Only the trans community needs low wage cooks who barely speak English to validate them or else they will cancel them.

Trans YouTuber bullies and degrades a pizza man who barely speaks English for “misgendering” him pic.twitter.com/JFsk8qxKVr

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 3, 2023

Male has breakdown over being misgendered. He claims because he’s a wearing a dress and makeup, everyone should know he’s a girl and uses she/her pronouns pic.twitter.com/jU5F0rsKHs

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 3, 2023

You can put Ford badges on your Kia and repaint it…but it's still a Kia.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Only the trans community needs low wage cooks who barely speak English to validate them or else they will cancel them.

Trans YouTuber bullies and degrades a pizza man who barely speaks English for “misgendering” him pic.twitter.com/JFsk8qxKVr

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 3, 2023

Male has breakdown over being misgendered. He claims because he’s a wearing a dress and makeup, everyone should know he’s a girl and uses she/her pronouns pic.twitter.com/jU5F0rsKHs

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 3, 2023

---

The fact he took the sucker means he wasn't that upset.

This is great. After being called transphobic for saying men shouldn’t be able to compete pretending they are women @Riley_Gaines_ throws Democrats into an uproar by saying they are misogynists for making this argument. Watch them scramble: pic.twitter.com/DheMbGDXvS

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) December 5, 2023

Jack Bauer said:

---

This is great. After being called transphobic for saying men shouldn’t be able to compete pretending they are women @Riley_Gaines_ throws Democrats into an uproar by saying they are misogynists for making this argument. Watch them scramble: pic.twitter.com/DheMbGDXvS

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) December 5, 2023

---

Nugrahs generally not smart ... especially in Congress.

CObear said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Only the trans community needs low wage cooks who barely speak English to validate them or else they will cancel them.

Trans YouTuber bullies and degrades a pizza man who barely speaks English for “misgendering” him pic.twitter.com/JFsk8qxKVr

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 3, 2023

Male has breakdown over being misgendered. He claims because he’s a wearing a dress and makeup, everyone should know he’s a girl and uses she/her pronouns pic.twitter.com/jU5F0rsKHs

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 3, 2023

---

The fact he took the sucker means he wasn't that upset.

---

the fhleg always taking the sucker.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what which ought not be done." Romans 1:26-28

historian said:

---

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what which ought not be done." Romans 1:26-28

---

"The key to understanding any passage in the Bible is surely grasping the author's intent. And that is why we need to look closely at Romans 1 if we're going to grasp what the Bible says about same-sex marriage and homosexuality more generally. Because nowhere in the New Testament is there stronger or more direct language related to homosexuality and same-sex sexual relations.
Romans 1:26,27: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Now there are nuanced and strongly contested arguments that Paul isn't talking about the kinds of same-sex relationships we find in the contemporary church. But a reader of almost any translation will conclude that for Paul both homosexuality and same-sex sexual relations belonged with a long list of reprehensible practices that he makes in verses 28 to 32. And I would say that this is hardly surprising given his cultural upbringing.

Yet to understand Paul's intention in these verses we can't simply read verses 26 to 32 as a laundry list of unrighteousness. The first words in the NRSV translation of verse 26 make that clear. "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions."
Pauls description of unrighteous attitudes and behaviors in versus 26-32 is a description of what happens when God "gives up" people to their own devices. They are what happens when God, keeping God's covenant with Israel, walks out on those who have rejected him. It is what happens when we demand autonomy and freedom and God gives it to us.
But God doesn't just do this. God does it "for this reason." And to find what the reason is we must go back to verse 18, but in particular verse 21-23: "for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles." and verse 25: "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

In other words Paul's intention is not to delineate types of sin, but to remind the Romans of what happens when humans ignore God and instead worship idols. Idolatry is the root problem here. A failure to worship the one true God inevitably results in a "debased mind." And that, Paul will conclude in Romans 2, is the inescapable inheritance of all who are not (he will point out in chapter 12) transformed by the renewing of their minds. It is only such a renewal then allows us to discern what is the will of God, "what is good and acceptable and perfect."

And here we have the quandary when it comes to same-sex relations and the church. Those who are seeking the legitimization in church law of same sex relationships are not, first of all, ignorant idol worshippers. Paul's direct line from worshipping creatures to a debased mind isn't evident in their lives and acting as if it is simply insults the intelligence. The most one can say is that they share just those limitations shared by their fellow Christians.

