxious and unpleasant because they hold attitudes which slight people on unfair and unjust grounds. So when people condemn cymruddinnion for not fulfilling the full remit of his job on the basis of his own personal dislike of the unchosen sexual orientation of some of those he may come into contact with, a dislike based on something which he can choose, they are perfectly right to do so.


Everything you have said is perfectly reasonable and acceptable until you came to the last paragraph. There is no real evidence to support your claim that homosexuality is not a choice. Without that evidence you cannot include gays in your statement.

What Cymru believes he will have to stand for, it is not our right to suppress beliefs like his. It should be expressed, studied, examined and rectified if necessary. To attempt the act of sweeping it under the carpet would be detrimental to our society as a whole.

In conclusion, it is simply wrong and unethical for TV to discriminate against pick and mix on the grounds that it was invented by someone religious. What if the tables were turned and I discriminated against pick and mix because the person who invented it was an atheist, how preposterous.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Everything you have said is perfectly reasonable and acceptable until you came to the last paragraph. There is no real evidence to support your claim that homosexuality is not a choice. Without that evidence you cannot include gays in your statement.

If you believe that homosexuality - a numerically minor but permanent to the point of persistent variation in animal sexuality - is a choice, provide your evidence that this is the case. That's not just a bland rebuttal but an actual and positive request for evidence. If you think that homosexuality - indeed, any sexual orientation of any kind - is a conscious and deliberate volitional choice, able to be decided at will, lay out the evidence that this is so. The evidence, for it to pass muster as credible evidence which I will accept to the same standard as anything else, will have to (1) come from reputable scientific authorities from (1a) reputable and credible accredited scientific establishments which has (2) been peer-reviewed and undergone the usual procedures of standard scientific publication. (Hint: That means that NAARTH is out). Unless you're treating homosexuality as some sort of special case, which in itself would require explanation, this evidence will be of exactly and precisely of the same order as would demonstrate that heterosexuality is a choice. For the existence of homosexuality to require evidentially-backed demonstration and explanation and heterosexuality not would be irrational special pleading.

I don't know whether homosexuality is a choice or not. All the available evidence I've ever seen from the hard sciences such as biology and genetics and what are, purely conventionally, regarded as the softer sciences such as psychology and anthropology implies that it isn't. However, I don't have a vested ideological committment one way or the other: to me I couldn't give two shiny ones whether it's a choice or whether it isn't, because either position alters absolutely nothing in respect of what is important about homosexual people and their rights and dignity in a free, secular, liberal democratic society. In this regard it's the same as the existence of an historical Jesus, another debate I've never been interested enough to take part in because either fork matters absolutely not at all. Both are equally irrelevant to anything that actually matters in the here and now, today. To me, the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice is pretty well settled, not definitively beyond reasonable doubt but certainly to my satisfaction, in the negative. That doesn't mean that the issue is done and dusted for all time: it means that it doesn't matter who is right, apart from the rather important matter of the factual, evidence-backed truth being known over unsupported belief. I have no prior committment to any position either way. On the other hand, it looks as though you quite clearly do.  

I feel extremely sure and solid in my belief that I've done all this before.

Quote:
What Cymru believes he will have to stand for, it is not our right to suppress beliefs like his.


Yes it is. The good order of society as a whole holds it to be the case that for the sake of the common good some beliefs have to be actively and explicitly suppressed, and quite hard. The belief that kikes, niggers and Pakis are subhuman, not even animals but lower than such. The belief that four year-olds are appropriate sexual partners for thirty-seven year-olds. The belief that all the world shall bow the knee to Allah and Mohammed (PBUH) who is His Prophet. And so on and so forth.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:97982"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Everything you have said is perfectly reasonable and acceptable until you came to the last paragraph. There is no real evidence to support your claim that homosexuality is not a choice. Without that evidence you cannot include gays in your statement.

