Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: R Palino <dew1pk602@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:08:11 GMT
<lsenders@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZAqUk.1213$4g5.330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, Charlie Horse1 <CharlieHor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
comeWow. =3D3DA0Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and
=
pickback=3D
=3D3Din
100 years late.
That is a false analogy.
It's taking your logic to it's illogical natural end.
No it is not and truthfully, I should have refrained from
even bothering to answer. =A0But I'm torn between
Prov 26:4 and Prov 26:5.
You live in the old testament . =A0I find many people do that so they
can=
and choose which strictures they want to follow and which they want toI guess that's why I studied Greek and not Hebrew, eh? And fyi,
ignore.
Truth transcends all culture and time. The principles revealed and
taught in the OT still have application for today. The Law was set
aside as a means of salvation (justification) but their principles are
still a guide to us on to sanctification.
you r right they are there as a guide and they still have application today
but we are not tied to them for salvation
(just like the shellfish example given earlier)
nt.
You did not take my point to its logical end, rather
you sought to dismiss the point by overstating or
more correctly, exaggerating a point that was
outside the context of the original.
I am using your own analoguy to point out the incongruency of your
argume=
Mine did. Because, of sorts, God did exactly as I illustrated,
But, to be honest, no analogy fits 100%...but your reasoning appeared
flawed.
He put them on an island known as the garden of Eden. There
HE placed them, male and female, "and it was good."
where were the priest, nuns and bishops?
where were those that lived a celebate life?
what happened when the male female ratio changed and there wasn't enough
husbands for the women?
then all these other lives must not be of God?
ANd yet you are unwilling either to see or admit that you
did exactly as I stated. You didn't not remain within the
constructs of the model.
no he changed one aspect...and your whole analogy fell apart!
the analogy does not hold water
That is the whole point of the
argument. And yes, sola scriptura. It is the only absolute,
authoritative, and verifiable source given to man as a
safeguard against error.
and everyone else who doesn't adgere to the 'sola scripture' theology is
flawed and cut off from God I suppose?
Again, we've seen people use all sorts of rationale (including theto
Bible)=
keep people outside of what they percieve as "God's Chosen People". =A0Ian,
recall in my childhood people saying that Blacks were outside of God's
pl=
etc.To be black is not a moral issue. You confuse the two as
all too many do.
no...being black is not a moral issue....but many Christians thought that
blacks marrying whites was a moral issue.
Now a black man is President of the country.
This argument has been raised in SRC for the last 20 yrs.Basically the standard rebuttal has been to note the present
ability for homosexual couples to bear children via in vitro
fertilization.
I don't think anyone brought that up here.
i dont think anyone brought up that comment here.
val
=A0But moreover, I pulled apart
your argument about the "bearing children" as an indicator of God's
appro=
of someone.I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to the validity of
that comment.
they'll see what happens to the priests, nuns, bishops on the island.
Zappo! gone
However, if you wish to go down that road, many gay people have adoptedrely
children that no one else wants. =A0The "throwaways" of society, the
seve=
disabled, etc.Doesn't matter.
when someone is caring for th poor, orphaned, etc....God is happy.
Does "caring for the unfortunate" "conform to the constructs of God"?The doctrine of total depravity does not teach that all men are as
bad as they can be. Genesis is the first book in the Bible for a
reason.
It sets the standard. If you begin with a foundation out of plumb, it
becomes quickly obvious that everything you build on top of it will be
as well.
Again, no answer to the point.
In order to procreate,
the original construct must be held to.
Again, same old song, same old argument.
same answer that youve been given....not all people are called to procreate.
Gay people are not trying to convert the world to homosexuality.
My point was that homosexuality can [not] even conform to
the physical standards of the universe as designed by
God
the original design of the universe is that God made all differnt kinds of
people...no two are the same...yet people keep trying to put everyone in the
same box.
years of prejudice against people who dont act like us, don't speak like us,
dont worship like us.
its all coming to an end.
.
- References:
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: shegeek72
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: lsenders
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: shegeek72
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: lsenders
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: A. Nona Muss
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: lsenders
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: Concerned Nudist
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: lsenders
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- From: Charlie Horse1
- Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- Next by Date: Re: Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Pro-gay OK for Church?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|