Whoever Paul is thinking of in this passage it isn't those men and women even now attending seminary, or quietly pastoring churches, or in many cases serving as active and engaged lay leaders. Indeed, they and their allies claim that they possess precisely the renewed mind that is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and can in fact discern what is good, acceptable, and perfect. To cast them as characters from Romans 1:26-27 inevitably appears like cruelty that strains credulity.

Unless, of course, you believe that however winsome their lives their disobedience to God's order clearly indicates a fundamental unwillingness to listen to "God's decree."
And this disconnect gets us to the deeper problem of using this passage to discuss same-sex relations in the church.
Paul is offering a natural theology rational for rejecting homosexuality and same-sex relations: they are an unnatural distortion of God's natural order for humanity flowing from the willful rejection of the creator and thus a debased mind incapable of understanding God's order and conforming to it.

But contemporary proponents of same sex marriage argue that science teaches us that homosexuality and same-sex relations are in fact part of the natural order God created. Accepting them is in fact to be more rational than accepting Paul's rejection of them.. His theological explanation of and rejection of this wholly natural phenomena is simply a relic of his pre-modern worldview, not unlike his understanding of the subordination of women in marriage.

So once again we find the complex problem of how to deal with those places in scripture where statements about the natural order (that are theoretically testable by common reason) are embedded in special revelation whose truth can be grasped only with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Until we have some consensus concerning the criteria for teasing out these distinctions, and thus differentiating between those assertions in scripture that can be legitimately questioned by science and those that must be accepted by faith, we will have no possibility of engaging in a meaningful dialogue about sexuality and same-sex marriage.
But as I've noted in other blogs, this has nothing to do with whether scripture has authority, or even how that authority is exercised in the church. It arises because we have yet to reach a consensus on the appropriate hermeneutic for and authority of statements about the natural order embedded in special revelation.

Robert Hunt Perkins School of Theology

"But contemporary proponents of same sex marriage argue that science teaches us that homosexuality and same-sex relations are in fact part of the natural order God created. Accepting them is in fact to be more rational than accepting Paul's rejection of them.. His theological explanation of and rejection of this wholly natural phenomena is simply a relic of his pre-modern worldview, not unlike his understanding of the subordination of women in marriage."



There is nothing natural or normal about homosexuality. Paul said so himself in Romans 1:27 and it is sin (1:24; see also Leviticus 20:13). There is no honest way around that. One cannot twist God's word to mean something it clearly does not.

To be honest, there are sound biblical reasons to question the Christianity of someone who practices or promotes homosexuality. They are defining themselves based upon what Paul describes if unnatural, lustful, & sinful desires. Essentially, sex or the bodies have become their idol. It can be seen as a form of idolatry. For many secularists, science has become an idol. But we know how easily that can be abused and how often scientists lie.

Christians should define themselves by their relationship with Christ. That's the meaning of the term after all. I know we all struggle with that, especially with our world growing more evil & depraved every day. But that's why we are called to be separate & distinct:

"For at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light." Ephesians 5:8

If you read the chapter for context, ail once again rejects sexual immorality:

"But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving." Ephesians 5:3-4

Paul condemns it no uncertain terms:

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Ephesians 5:5

Jesus Himself commanded his disciples to love one another so they could separate themselves from society:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

Lastly, we must be very careful in interpreting scripture not to give it any meaning not meant by God. At the very end of the Bible, there is a very clear warning not to change God's word:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

historian said:

---

If one reads the book of Romans in its entirety, or only Chapter 1, the meaning is pretty clear. Context definitely matters. This is why a popular method of teaching the gospel is the Roman Road:

"As it is written, 'None is righteous, no, not one.'" Romans 3:10

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

"But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9

"For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'" Romans 10:13

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Romans 5:1

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1

"For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39


One thing is certain from Romans, all of Paul's writings, & the Bible in it's entirety: God condemns sin and homosexuality is sinful. There is no honest way around that. As for so called "same sex marriage", the Bible does not mention it because it did not need to. It's the same as it always has been throughout human history: a man & a woman. (Yes, the Bible has many references to polygamy. I don't know if any scripture that says God approved or condones the practice.). The definition of marriage is clear. Marriage is a holy institution created by God. Man cannot redefine it for any reason. Fake marriage is sin because it's based upon sinful homosexuality.