If you believe that homosexuality - a numerically minor but permanent variation in animal sexuality - is a choice, provide your evidence that this is the case. That's not just a bland rebuttal but an actual and positive request for evidence. If you think that homosexuality - indeed, any sexual orientation of any kind - is a conscious and deliberate volitional choice, able to be decided at will, lay out the evidence that this is so. The evidence, for it to pass muster as credible evidence which I will accept to the same standard as anything else, will have to (1) come from reputable scientific authorities from (1a) reputable and credible accredited scientific establishments which has (2) been peer-reviewed and undergone the usual procedures of standard scientific publication.

(Hint: That means that NAARTH is out).


I am not going to do that with you. I have done it and really just do not want to do it again. Especially as you insist that one of the best resources for professional opinions is excluded. That would be unfair and I would have to search for the papers published by those professionals rather then draw them from one source. So, you believe what you wish, however, be prepared to show evidence that homosexuality is innate and that a choice to be homosexual is wrong should you make such a assertion on here.

Quote:
What Cymru believes he will have to stand for, it is not our right to suppress beliefs like his.


Quote:
Yes it is. The good order of society as a whole holds it to be the case that for the sake of the common good some beliefs have to be actively and explicitly suppressed, and quite hard. The belief that kikes, niggers and Pakis are subhuman, not even animals but lower than such. The belief that four year-olds are appropriate sexual partners for thirty-seven year-olds. The belief that all the world shall bow the knee to Allah and Mohammed (PBUH) who is His Prophet. And so on and so forth
.

What do you think they do at Broadmoore. Give people with schizophrenia suppressants without initially investigating it would be stupid. We have to understand in order to prevent. My son thought we were pumping radioactive oxygen into his bedroom which was shrinking his head. He had no doubt. He eventually had to be sectioned where they studied his behaviour before selecting appropriate drugs to treat him with. They got it wrong twice and now he is pretty normal. If we were to follow your belief he might still be under section and ill. So, I would hardly compare Cymru's refusal to teach gays with paedophiles. Indeed, there is a better connection with gays and paedophiles then homophobics and gays. There is far more research in progress on it as well with many reports suggesting that many prolific paedophiles being gay.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I am not going to do that with you. I have done it and really just do not want to do it again

Clearly not very well.
Quote:
Especially as you insist that one of the best resources for professional opinions is excluded.

Which is what?
Quote:
So, you believe what you wish

I am constitutionally unable to do that. I am only able to believe - in itself not a word I like - that which my senses and reason tell me is most likely actually to be the case. Believing what I wish is a luxury denied to this mammal. I don't regret the fact.

Quote:
however, be prepared to show evidence that homosexuality is innate and that a choice to be homosexual is wrong should you make such a assertion on here.

I make no assertions on this subject because I absolutely do not care. I don't care because it's not important with regard to anything. As I have said ad nauseam, I have no reason - as you do - to have a prior ideological committment to one position over another. Haven't I already done this? Why yes, I clearly have.

Quote:
What do you think they do at Broadmoore.


Treat, and where not treatable contain (the most extreme kinds of sociopath are regarded as being not only incurable but untreatable), people with extremely severe mental disorders such that they have been deemed to be a danger to other people.

Quote:
Indeed, there is a better connection with gays and paedophiles then homophobic and gays.

What is this "connection"?

Quote:
There is far more research in progress on it as well with many reports suggesting that many prolific paedophiles being gay.


This will be of the same order as the ongoing research into cold fusion, I expect. Yawn.
trentvoyager

Quote:
Indeed, there is a better connection with gays and paedophiles then homophobics and gays.


No there isn't.

On the other hand there is plenty of proof that it happens within the bosom of that wonderful sacred cow "family" (said with a Peggy Mitchell accent if you please) - and happens to be committed by predominantly self identifying heterosexual men.

Wake up and smell the coffee -  the link between heterosexuals and paedophilia is undeniably proven and exists.

