historian said:

---

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.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"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

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"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

---

My God, just adopt. That's what my wife and I did. It was not easy but seems much better than mixing and matching sperm, egg and surrogate.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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:

---

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."

---

historian said:

---

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.

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Circular arguments. Try to around them. I doubt you can.

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Circular arguments. Try to around them. I doubt you can.

---

You are certainly making circular arguments, among many other fallacies, but in this case you are literally supercopying someone else's comments and ascribing them to me.

Your position on this question does not make you any more less moral than anyone else. It just makes you wrong on the question. The same cannot be said for how you react to the opposition you get (questioning the character of others for disagreeing with you). Virtue posturing is very prideful behavior.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Circular arguments. Try to around them. I doubt you can.

---

You are certainly making circular arguments, among many other fallacies, but in this case you are literally supercopying someone else's comments and ascribing them to me.

Your position on this question does not make you any more less moral than anyone else. It just makes you wrong on the question. The same cannot be said for how you react to the opposition you get (questioning the character of others for disagreeing with you). Virtue posturing is very prideful behavior.

---

Lying assertions without evidence or proof. Please lay it out for me. I am careful to talk about stupid ideas and not stupid people.

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Circular arguments. Try to around them. I doubt you can.

---

You are certainly making circular arguments, among many other fallacies, but in this case you are literally supercopying someone else's comments and ascribing them to me.

Your position on this question does not make you any more less moral than anyone else. It just makes you wrong on the question. The same cannot be said for how you react to the opposition you get (questioning the character of others for disagreeing with you). Virtue posturing is very prideful behavior.

---

Lying assertions without evidence or proof. Please lay it out for me. I am careful to talk about stupid ideas and not stupid people.

---

LOL I can hear the ....(sniff).... of condescension in that post as you hit enter.

You super copied a whole bunch of quotes I didn't make, to refute a simple statement: you are engaging in a priori theology for the purpose of justifying your own beliefs rather than the obvious truth of scripture.

And we have a whole thread of your virtue posturing as evidence

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Circular arguments. Try to around them. I doubt you can.

---

You are certainly making circular arguments, among many other fallacies, but in this case you are literally supercopying someone else's comments and ascribing them to me.

Your position on this question does not make you any more less moral than anyone else. It just makes you wrong on the question. The same cannot be said for how you react to the opposition you get (questioning the character of others for disagreeing with you). Virtue posturing is very prideful behavior.

---

Lying assertions without evidence or proof. Please lay it out for me. I am careful to talk about stupid ideas and not stupid people.

---

LOL I can hear the ....(sniff).... of condescension in that post as you hit enter.

You super copied a whole bunch of quotes I didn't make, to refute a simple statement: you are engaging in a priori theology for the purpose of justifying your own beliefs rather than the obvious truth of scripture.

And we have a whole thread of your virtue posturing as evidence

---

Maybe I am virtue signaling but that is immaterial to the Truth of what I say.
I am not as arrogant in a one sided belief doctrine ass you espouse.
"Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves. It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else."--Archibald Macleish

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Circular arguments. Try to around them. I doubt you can.

---

You are certainly making circular arguments, among many other fallacies, but in this case you are literally supercopying someone else's comments and ascribing them to me.

Your position on this question does not make you any more less moral than anyone else. It just makes you wrong on the question. The same cannot be said for how you react to the opposition you get (questioning the character of others for disagreeing with you). Virtue posturing is very prideful behavior.

---

I am careful to talk about stupid ideas and not stupid people.

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

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

---

Shoutout to Barnes & Noble for their banned books section. We need more people & orgs standing up for the freedom to read these books! pic.twitter.com/AOnMYtnVmk

— Chris Strider (@stridinstrider) December 9, 2023

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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."

---

you cited a whole bunch of crap there I did not say.

But I did call you out for engaging in theology to find arcane justifications for beliefs that make you feel not just good but morally superior to others, no matter how obviously the texts refute your position entirely.

---

Circular arguments. Try to around them. I doubt you can.

---

You are certainly making circular arguments, among many other fallacies, but in this case you are literally supercopying someone else's comments and ascribing them to me.

Your position on this question does not make you any more less moral than anyone else. It just makes you wrong on the question. The same cannot be said for how you react to the opposition you get (questioning the character of others for disagreeing with you). Virtue posturing is very prideful behavior.

---

Lying assertions without evidence or proof. Please lay it out for me. I am careful to talk about stupid ideas and not stupid people.

---

LOL I can hear the ....(sniff).... of condescension in that post as you hit enter.

You super copied a whole bunch of quotes I didn't make, to refute a simple statement: you are engaging in a priori theology for the purpose of justifying your own beliefs rather than the obvious truth of scripture.

And we have a whole thread of your virtue posturing as evidence

---

Maybe I am virtue signaling but that is immaterial to the Truth of what I say.
I am not as arrogant in a one sided belief doctrine ass you espouse.
"Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves. It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else."--Archibald Macleish

---

The @nytimes wrote this piece on how Bellevue is doing too many bariatric surgeries, as if it's harming obese people.

Meanwhile no mention of permanent gender surgeries on minors.https://t.co/87XVHs6zvD

— Andrea E (@AAC0519) December 10, 2023

Waco1947 said:

---

Because this site seems to count out other religions as worthy of belief. For the 4 billion who are not Christian what does "one way" mean? What about Christians who have a different interpretation of "one way"?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Because this site seems to count out other religions as worthy of belief. For the 4 billion who are not Christian what does "one way" mean? What about Christians who have a different interpretation of "one way"?

---

1. Do you even know what the title "Christ" means? It refers to one person only, a specific person, 'anointed' by God for a specific purpose. It does not, and never has, meant someone who is one of many or just like other men who taught moral lessons. When used in context of Judaism, it has always referred to the Messiah, one man who intercedes for us with God the Father.

2. Jesus was always clear that following Him would mean being at odds with the world. It does not matter what most people want or like, being Christian means holding to Christ's teaching and commands even though they would be unpopular; Jesus even warned brothers would argue with brothers over him, and fathers with sons. There is only one way to serve Christ, and He was absolutely clear about that.

3. You may do as you see right. But if you deny Scripture in order to do what you want, then you make yourself your own god. Denying this truth will not change that it is so.

---

KingHendy said:

---

All- It's best not to reply to Waco. This poster is clearly not the same person as it was during Covid/last election. Different writing styles and more confrontational. Best to just ignore.

---