---

You did not read the article carefully
"Until we have some consensus concerning the criteria for teasing out these distinctions, and thus differentiating between those assertions in scripture that can be legitimately questioned by science and those that must be accepted by faith, we will have no possibility of engaging in a meaningful dialogue about sexuality and same-sex marriage."
Paul is offering a natural theology rational for rejecting homosexuality and same-sex relations: they are an unnatural distortion of God's natural order for humanity flowing from the willful rejection of the creator and thus a debased mind incapable of understanding God's order and conforming to it.

But contemporary proponents of same sex marriage argue that science teaches us that homosexuality and same-sex relations are in fact part of the natural order God created. Accepting them is in fact to be more rational than accepting Paul's rejection of them.. His theological explanation of and rejection of this wholly natural phenomena is simply a relic of his pre-modern worldview, not unlike his understanding of the subordination of women in marriage.

Another one...

Male who identifies as trans has breakdown over being misgendered over the phone. He’s a male and has a deep voice and they called him sir.

This is what gender ideology does to young, confused people. Incredibly sad. pic.twitter.com/cqZtb8vKvu

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 6, 2023

"Unfortunately after creating embryos they all returned with chromosomal issues after PGT testing and we didn't have enough money at the time to try again."

All of these embryos were image-bearers of God. They should never have been artificially conceived only to be discarded. pic.twitter.com/cKKf89pdYu

— Ben Zeisloft (@BenZeisloft) December 7, 2023

historian said:

---

I did read it and responded accordingly. The question of homosexuality is one of morals, not science.

Premise 1) Science cannot legitimately question scripture, especially when that science blatantly contradicts scripture. What's your proof? Scripture? Then you have a circular argument as in Science cannot question scripture "What is proof? Scripture."
Specious, absurdity. The Enlightenment put to rest the notion that God can intervene
Did you even read my post? All too often, seemingly, scientists cannot even comprehend scripture as in the modern "experts" who cannot define "woman." It is not the job of scientists to comprehend scripture. The job of scientists is the scientific method.
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2][2][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-3][3][/url]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific.

Premise 2) Scientists have the same potential as anyone to be corrupt, greedy & dishonest. Yes, science can legitimately address scripture like the notion of 6, 000 year old earth or humans coexisting with dinosaurs. You are a historian if your title is right then you should know better.
While on the surface true; guard rail against this stupid idea is the scientific method.

Premise 3) Look at all the climate cultists who have definitive answers to questions no one can answer. Covid is an even better example. Many people no longer trust scientists & doctors because of all the devastation they caused based upon lies & fraud.
This nostrum is nonsense and you know it.

---

Your whole argument rests on circular fallacy "Scriptures are true because scripture says so." It's nonsense in any dialog as Robert Hunt points out.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your problem, Waco, is first that you are putting human assumption ahead of God's Scripture. Historian has already made that point crystal clear.

But you are also failing to consider the error in your quote from the 'Robert Hunt Perkins School of Theology':

The quote you referenced claims that Paul's warning was nothing but his personal beliefs according to the norms of his time. This claim fails when you consider that Paul had already radically changed his beliefs after becoming a follower of Christ.

Paul no longer saw Christians as dangerous heretics, but believers in the true Messiah.

Paul understood that Christ had already fulfilled the Law, so that many of the Laws given through Moses were no longer in force, such as the dietary rules.

Paul even convinced Peter that the Gospel was meant for Gentiles as well as Jews.

Therefore, to claim that Paul was unable to see beyond his own environment and culture is absurd on its face, disproved by the other writings of Paul that the person making the statement somehow ignored.

Anyone familiar with Scripture would have caught that, let alone any serious seminary student.

But I think we should stop and consider why Paul was so adamant about the danger of sexual immorality. After all, if on the one hand he was sure to remind us we are saved by Grace and so are free from the Law, why should this action be still so heinous?

This brings us back to what we know from Scripture.

Sexual desire is not wrong of itself, but like all of God's granted gifts you should use it the right way. Wrongful desire has always led to terrible consequences.

When Abraham had sex with Hagar in order to have a child because he believed Sarah could not, the birth of Ishmael started the rift between Judaism and what would become Islam.

The sexual immorality of Sodom was the final straw leading to its complete destruction.

David's unrighteous desire for Bathsheba led to God's wrath and a civil war in Israel.