A much better connection than the one you suggest.
Shaker

What is it, I wonder, about a homophile orientation which in a certain mind (and I use the word, of course, quite wrongly) invites comparison with paedophilia? Goodness knows I've read Plato's Symposium more times than I care to remember and can, given a fair day, a bottle of Glenlivet and a following wind, give you chapter and verse on Sir Kenneth Dover's interpretation of the relationship between ἐραστής and ἐρώμενος, but bloody hell, where do these dim bulbs dredge up such a pseudo-connection?
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I have posted this before but it will not hurt to jog the memory again. I think her report is a credible one.

Yes, we know you do. We know that you find credible a great many factually false things.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have posted this before but it will not hurt to jog the memory again. I think her report is a credible one.

Yes, we know you do. We know that you find credible a great many factually false things.


Who is "We". You only research where you know what the answer will be. That is bigotry.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
I have posted this before but it will not hurt to jog the memory again. I think her report is a credible one. It is a reflection of my belief. I get a little bored with threads on homosexuals so I will leave it here. What is so taboo about choosing to be gay?

What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know

Julie Harren, Ph.D., LMFT


http://irreverentpsychologist.blo...o.uk/2012/05/call-for-ethics.html
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have posted this before but it will not hurt to jog the memory again. I think her report is a credible one. It is a reflection of my belief. I get a little bored with threads on homosexuals so I will leave it here. What is so taboo about choosing to be gay?

What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know

Julie Harren, Ph.D., LMFT


http://irreverentpsychologist.blo...o.uk/2012/05/call-for-ethics.html


The guy is gay. Very active in the gay activist movement. Why do you do this. One post up the other post down. You have not even done your research on this one. All you have done is to search the internet to fine someone, anyone, who disagrees with her and discredit her and me for believing her words. Do you expect any gay to agree with her, really? If they did they would have to admit having anal sex because they want to.

Good program on the TV right now. A homosexual paedophile teacher who raped 11 year old boys. And TV sags that no connection exists. I think some of us need to take our heads out of the sand. 36 young boys.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have posted this before but it will not hurt to jog the memory again. I think her report is a credible one.

Yes, we know you do. We know that you find credible a great many factually false things.


Who is "We".

Anybody who respects, admires, agrees with, goes with, hard, demonstrable, repeatable, testable, peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

Quote:
You only research where you know what the answer will be. That is bigotry.

Wrong.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:97995"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have posted this before but it will not hurt to jog the memory again. I think her report is a credible one.

Yes, we know you do. We know that you find credible a great many factually false things.


Who is "We".

Anybody who respects, admires, agrees with, goes with, hard, demonstrable, repeatable, testable, peer-reviewed scientific consensus
.

I wish that were true for you, but sadly it is not. You a creating a crowd/audience of allies because your argument is weak.

Quote:
Quote:
You only research where you know what the answer will be. That is bigotry.

Wrong.


Then why do you come across as such.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
If it is not

It isn't.

Quote:
then why is it that when you Google homosexuality and paedophilia you get a long list of results.

Because there are a lot of extremely ugly, stupid, obnoxious, pernicious people in the world who ignore sound, hard evidence for what they would like, want and wish to be true solely on the basis of their prior, emotionally-driven, that is to say no0n-rational agenda.
Quote:
According to you there should be no results as there is absolutely no connection.


There is no connection. A very few people think there is because they want there to be, on the basis of their prior ideological (read: religious, i.e. irrational) agenda.

Quote:
Why do you always take the heat off of you by blaming everyone else. It is like saying that a nail sex is fine because animals do it. It is so intellectually inert.

I will comment on this when it's in English.

Quote:
A much better connection than the one you suggest.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
You a creating a crowd/audience of allies because your argument is weak.

