TheManxMissile wrote: What is wrong with a Homosexual couple having sex just for pleasure, especially if they love each other and are devoted to loving just that one other person?
Nothing, but i thought we are also discussing marriage and adopting children here, which are both different things to having a sex for pleasure.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Both gay sex and animal sex are unnatural from viewpoint of nature not building our body to this (while different sexes sex-act is created by nature to save the kind from extinction)...
Sorry for double-posting but this is to another user on another topic.
Neillster wrote:
In a way both. I believe that God exists. I have faith in His Son Jesus Christ. And this faith has been born out by my life experiences, and so through this in a small way I have come to know God and His will for my life.
Okay. I'm not here to change your mind or anything (I try to leave everyone's opinion for what it is) but I am curious.
Have you ever doubted their existence? Or maybe not so much doubt, but at least considered the option that they may not exist?
The reason I am asking this is because I understand that people have faith, but I never understood how a person can overcome all doubt. If I would try faith I would always keep asking myself 'But what if it's all not true? Can I really ever be sure?'.
TheManxMissile wrote: What is wrong with a Homosexual couple having sex just for pleasure, especially if they love each other and are devoted to loving just that one other person?
Nothing, but i thought we are also discussing marriage and adopting children here, which are both different things to having a sex for pleasure.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Both gay sex and animal sex are unnatural from viewpoint of nature not building our body to this (while different sexes sex-act is created by nature to save the kind from extinction)...
Ehm, i just said it is unnatural, not that i have anything against gay people having sex with each other.
Well it was you and Martial who mentioned sex. But ok, marriage and adoption. Homosexuals should not be allowed to get married or adopt because [insert reasons here] (remember you can't use sex or religion as an argument)
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
@Shorts: Who defines purpose? Of course nature, you would not have your penis if it wasnt for purpose of reproduction.
Who or what is nature? How does it define? What if people have different opinions on a purpose of an object, if they both claim a different natural purpose?
I.e. I could say the primary natural purpose of my penis is for urinating, reproduction secondary. You could disagree with that and say that nature's purpose for the penis is reproduction first. How do we determine who is right?
and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:2)
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13)
What does he actually want then?
Neillster wrote:
The difference between the 2 passages you have quoted is that the 10 commandments is speaking of murder, whereas Deuteronomy 7 is speaking of a war. The Bible does differentiate.
How about
When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.
(Exodus 13:15)
God has control over all life and death. It is He who determines the length of our days, and when we are to die. Is that any different from the verse quoted?
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
You don't see to get my point. We both disapprove of murder. Why then, does God punish innocent children for crimes of only 1 person?
Edited by Selwink on 23-05-2014 14:02
ShortsNL wrote:
Sorry for double-posting but this is to another user on another topic.
Neillster wrote:
In a way both. I believe that God exists. I have faith in His Son Jesus Christ. And this faith has been born out by my life experiences, and so through this in a small way I have come to know God and His will for my life.
Okay. I'm not here to change your mind or anything (I try to leave everyone's opinion for what it is) but I am curious.
Have you ever doubted their existence? Or maybe not so much doubt, but at least considered the option that they may not exist?
The reason I am asking this is because I understand that people have faith, but I never understood how a person can overcome all doubt. If I would try faith I would always keep asking myself 'But what if it's all not true? Can I really ever be sure?'.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
I have been a Christian now for almost 10 years. In all that time, I have most definitely had doubts. My faith has been tested and stretched.
I would say that every Christian has. The Apostle Paul talks about doubt in 1 Corinthians 15:
1 Corinthians 15:12-23
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Yet even in all my doubt, I am always drawn back to the Bible and to the promises of God. That the Bible is true is the best explanation for all that has happened and is happening in the world.
Now some may say that I am weak and needy, clinging to an ancient text, yet, having studied hard through school, and being exposed to the world and science, I still find that the Bible is right, and I have not had a reason to disbelieve it. Edited by Neillster on 23-05-2014 14:09
and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:2)
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13)
What does he actually want then?
Neillster wrote:
The difference between the 2 passages you have quoted is that the 10 commandments is speaking of murder, whereas Deuteronomy 7 is speaking of a war. The Bible does differentiate.
How about
When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.
(Exodus 13:15)
God has control over all life and death. It is He who determines the length of our days, and when we are to die. Is that any different from the verse quoted?
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
You don't see to get my point. We both disapprove of murder. Why then, does God punish innocent children for crimes of only 1 person?
In order to show the seriousness of rebellion against God. It also points forward to us.
The people of Israel had to kill an unblemished lamb and sprinkle its blood on the doorposts and lintel. When the angel of death into the land of Egypt, he did not enter into the houses where the blood was sprinkled.
Likewise for us, when we stand in judgement before God, we need Christ (the unblemished lamb) to have died in our place to prevent us from being punished for our own sins.
Selwink wrote:
So you agree with killing your oppressors if you are oppressed, even if some are innocent?
No, for I am not God.