I could go on, but it should obvious that immoral sexual desire is always described as wrong and leads to terrible consequences.

To understand this, consider that the only place in the Bible where we are recommended to swear an oath before God, is when we marry another person. And Christ very clearly said marriage is one man and one woman.

Stop and consider what lust is.

Lust is wrongful sexual desire. Lust is wrong because it turns the person desired into an object, demoting them from personhood. I believe that is the principal reason lust is wrong, because we are meant to see each other as persons and worthy of individual dignity (this is also why it matters how we treat the poor, the sick and others in need).

The problem with homosexuality, is that as a practice it has its roots in promiscuity. And because of that root, there is an essential problem to homosexuality which cannot be ignored.

---

he's engaging in theology for the purpose of subordinating truth to political ideology. No, I am not. Lust is sinful and causes countless heart aches in marriages and unions of any sort.

To understand this, consider that the only place in the Bible where we are recommended to swear an oath before God, is when we marry another person. Where does it say this

And Christ very clearly said marriage is one man and one woman. No, Jesus did not. He was asked about divorce not marriage. He used the only model in his opponents understanding of scripture at that time not for eternity.



Lust is wrongful sexual desire. Lust is wrong because it turns the person desired into an object, demoting them from personhood. I believe that is the principal reason lust is wrong, because we are meant to see each other as persons and worthy of individual dignity (this is also why it matters how we treat the poor, the sick and others in need). Indeed, this moral standard is true.

---

I disagree that that "lust" is the root cause of homosexuality. The "root cause" is indeterminate. We simply do not know but I trust the gays I know who say, "Waco, I am gay and always have been. I did not 'decide' to be gay or choose a 'Lifestyle' I am simply gay like you are straight."

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

I did read it and responded accordingly. The question of homosexuality is one of morals, not science.

Premise 1) Science cannot legitimately question scripture, especially when that science blatantly contradicts scripture. What's your proof? Scripture? Then you have a circular argument as in Science cannot question scripture "What is proof? Scripture."
Specious, absurdity. The Enlightenment put to rest the notion that God can intervene
Did you even read my post? All too often, seemingly, scientists cannot even comprehend scripture as in the modern "experts" who cannot define "woman." It is not the job of scientists to comprehend scripture. The job of scientists is the scientific method.
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2][2][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-3][3][/url]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific.

Premise 2) Scientists have the same potential as anyone to be corrupt, greedy & dishonest. Yes, science can legitimately address scripture like the notion of 6, 000 year old earth or humans coexisting with dinosaurs. You are a historian if your title is right then you should know better.
While on the surface true; guard rail against this stupid idea is the scientific method.

Premise 3) Look at all the climate cultists who have definitive answers to questions no one can answer. Covid is an even better example. Many people no longer trust scientists & doctors because of all the devastation they caused based upon lies & fraud.
This nostrum is nonsense and you know it.

---

FIFY:

Your whole argument rests on circular fallacy "What Robert Hunt says is true because Robert Hunt says so."

Given the choice between (A) 2000+ years of scriptural tradition and (B) one professor of Islam and World Religions, I'll choose (A).

https://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/FacultyListingA-Z/Hunt

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your problem, Waco, is first that you are putting human assumption ahead of God's Scripture. Historian has already made that point crystal clear.

But you are also failing to consider the error in your quote from the 'Robert Hunt Perkins School of Theology':

The quote you referenced claims that Paul's warning was nothing but his personal beliefs according to the norms of his time. This claim fails when you consider that Paul had already radically changed his beliefs after becoming a follower of Christ.

Paul no longer saw Christians as dangerous heretics, but believers in the true Messiah.

Paul understood that Christ had already fulfilled the Law, so that many of the Laws given through Moses were no longer in force, such as the dietary rules.

Paul even convinced Peter that the Gospel was meant for Gentiles as well as Jews.

Therefore, to claim that Paul was unable to see beyond his own environment and culture is absurd on its face, disproved by the other writings of Paul that the person making the statement somehow ignored.

Anyone familiar with Scripture would have caught that, let alone any serious seminary student.

But I think we should stop and consider why Paul was so adamant about the danger of sexual immorality. After all, if on the one hand he was sure to remind us we are saved by Grace and so are free from the Law, why should this action be still so heinous?

This brings us back to what we know from Scripture.

Sexual desire is not wrong of itself, but like all of God's granted gifts you should use it the right way. Wrongful desire has always led to terrible consequences.