Not only am I not "creating" anything - I am not interested in a "crowd/audience" of "allies": I am interested in the demonstrable, shareable, repeatable empirical truth -, my "argument" is not only not weak but is in actual fact unimpeachable and unassailable. I have demonstrated this to be the case not only several times before when the subject of homosexuality has arisen but have done so at some length and with considerable clarity, most recently in my post of 07:49 pm this very evening. If this argument of mine was answerable you would have answered it already. If you had a refutation at your disposal you would have mounted it tonight: you would have done it every other time I have marshalled the same arguments. You have not done so, and therefore I am entitled to claim that you have no such arguments.

Notwithstanding these facts, and facts they are, I am reluctantly prepared to do so yet again if you really feel it to be necessary - and remember, since this is an open public forum, it's not just you alone who is reading everything posted here but all the relevant members of this forum not to mentjon non-member guests (i.e. anybody). I stress this point because it is to my advantage and disobliges you that I should have to repeat a very few, very simple if not downright elementary points which ought to be obvious to the greater majority and which should have silenced you way back in the past if you had taken them on board and understood them, which you patently have not.

Quote:
Then why do you come across as such.


(1) Because you are not very bright;

(2) Because you are incapable of following hard, established scientific reasoning;

(3) Because you possess what I do not, viz., a prior ideological (i.e. religiously, therefore irrationally based) committment to a pre-existing position. That prior committment is based on completely irrational pseudo-methods of non-knowing.

I suspect that (3) is principally in play, with the others involved in admixture.
trentvoyager

Quote:
You discriminated against the people who invented pick and mix on the grounds that they are religious.



Dictionary time I think.

You do know what discriminate means, don't you?

Ps still awaiting (avidly) your replies to my other  points.
trentvoyager

Quote:
If they did they would have to admit having anal sex because they want to.


Not even sure what you mean here - I can find you plenty of gay men who will admit to that.
trentvoyager

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Indeed, there is a better connection with gays and paedophiles then homophobics and gays.  


No there isn't.


If it is not then why is it that when you Google homosexuality and paedophilia you get a long list of results. According to you there should be no results as there is absolutely no connection.


Reading for comprehension time.

You said there is a better connection. I said no there isn't in contradiction of that statement. Nowhere did I say there weren't homosexuals who were paedophiles or no connection.

I have to shout this bit - DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
If they did they would have to admit having anal sex because they want to.


Not even sure what you mean here - I can find you plenty of gay men who will admit to that.


Not wholly (or is that holely?) sure why anal sex has come up (sorry) in the conversation again: given the statistical disparity between homosexual and heterosexual persons, far more heterosexual people are having anal sex all day, every day. Not that I have the slightest knowledge (I almost said conception) of such matters, but I am led to believe that such an activity is predominant in resolutely heterosexual pornography. Why is this not your concern?
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You a creating a crowd/audience of allies because your argument is weak.

Not only am I not "creating" anything - I am not interested in a "crowd/audience" of "allies": I am interested in the demonstravle, shareable, repeatable empirical truth -, my "argument" is not only not weak but is in actual fact unimpeachable and unassailable. I have demonstrated this to be the case not only several times before when the subject of homosexuality has arisen but have done so at some length and with considerable clarity most recently in my post of 07:49 pm this very evening.

Notwithstanding these facts, and facts they are, I am reluctantly prepared to do so yet again if you really feel it to be necessary - and remember, since this is an open public forum, it's not just you alone who is reading everything posted here but all the relevant members of this forum not to mentjon non-member guests (i.e. anybody). I stress this point because it is to my advantage and disobliges you that I should have to repeat a very few, very simple if not downright elementary points which ought to be obvious to the greater majority.

Quote:
Then why do you come across as such.


(1) Because you are not very bright;

(2) Because you are incapable of following hard, established scientific reasoning;

(3) Because you possess what I do not, viz., a prior ideological (i.e. religiously, therefore irrationally based) committment to a pre-existing position. That prior committment is based on completely irrational pseudo-methods of non-knowing.

I suspect that (3) is principally in play, with the others involved in admixture.