Indeed God never told the people of Israel to attack the Egyptians nor did they.
God tells us to submit to the authorities, as in Romans 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.
And given that the people that are being directly spoken to here are the Christians in Rome, many of whom would be thrown to the lions for their faith. So no I do not agree with killing the oppressor.
It was written by the apostle Paul, a man who was stoned on several occasions, placed in the stocks, thrown in prison and beaten on various occasions, most of which with the approval or on the instruction of the authorities.
Selwink wrote:
So you agree with killing your oppressors if you are oppressed, even if some are innocent?
No, for I am not God.
Indeed God never told the people of Israel to attack the Egyptians nor did they.
God tells us to submit to the authorities, as in Romans 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.
And given that the people that are being directly spoken to here are the Christians in Rome, many of whom would be thrown to the lions for their faith. So no I do not agree with killing the oppressor.
I thought the taxes paid to church were invested in new churches, luxurious villas and a lot of wealth and that it was all abuse of power.
edit: also, something else kept me wondering. You said God showed the consequences of rebellion against him. How do you explain he doesn't do that anymore.
Edited by Selwink on 23-05-2014 14:35
Neillster wrote:
It was written by the apostle Paul, a man who was stoned on several occasions, placed in the stocks, thrown in prison and beaten on various occasions, most of which with the approval or on the instruction of the authorities.
Selwink wrote:
So you agree with killing your oppressors if you are oppressed, even if some are innocent?
No, for I am not God.
Indeed God never told the people of Israel to attack the Egyptians nor did they.
God tells us to submit to the authorities, as in Romans 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.
And given that the people that are being directly spoken to here are the Christians in Rome, many of whom would be thrown to the lions for their faith. So no I do not agree with killing the oppressor.
I thought the taxes paid to church were invested in new churches, luxurious villas and a lot of wealth and that it was all abuse of power.
edit: also, something else kept me wondering. You said God showed the consequences of rebellion against him. How do you explain he doesn't do that anymore.
Sorry, you're misunderstanding the verse. The 'ministers of God' means that they are appointed by God, not that they are actual ministers/clergymen.
As for your point about our rebellion against God. It is to do with the coming of Christ. In Exodus, the verses we've been discussing, Jesus had not come, nor had the Bible even been begun to be put together. As a result, God had to have a much more involved role to lead His people.
Now, it is not that God has somehow taken a back seat or is less interested, but he has given us the Bible, His guidebook to us, and from reading His Word, we are able to descover how He wants us to live our lives. He doesn't need prophets now to proclaim His will, He has His Word
Selwink wrote:
So you agree with killing your oppressors if you are oppressed, even if some are innocent?
No, for I am not God.
Indeed God never told the people of Israel to attack the Egyptians nor did they.
God tells us to submit to the authorities, as in Romans 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.
And given that the people that are being directly spoken to here are the Christians in Rome, many of whom would be thrown to the lions for their faith. So no I do not agree with killing the oppressor.
I thought the taxes paid to church were invested in new churches, luxurious villas and a lot of wealth and that it was all abuse of power.
edit: also, something else kept me wondering. You said God showed the consequences of rebellion against him. How do you explain he doesn't do that anymore.
Sorry, you're misunderstanding the verse. The 'ministers of God' means that they are appointed by God, not that they are actual ministers/clergymen.
As for your point about our rebellion against God. It is to do with the coming of Christ. In Exodus, the verses we've been discussing, Jesus had not come, nor had the Bible even been begun to be put together. As a result, God had to have a much more involved role to lead His people.
Now, it is not that God has somehow taken a back seat or is less interested, but he has given us the Bible, His guidebook to us, and from reading His Word, we are able to descover how He wants us to live our lives. He doesn't need prophets now to proclaim His will, He has His Word
Those ministers of God, are they popes or something, or 'just' pastors or something?
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
@Shorts: Who defines purpose? Of course nature, you would not have your penis if it wasnt for purpose of reproduction.
Who or what is nature? How does it define? What if people have different opinions on a purpose of an object, if they both claim a different natural purpose?
I.e. I could say the primary natural purpose of my penis is for urinating, reproduction secondary. You could disagree with that and say that nature's purpose for the penis is reproduction first. How do we determine who is right?
Easy! You can live without sex, but you can't live without takin' a piss, right? Problem solved
TheManxMissile wrote:
Well it was you and Martial who mentioned sex. But ok, marriage and adoption. Homosexuals should not be allowed to get married or adopt because [insert reasons here] (remember you can't use sex or religion as an argument)
Because i feel these two things should be reserved for traditional family, as the founding stone of every state and keeper of the mankind. I know it is shallow, but that is how i feel it and where i end my part here (i enjoyed this discussion really, you guys are good partners for discussion and i will keep thinking about the matter also thanks to your inputs).
In fact we have gay marriage (called registred partnership) established since 2006 in Czech Republic and it has same value as traditional marriage. I am not protesting against it somehow and i am accepting that, despite my feelings are bit different.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