When Abraham had sex with Hagar in order to have a child because he believed Sarah could not, the birth of Ishmael started the rift between Judaism and what would become Islam.

The sexual immorality of Sodom was the final straw leading to its complete destruction.

David's unrighteous desire for Bathsheba led to God's wrath and a civil war in Israel.

I could go on, but it should obvious that immoral sexual desire is always described as wrong and leads to terrible consequences.

To understand this, consider that the only place in the Bible where we are recommended to swear an oath before God, is when we marry another person. And Christ very clearly said marriage is one man and one woman.

Stop and consider what lust is.

Lust is wrongful sexual desire. Lust is wrong because it turns the person desired into an object, demoting them from personhood. I believe that is the principal reason lust is wrong, because we are meant to see each other as persons and worthy of individual dignity (this is also why it matters how we treat the poor, the sick and others in need).

The problem with homosexuality, is that as a practice it has its roots in promiscuity. And because of that root, there is an essential problem to homosexuality which cannot be ignored.

---

he's engaging in theology for the purpose of subordinating truth to political ideology. No, I am not. Lust is sinful and causes countless heart aches in marriages and unions of any sort.

To understand this, consider that the only place in the Bible where we are recommended to swear an oath before God, is when we marry another person. Where does it say this

And Christ very clearly said marriage is one man and one woman. No, Jesus did not. He was asked about divorce not marriage. He used the only model in his opponents understanding of scripture at that time not for eternity.



Lust is wrongful sexual desire. Lust is wrong because it turns the person desired into an object, demoting them from personhood. I believe that is the principal reason lust is wrong, because we are meant to see each other as persons and worthy of individual dignity (this is also why it matters how we treat the poor, the sick and others in need). Indeed, this moral standard is true.

---

I disagree that that "lust" is the root cause of homosexuality. The "root cause" is indeterminate. We simply do not know but I trust the gays I know who say, "Waco, I am gay and always have been. I did not 'decide' to be gay or choose a 'Lifestyle' I am simply gay like you are straight."

---

So in other words...

Paul is wrong. The Bible is wrong. God is wrong.

Waco and the butt pirates are right.

Somehow, Waco thinks that you can be a follower of Jesus, while you tell Jesus that He is wrong and you know better than the creator of the universe.

Waco is destined to burn in the lake of fire, and he will be complaining about pronouns throughout the screaming.

The biblical story from Creation to Revelation holistically is about the tension between the Will of G-d and the Desires of Mankind. It is consistent with the biblical story that those like Waco47 place their own wishes and desires above the perfect will of G-d. Ironically as usual, folks like him tend to have very literal interpretations of Scripture around deadly sins of greed, gluttony, wrath, and envy but conveniently ignore lust, sloth, and pride.

Excellent!

Homosexuals who think their lifestyle is "normal" or "natural" are deluded as much as the man who thinks he is a woman or vice versa. I doubt anyone woke up one day & decided to become homosexual but they certainly were not born that way. It's probably the result of a series of choices made throughout a lifetime so that it might seem natural or normal to the individual but it is not.

We are all sinners and we all make bad choices. Sometimes we repeat them and they become bad habits. Alcoholism and other forms of drug abuse are more common examples but addiction to porn or gambling are others as are greed, gluttony, and all the other major vices. In Proverbs there is a list of the seven deadly sins. Considering how destructive such behaviors can be, that's are pretty accurate description from 2,500 years ago.

Another example: I have a friend who is grossly overweight (at least 150 lbs more than he should be) leading to diabetes and other health problems. I've observed him many times over the years: he does not eat healthy and does not exercise. He has bad habits. But he told me recently that he cannot control his weight. It's the same thing with anyone else caught up in such things. And it is false.

As Christians, our job is to try to help them through prayer and compassion. But not through lies that encourage the destructive behavior. Thankfully, I think my friend has begun to make some changes. Hopefully they will be enough to reverse course and lead to a longer, healthier life for him. Homosexuals, alcoholics, addicted ti other drugs, & everyone else can do that. But they have to decide to and put in the effort.

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your problem, Waco, is first that you are putting human assumption ahead of God's Scripture. Historian has already made that point crystal clear.