I will eschew from answering this as insults very quickly become irksome and monotonous, so I will forego a response, if I may. They add nothing to the debate, do they?

I thought that I had adequately answered that post. I haven't, so let me give you my response in your words

Quote:
I don't know whether homosexuality is a choice or not. All the available evidence I've ever seen from the hard sciences such as biology and genetics and what are, purely conventionally, regarded as the softer sciences such as psychology and anthropology implies that it isn't. However, I don't have a vested ideological committment one way or the other: to me I couldn't give two shiny ones whether it's a choice or whether it isn't, because either position alters absolutely nothing in respect of what is important about homosexual people and their rights and dignity in a free, secular, liberal democratic society. In this regard it's the same as the existence of an historical Jesus, another debate I've never been interested enough to take part in because either fork matters absolutely not at all. Both are equally irrelevant to anything that actually matters in the here and now, today. To me, the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice is pretty well settled, not definitively beyond reasonable doubt but certainly to my satisfaction, in the negative. That doesn't mean that the issue is done and dusted for all time: it means that it doesn't matter who is right, apart from the rather important matter of the factual, evidence-backed truth being known over unsupported belief. I have no prior committment to any position either way. On the other hand, it looks as though you quite clearly do.

Shaker
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Reading for comprehension time.

You said there is a better connection. I said no there isn't in contradiction of that statement. Nowhere did I say there weren't homosexuals who were paedophiles or no connection.

I have to shout this bit - DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?


I'll have a go, if I may, trent. In naked defiance of all available evidence, I shall for the nonce play the part of the eternal optimist.

There are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals (or bisexuals). This seems to be the case in all societies/cultures/communities everywhere since for ever. So to speak.

Sexual attraction of adult persons to children transcends both gender and sexual orientation.

There are homosexual paedophiles.

Yes. There are.

That said, there are heterosexual paedophiles, and they are demonstrably more numerous than homosexual paedophiles.

Please feel free to demonstrate, with evidence, that any statements of mine contained herein are factually incorrect.
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Indeed, there is a better connection with gays and paedophiles then homophobics and gays.  


No there isn't.


If it is not then why is it that when you Google homosexuality and paedophilia you get a long list of results. According to you there should be no results as there is absolutely no connection.


Reading for comprehension time.

You said there is a better connection. I said no there isn't in contradiction of that statement. Nowhere did I say there weren't homosexuals who were paedophiles or no connection.

I have to shout this bit - DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?


Your infantile play on words is duplicitous, in as much as you are using it to create a smoke screen over your discrimination of Christians whilst trying to belittle my good name. It is also argumentum ad hominem by attacking me and not the ball I am kicking.

No, you misrepresent me, yet again. I made a comparison between homosexuals and paedophiles and homophobics and homosexuals. You brought up heterosexuals, probably because you are a heterophobic.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I will eschew from answering this as insults very quickly become irksome and monotonous, so I will forego a response, if I may.

You may do anything you like, just as I may and will and do take a refusal to answer my posts as a capitulation - an "I surrender, I give up."

Quote:
They add nothing to the debate, do they?

Yes, they do. What they add adds to my side and not to yours, which is exactly why you refuse to engage with any of the points raised.

Quote:
I thought that I had adequately answered that post. I haven't, so let me give you my response in your words

My words - because I wrote them - bolster my position, not yours.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Your infantile play on words is duplicitous, in as much as you are using it to create a smoke screen over your discrimination of Christians whilst try I g to belittle my good name. It is also argumentum ad hominem by attacking me and not the ball I am kicking.

At least let us engage with antagonists who can write in English, for crying out loud!
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:


Nay Ralph.

You accuse me of paedophilia

There is nobody, not one, not a single one, not a single one anywhere and ever, on this forum who I believe to be guilty of such a charge, if such a charge has actually been levelled. If I seriously believed (I don't, which is why at present I'm doing nothing about it: that is the only reason) that you, Ralph2, were seriously accusing trentvoyager - an individual I like greatly and apart from his inexplicable liking for sport more often than not admire - of paedophilia, I would already be taking that accusation to the highest level I know. That I am not already so doing indicates that I don't actually believe you are doing this.

