Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7

[Right Divider]

You continue to avoid a direct question is all you do. If you believe you're actually "going with God" on the matter then you've had ample opportunity to declare that you think that modern society in the present should have homosexuality and adultery as capital crimes. You don't even have the courage of your convictions to say so RD.

As if I need to "justify the courage of my convictions" to an Internet troll that cannot make an argument and is known on this site as Mr. Fallacy.

You can shout in all caps all you want and project your own pomposity and legalism onto me all ya want (funny though it is). Reducing that entire event to Jesus solely avoiding a legal trap set by the then day fundamentalists is beyond feeble really. Why did Jesus write on the ground? Why were the crowd made to shuffle off as they did cos it wasn't through force. Why did Jesus utter the words He did?

Again, those things are irrelevant to the REASON that Jesus told her that she had NO ACCUSERS. Thereby making her innocent by reason of NO WITNESSES per the LAW.

You wanna reduce it to 'not enough witnesses' then you crack on RD.

It's just the truth and you've provide NO alternative ARGUMENT.

Something tells me that you know fine well there was a whole load more to it than that.

Nope. Get a life and make an argument, you demented troll.

 

[Idolater]

They don't see it that way

Traditional Christianity does, and always has (iow it's not extremist or extremism, although if one were to accuse traditional Christian ethics of being extreme or extremist I would suspect the accuser is confessing through projecting). It's not just the Muslims and the Catholics who think this way though, Buddhists too. The Dali Lama himself said it's misconduct.

, and who can blame them?

Depends what you mean by blaming. Are they accountable, responsible, for their view? I say yes they are, which is just like all the rest of us. I'm responsible for my views. But have I been deceived and tricked, at times, in my life? Yeah. So am I fully responsible, if I've been lied to by someone I might have trusted? I can't really give you a yes or no, it depends. In a sense being hoodwinked isn't my fault, but on the other hand, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

So idk. I guess a part of me could say I can blame them. But really I'm not interested in blame here, I'm interested in protecting kids from getting into bad habits as children, tantamount to falling into a deep pit, because they were tricked while young and defenseless, into making an almost irrevocable life choice, which leads them down a gloomy path.

I posted the tweet with the meme because it's not said enough, that the traditional Christian view of the matter, for those with this ideation, is celibacy. It's not any sort of condemnation to not be called to the vocation of marriage. Those with these desires are clearly not called to marriage. Perhaps the psychological cause will be isolated one day so that it can be healed, but rn we all know it would take a miraculous cure for a Pride person to see things a different way. We just have to accept them for who they are, and not try to make them something they're not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As if I need to "justify the courage of my convictions" to an Internet troll that cannot make an argument and is known on this site as Mr. Fallacy.

Again, those things are irrelevant to the REASON that Jesus told her that she had NO ACCUSERS. Thereby making her innocent by reason of NO WITNESSES per the LAW.

It's just the truth and you've provide NO alternative ARGUMENT.

Nope. Get a life and make an argument, you demented troll.

You should be glad to stand by your convictions no matter who's asking the question. If you can't or won't then it says a lot. Then again, given how you're reduced to feeble name calling and acting like a man child instead of a calm, reasonable adult it's not a surprise. You never have been the most mature of posters on here and if you can't see anything deeper in the case of the adulterous woman other than it being all about Jesus avoiding a trap then you're hardly any brighter than the legalists of the time. You're certainly as self righteous.

Got a life thanks and I leave the demented stuff to the far right brigade, there's plenty of it...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Traditional Christianity does, and always has (iow it's not extremist or extremism, although if one were to accuse traditional Christian ethics of being extreme or extremist I would suspect the accuser is confessing through projecting). It's not just the Muslims and the Catholics who think this way though, Buddhists too. The Dali Lama himself said it's misconduct.

Depends what you mean by blaming. Are they accountable, responsible, for their view? I say yes they are, which is just like all the rest of us. I'm responsible for my views. But have I been deceived and tricked, at times, in my life? Yeah. So am I fully responsible, if I've been lied to by someone I might have trusted? I can't really give you a yes or no, it depends. In a sense being hoodwinked isn't my fault, but on the other hand, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

So idk. I guess a part of me could say I can blame them. But really I'm not interested in blame here, I'm interested in protecting kids from getting into bad habits as children, tantamount to falling into a deep pit, because they were tricked while young and defenseless, into making an almost irrevocable life choice, which leads them down a gloomy path.

I posted the tweet with the meme because it's not said enough, that the traditional Christian view of the matter, for those with this ideation, is celibacy. It's not any sort of condemnation to not be called to the vocation of marriage. Those with these desires are clearly not called to marriage. Perhaps the psychological cause will be isolated one day so that it can be healed, but rn we all know it would take a miraculous cure for a Pride person to see things a different way. We just have to accept them for who they are, and not try to make them something they're not.

Christianity in the main at least doesn't have much of an issue with it, it's really more the fundamental branches that do. If you think there's some psychological cause that can be isolated and "cured" then then that's pretty out there frankly. Some people are simply homosexual Idolater and should have the same relationship rights as anyone else. If someone wants to be celibate then all well and good, in no way should they be expected to be however.

 

[Right Divider]

You should be glad to stand by your convictions no matter who's asking the question. If you can't or won't then it says a lot. Then again, given how you're reduced to feeble name calling and acting like a man child instead of a calm, reasonable adult it's not a surprise. You never have been the most mature of posters on here and if you can't see anything deeper in the case of the adulterous woman other than it being all about Jesus avoiding a trap then you're hardly any brighter than the legalists of the time. You're certainly as self righteous.

Note that without witnesses you are FALSELY calling the woman "adulterous". THAT (no witnesses) is why Jesus acquitted her. The only self-righteous person between us is YOU. You believe that you know better than God what is right and wrong.

Got a life thanks and I leave the demented stuff to the far right brigade, there's plenty of it...

Your posts are .

 

[Idolater]

Christianity in the main at least doesn't have much of an issue with it, it's really more the fundamental branches that do.

You think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are "fundamental branches?"

If you think there's some psychological cause that can be isolated and "cured" then then that's pretty out there frankly.

Didn't I say that pretty much all of us know that "curing" would require a miracle? How's that "out there?"

Some people are simply homosexual Idolater

That's pretty much what I said.

and should have the same relationship rights as anyone else.

Catholicism agrees.

If someone wants to be celibate then all well and good, in no way should they be expected to be however.

Depends what you mean by "expected."

 

[annabenedetti]

man child

There are more than a few of those here…

 

[annabenedetti]

Eloquent.

 

[Right Divider]

Eloquent.

You've misspelled "appropriate".

 

[7djengo7]

Eloquent.

What that you have posted is more so? Naught.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Note that without witnesses you are FALSELY calling the woman "adulterous". THAT (no witnesses) is why Jesus acquitted her. The only self-righteous person between us is YOU. You believe that you know better than God what is right and wrong.

Your posts are .

i'll concede your first as there's nothing that really establishes her guilt one way or the other, she could have been entirely innocent and set up. The say so of a few witnesses doesn't establish a person's guilt in itself. All of her accusers shuffled off after Jesus invited any who were without sin to cast the first stone after also writing on the ground. What do you suppose Jesus was writing RD? For the sake of argument, suppose two of her accusers had remained behind. You reckon Jesus would have condemned her instead of what He did?

Your posts are often just pathetically immature, a common trait with some on the far right unfortunately. A childish and angry little lot at times...

 

[Arthur Brain]

You think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are "fundamental branches?"

Didn't I say that pretty much all of us know that "curing" would require a miracle? How's that "out there?"

That's pretty much what I said.

Catholicism agrees.

Depends what you mean by "expected."

You seem to think that there's some sort of 'psychological cause' for homosexuality that can be isolated and cured. That's nonsense. Some people are just naturally homosexual. It's not something that can be 'cured'. Those atrocious 'conversion therapy' centers (thankfully shut down for the most part nowadays) only succeeded in abusing people.

Celibacy is up to the individual.

 

[Right Divider]

i'll concede your first as there's nothing that really establishes her guilt one way or the other, she could have been entirely innocent and set up. The say so of a few witnesses doesn't establish a person's guilt in itself. All of her accusers shuffled off after Jesus invited any who were without sin to cast the first stone after also writing on the ground.

Yes, they all left and there were no accusers left. It is very likely that is was a setup. Like the old saying, "It take two to tango". Where was the MAN that she was accused of committing adultery with?

What do you suppose Jesus was writing RD?

I don't know for sure but that does not negate my point about the law.

For the sake of argument, suppose two of her accusers had remained behind. You reckon Jesus would have condemned her instead of what He did?

Jesus followed the law. He is the only person that every followed the law perfectly.

Your posts are often just pathetically immature, a common trait with some on the far right unfortunately. A childish and angry little lot at times...

I don't care what you think about my level of maturity.

 

[Right Divider]

You seem to think that there's some sort of 'psychological cause' for homosexuality that can be isolated and cured.

According to God, the act is worthy of the death penalty.

Some people are just naturally homosexual.

Prove it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, they all left and there were no accusers left. It is very likely that is was a setup. Like the old saying, "It take two to tango". Where was the MAN that she was accused of committing adultery with?

I don't know for sure but that does not negate my point about the law.

Jesus followed the law. He is the only person that every followed the law perfectly.

I don't care what you think about my level of maturity.

He should have absolutely been hauled into the situation as well.

Well, whatever He wrote - along with His invitation for anyone without sin to cast the first stone - sure caused this self righteous mob to leave the scene didn't it? Also, even if there had been sufficient witnesses to carry out the sentence, who in good conscience could cast stones being as they were guilty of sin themselves? Still can't see anything deeper going on here and it's all just about avoiding a legal snare?

I'm not arguing that Jesus didn't follow the law. I'm asking you if you think He would have condemned the woman if there were still accusers who remained behind.

I didn't remotely expect you to care. Carry on with the juvenile if ya like.

 

[Arthur Brain]

According to God, the act is worthy of the death penalty.

Prove it.

That's what you think should be enacted in the present is it?

Prove it isn't or acknowledge the obvious for a change.

 

[Right Divider]

He should have absolutely been hauled into the situation as well.

Indeed.

Well, whatever He wrote - along with His invitation for anyone without sin to cast the first stone - sure caused this self righteous mob to leave the scene didn't it?

Do you think that maybe Jesus saw through their trickery?

Also, even if there had been sufficient witnesses to carry out the sentence, who in good conscience could cast stones being as they were guilty of sin themselves?

Are you aware that "people guilty of sin themselves" were still tasked with carrying out the requirements of the law?

Still can't see anything deeper going on here and it's all just about avoiding a legal snare?

There's plenty going on there. That does not negate the acquittal based on the law's requirements.

I'm not arguing that Jesus didn't follow the law.

Good for you.

I'm asking you if you think He would have condemned the woman if there were still accusers who remained behind.

Per the law, yes. Jesus was not a law breaker.

I didn't remotely expect you to care. Carry on with the juvenile if ya like.

Thanks so much.

 

[Right Divider]

That's what you think should be enacted in the present is it?

Prove it isn't or acknowledge the obvious for a change.

What does God say?

Prove what isn't? Why can you never speak clearly?

 

[Arthur Brain]

What does God say?

Prove what isn't? Why can you never speak clearly?

In regards to homosexuality, not very much and it's only the modern day equivalent of the legalists of the time that think we should have laws in the present that should make it a capital crime.

Prove that people aren't naturally homosexual. There's plenty who'll tell you they are. Did you choose to be straight?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Indeed.

Do you think that maybe Jesus saw through their trickery?

Are you aware that "people guilty of sin themselves" were still tasked with carrying out the requirements of the law?

There's plenty going on there. That does not negate the acquittal based on the law's requirements.

Good for you.

Per the law, yes. Jesus was not a law breaker.

Thanks so much.

Maybe see through their trickery? I'd say it was a given.

Yes, which makes it all the more telling that Jesus said what He did.

So, if two of the woman's accusers had remained behind you reckon Jesus would have condemned the woman?