But you are also failing to consider the error in your quote from the 'Robert Hunt Perkins School of Theology':

The quote you referenced claims that Paul's warning was nothing but his personal beliefs according to the norms of his time. This claim fails when you consider that Paul had already radically changed his beliefs after becoming a follower of Christ.

Paul no longer saw Christians as dangerous heretics, but believers in the true Messiah.

Paul understood that Christ had already fulfilled the Law, so that many of the Laws given through Moses were no longer in force, such as the dietary rules.

Paul even convinced Peter that the Gospel was meant for Gentiles as well as Jews.

Therefore, to claim that Paul was unable to see beyond his own environment and culture is absurd on its face, disproved by the other writings of Paul that the person making the statement somehow ignored.

Anyone familiar with Scripture would have caught that, let alone any serious seminary student.

But I think we should stop and consider why Paul was so adamant about the danger of sexual immorality. After all, if on the one hand he was sure to remind us we are saved by Grace and so are free from the Law, why should this action be still so heinous?

This brings us back to what we know from Scripture.

Sexual desire is not wrong of itself, but like all of God's granted gifts you should use it the right way. Wrongful desire has always led to terrible consequences.

When Abraham had sex with Hagar in order to have a child because he believed Sarah could not, the birth of Ishmael started the rift between Judaism and what would become Islam.

The sexual immorality of Sodom was the final straw leading to its complete destruction.

David's unrighteous desire for Bathsheba led to God's wrath and a civil war in Israel.

I could go on, but it should obvious that immoral sexual desire is always described as wrong and leads to terrible consequences.

To understand this, consider that the only place in the Bible where we are recommended to swear an oath before God, is when we marry another person. And Christ very clearly said marriage is one man and one woman.

Stop and consider what lust is.

Lust is wrongful sexual desire. Lust is wrong because it turns the person desired into an object, demoting them from personhood. I believe that is the principal reason lust is wrong, because we are meant to see each other as persons and worthy of individual dignity (this is also why it matters how we treat the poor, the sick and others in need).

The problem with homosexuality, is that as a practice it has its roots in promiscuity. And because of that root, there is an essential problem to homosexuality which cannot be ignored.

---

he's engaging in theology for the purpose of subordinating truth to political ideology. No, I am not. Lust is sinful and causes countless heart aches in marriages and unions of any sort.

To understand this, consider that the only place in the Bible where we are recommended to swear an oath before God, is when we marry another person. Where does it say this

And Christ very clearly said marriage is one man and one woman. No, Jesus did not. He was asked about divorce not marriage. He used the only model in his opponents understanding of scripture at that time not for eternity.



Lust is wrongful sexual desire. Lust is wrong because it turns the person desired into an object, demoting them from personhood. I believe that is the principal reason lust is wrong, because we are meant to see each other as persons and worthy of individual dignity (this is also why it matters how we treat the poor, the sick and others in need). Indeed, this moral standard is true.

---

I disagree that that "lust" is the root cause of homosexuality. The "root cause" is indeterminate. We simply do not know but I trust the gays I know who say, "Waco, I am gay and always have been. I did not 'decide' to be gay or choose a 'Lifestyle' I am simply gay like you are straight."

---

Your cited piece contradicts itself. I notice you ignored that little problem ...

historian said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

I did read it and responded accordingly. The question of homosexuality is one of morals, not science.

Premise 1) Science cannot legitimately question scripture, especially when that science blatantly contradicts scripture. What's your proof? Scripture? Then you have a circular argument as in Science cannot question scripture "What is proof? Scripture."
Specious, absurdity. The Enlightenment put to rest the notion that God can intervene
Did you even read my post? All too often, seemingly, scientists cannot even comprehend scripture as in the modern "experts" who cannot define "woman." It is not the job of scientists to comprehend scripture. The job of scientists is the scientific method.
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2][2][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-3][3][/url]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific.

Premise 2) Scientists have the same potential as anyone to be corrupt, greedy & dishonest. Yes, science can legitimately address scripture like the notion of 6, 000 year old earth or humans coexisting with dinosaurs. You are a historian if your title is right then you should know better.
While on the surface true; guard rail against this stupid idea is the scientific method.

Premise 3) Look at all the climate cultists who have definitive answers to questions no one can answer. Covid is an even better example. Many people no longer trust scientists & doctors because of all the devastation they caused based upon lies & fraud.
This nostrum is nonsense and you know it.

---

Your whole argument rests on circular fallacy "Scriptures are true because scripture says so." It's nonsense in any dialog as Robert Hunt points out.

---

No, I relied on a higher authority: God's word. And God's word has far more credibility than Robert Hunt. Oldbear83 very clearly explained some of Hunt's fallacies.

---

How do you know "God's authority "? Scripture and still circling a false argument. Your understanding of God is grounded in your view of scripture. It's still a circular argument.

Waco: "I trust the gays I know who say, "Waco, I am gay and always have been. "

Waco, let' s consider that statement.

There are men who want to have sex with minors, both heterosexual and homosexual. Such men often admit they have always felt that way. Does that make it moral?

There are people who had a short temper their whole lives. But they still need to fight against that impulse.

There are people who are alcoholic and therefore cannot have any strong drinks. They understand they must fight the desire for liquor.

So even if your statement is true, Waco, the issue of the morality of the behavior remains in dispute.

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

I did read it and responded accordingly. The question of homosexuality is one of morals, not science.

Premise 1) Science cannot legitimately question scripture, especially when that science blatantly contradicts scripture. What's your proof? Scripture? Then you have a circular argument as in Science cannot question scripture "What is proof? Scripture."
Specious, absurdity. The Enlightenment put to rest the notion that God can intervene
Did you even read my post? All too often, seemingly, scientists cannot even comprehend scripture as in the modern "experts" who cannot define "woman." It is not the job of scientists to comprehend scripture. The job of scientists is the scientific method.
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2][2][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-3][3][/url]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific.

Premise 2) Scientists have the same potential as anyone to be corrupt, greedy & dishonest. Yes, science can legitimately address scripture like the notion of 6, 000 year old earth or humans coexisting with dinosaurs. You are a historian if your title is right then you should know better.
While on the surface true; guard rail against this stupid idea is the scientific method.

Premise 3) Look at all the climate cultists who have definitive answers to questions no one can answer. Covid is an even better example. Many people no longer trust scientists & doctors because of all the devastation they caused based upon lies & fraud.
This nostrum is nonsense and you know it.

---

Your whole argument rests on circular fallacy "Scriptures are true because scripture says so." It's nonsense in any dialog as Robert Hunt points out.

---

No, I relied on a higher authority: God's word. And God's word has far more credibility than Robert Hunt. Oldbear83 very clearly explained some of Hunt's fallacies.

---

How do you know "God's authority "? Scripture and still circling a false argument. Your understanding of God is grounded in your view of scripture. It's still a circular argument.

---

Ridiculous deflection.

One of hundreds you have posted over the years attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

I did read it and responded accordingly. The question of homosexuality is one of morals, not science.

Premise 1) Science cannot legitimately question scripture, especially when that science blatantly contradicts scripture. What's your proof? Scripture? Then you have a circular argument as in Science cannot question scripture "What is proof? Scripture."
Specious, absurdity. The Enlightenment put to rest the notion that God can intervene
Did you even read my post? All too often, seemingly, scientists cannot even comprehend scripture as in the modern "experts" who cannot define "woman." It is not the job of scientists to comprehend scripture. The job of scientists is the scientific method.
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2][2][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-3][3][/url]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific.

Premise 2) Scientists have the same potential as anyone to be corrupt, greedy & dishonest. Yes, science can legitimately address scripture like the notion of 6, 000 year old earth or humans coexisting with dinosaurs. You are a historian if your title is right then you should know better.
While on the surface true; guard rail against this stupid idea is the scientific method.

Premise 3) Look at all the climate cultists who have definitive answers to questions no one can answer. Covid is an even better example. Many people no longer trust scientists & doctors because of all the devastation they caused based upon lies & fraud.
This nostrum is nonsense and you know it.

---

Your whole argument rests on circular fallacy "Scriptures are true because scripture says so." It's nonsense in any dialog as Robert Hunt points out.

---

No, I relied on a higher authority: God's word. And God's word has far more credibility than Robert Hunt. Oldbear83 very clearly explained some of Hunt's fallacies.

---

How do you know "God's authority "? Scripture and still circling a false argument. Your understanding of God is grounded in your view of scripture. It's still a circular argument.

---

The only circles are the ridiculous loops you are creating. I'm quoting scripture verbatim without interpretation. You quoted Robert Hunt, who is not God, and it was almost entirely interpretation. If you don't believe the Bible is God's word, just say it and stop wasting our time.