There are a great many occasions, as the self-important and self-dramatising twat that I am, that I survey the moral high ground from my ineffably high horse (it's a Shaker speciality: I love it, so sue me), but when you start potentially besmirching another person's character - the real character of a real person in real time - then I start to become unreasonable and all Pulp Fiction righteous on what I believe the colonials call yo ass.

It really isn't recommended. Do not do it.

Quote:
and of anti-theism

In my case, not merely "guilty" (I use the scare quotes as they are intended to be used, on an ironical basis) but more and more and more "guilty" as the years go by. I am now not only an anti-theist: I become more so the older I get.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:98016"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I will eschew from answering this as insults very quickly become irksome and monotonous, so I will forego a response, if I may.

You may do anything you like, just as I may and will and do take a refusal to answer my posts as a capitulation - an "I surrender, I give up."

I ceased my playground activities when I left school. I choose not to respond to your ad hominem. If you think.That a weakness then so beit.

Quote:
Quote:
They add nothing to the debate, do they?

Yes, they do. What they add adds to my side and not to yours, which is exactly why you refuse to engage with any of the points raised.


I have responded to every single point you have ever made to me. I am refusing to respond to your ad hominem. I think that is fair.

Quote:
Quote:
I thought that I had adequately answered that post. I haven't, so let me give you my response in your words

My words - because I wrote them - bolster my position, not yours.


Consummately, however, they also mirror my own beliefs.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Your infantile play on words is duplicitous, in as much as you are using it to create a smoke screen over your discrimination of Christians whilst try I g to belittle my good name. It is also argumentum ad hominem by attacking me and not the ball I am kicking.

At least let us engage with antagonists who can write in English, for crying out loud!


Why, it is a very useful tool in my armoury.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again.

Never a recommendation.
Quote:
Your attitude is very bitchy and spiteful which makes you dangerous to even talk to.

What is dangerous about talking to an indvidual, who, as far I am aware and able to know him, I personally like immensely? What is "dangerous" and what makes him so?

Quote:
I have made no accusations against you, other then openly accusing you of being heterophobic and discriminatory against Christians.

If you have accused as much, have you provided evidence to substantiate this?

Quote:
You give gays a bad name.

Do gays have a name? If there were people who gives gays a bad name, thank goodness that trentvoyager is one such. I say this because what you consider to be a bad name is evidently what I consider to be a good name. Trentoyagrer has a good name: you do not.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again.

Never a recommendation.
Quote:
Your attitude is very bitchy and spiteful which makes you dangerous to even talk to.

What is dangerous about talking to an indvidual, who, as far I am aware and able to know him, I personally like immensely? What is "dangerous" and what makes him so?

Quote:
I have made no accusations against you, other then openly accusing you of being heterophobic and discriminatory against Christians.

If you have accused as much, have you provided evidence to substantiate this?

Quote:
You give gays a bad name.

Do gays have a name? If there were people who gives gays a bad name, thank goodness that trentvoyager is one such. I say this because what you consider to be a bad name is evidently what I consider to be a good name. Trentoyagrer has a good name: you do not.


That is because I am a Christian and we all know how much you love Christians. Of course you are going to side with your fellow atheist. You know **** all about me and who I am. Yes, I to can swear when angry, and I am angry. If you were to take your head out of your Christian hating ass and get to know Ralph you would not say that, but you will not because I am a nutter Christian who cannot spell to save his life, well, **** you and your incessant desire to discredit honest living people because they believe in an ethos that you don't.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
You obviously don't read other threads - you would know that I favour a concert of Shostakovich's music over Streisand

All that classical bollocks? Infallible sign of a poncy wanker, if you ask me

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum