23 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd yet I have very different stance towards homosexuality (as you well know) and you still play the same games with me.
Like when you support the ostracization of homosexuals from your church and I point out the hypocrisy and bigoted nature of such a stance? I imagine it IS frustrating to have someone point out such a truth and that doesn't accept your attempts to justify your bigotry.
There was a time when we exchanged ideas and thoughts without all this other stuff going on. But even back then you just refused to answer questions and would not debate in a fair and reasonable manner.
I then called you out on this and the "liar" , "dishonest" , "delusional" stuff started to pour out of you.
23 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwReal Christians don't ostracize anyone. But when an individual practices what God calls a sin, and sits in a church where the Bible is preached, they get uncomfortable and either repent or they go away on their own.
God calls homosexuality abominable.
Real Christians don't ostracize anyone. But when an individual practices what God calls a sin, and sits in a church where the Bible is preached, they get uncomfortable and either repent or they go away on their own.
There seems to be very few who are willing to go to a church where God's word is preached. Especially ...[text shortened]... homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It never has and it never will. God certainly won't.
Based on what they've said in the past, then W and RC are not "real Christians" by your definition.
Who are they to judge homosexuals as being unfit to attend their church when they themselves sin and /or they allow people with other sins?
24 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere was a time when we exchanged ideas and thoughts without all this other stuff going on. But even back then you just refused to answer questions and would not debate in a fair and reasonable manner.
And yet I have very different stance towards homosexuality (as you well know) and you still play the same games with me.
There was a time when we exchanged ideas and thoughts without all this other stuff going on. But even back then you just refused to answer questions and would not debate in a fair and reasonable manner.
I then called you out on this and the "liar" , "dishonest" , "delusional" stuff started to pour out of you.
I then called you out on this and the "liar" , "dishonest" , "delusional" stuff started to pour out of you.
This is just not true. I pointed out you were a "liar" when you started lying.
You lied on this very thread when you said, "The one thing I don't want is for this thread to turn into a "have a go at ToOne" thread" as evidenced by your OP and subsequent post that both "had a go" at me.
I pointed out you were "dishonest" when you started misrepresenting me.
If I've pointed out that you are "delusional" (which I don't recall doing), then it was because your position was delusional. Recently I did call JW delusional simply because he insisted on keeping the position that those "born of God" do not and cannot sin, yet can continue to sin. This position is irrational and his insistence on adhering to an irrational belief speaks to delusion.
24 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneno its not, you have slithered hither and zither, as usual. Every organisation in the world has rules of conduct to which its adherents must apply. If you do not meet the criteria, then your out. Its as simple as that. If every organisation abandoned its rules of conduct on the basis of some preference of its individuals, there would by anarchy. Now you shall answer the question, does an organisation have the right to stipulate who it shall entertain and who it shall not, based on rules of conduct.
Read it again. The explanation is there and is clear.
24 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf he supports "rules of conduct" that are bigoted and hypocritical, then he is also bigoted and hypocritical.
no its not, you have slithered hither and zither, as usual. Every organisation in the world has rules of conduct to which its adherents must apply. If you do not meet the criteria, then your out. Its as simple as that. If every organisation abandoned its rules of conduct on the basis of some preference of its individuals, there would by anarchy. ...[text shortened]... e the right to stipulate who it shall entertain and who it shall not, based on rules of conduct.
Now all you're doing is trying to hide behind the "organization". You're the one "slithering".
24 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIs not allowing a man to join an all ladies swimming club, in your opinion, bigoted, if not why not? What is the objection based upon? If you have 'goolies', you cannot join. Its not the mans fault that he has 'goolies', is it? please explain the difference?
If he supports "rules of conduct" that are bigoted and hypocritical, then he is also bigoted and hypocritical.
Now all you're doing is trying to hide behind the "organization".
24 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow you're attempting to justify your bigotry and hypocrisy via "an all ladies swimming club"? What's next? Santa only employing elves in his workshop?
Is not allowing a man to join an all ladies swimming club, in your opinion, bigoted, if not why not? What is the objection based upon? If you have 'goolies', you cannot join. Its not the mans fault that he has 'goolies', is it? please explain the difference?
24 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt has nothing to do with me trying to justify anything. Instead of attacking me personally, try sticking to the script for a change. Are those ladies bigots or are they not? if not, why are they not? for they have excluded others on the basis of gender, if you please. If you cannot provide a coherent answer then i am forced to assume that any organisation may exclude any one they deem to breach the rules of conduct and your assertions of bigotry are simply just the ramblings of a bitter and contorted individual, who in seeking to establish his own criteria on what may or may not be validated as inspired, has ignored the entire biblical cannon , and used the teachings of Christ an an excuse for a sexual preference, and one condemned by God at that. Dont stick your 'willie', where it is not designed to go and you shall be alright!
Now you're attempting to justify your bigotry and hypocrisy via "an all ladies swimming club"? What's next? Santa only employing elves in his workshop?
24 Feb 10
1 edit
Are you going to ignore this earlier post? Why is it when there's a chance to get down to brass tacks, you have nothing to say? Your usual tack is to ask irrelevant questions and the cry foul when I call them irrelevant.
Did you get past the first sentence?
I'll rephrase it in case you were unable to comprehend my prior post. This is the spirituality forum. People express their views on spiritual matters. Sometimes people are going to express views on spiritual matters that don't coincide with your own. They are not "stalking your beliefs". They are using the forum as intended.
The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behaviour. The real Jesus is much more patient with us than this and has immense compassion for our failings.
If this was so important to the teachings of Jesus, you should have no problem producing passages from when He walked the Earth and taught something akin to, "I have spoken at length as to what is and what is not righteous. However, this is impossible to achieve. You are all flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behavior. With this in mind and because of my patience and immense compassion for your failings, everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; even those who do not do the will of my Father who is in heaven."
This is your chance to show how your understanding of Jesus is fully supported by His teachings. After you've posted them all, I can repost the passages of His teachings that support my position. Maybe we can then work on reconciling them together.
24 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you aren't trying to justify those, including yourself, who support the bigotry and hypocrisy of ostracizing homosexuals from their church, then what are you doing? Earlier you claimed that it is because it goes against "the revealed word of God", yet you allow members to remain who also go against "the revealed word of God". If you wear clothing made of more than one type of fiber, such as a cotton / poly blend, then you too go against "the revealed word of God".
It has nothing to do with me trying to justify anything. Instead of attacking me personally, try sticking to the script for a change. Are those ladies bigots or are they not? if not, why are they not? for they have excluded others on the basis of gender, if you please.
24 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI know. I know.
[b]Real Christians don't ostracize anyone. But when an individual practices what God calls a sin, and sits in a church where the Bible is preached, they get uncomfortable and either repent or they go away on their own.
Based on what they've said in the past, then W and RC are not "real Christians" by your definition.
Who are they to judge homose ...[text shortened]... t to attend their church when they themselves sin and /or they allow people with other sins?[/b]
It's a complicated mess. I have nothing against homosexuals. They are people, and sinners, just like everyone else. But the warning against homosexuality is clear and affirmative, but so is every other sin.
I'm not going to single out any one group of people as worse than any other. We're all on this sinking ship together, and all I seek to do is the best I can to present the good news of God's grace to all I meet.
It seems I'm doing a poor job of it around here. :'(
24 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnewhy is that, for the mosaic law has been nullified in practise, although the principles remain. Its not our fault that the Bible condemns homosexuality, we did not write it did we? But i am tired and bored of this argument, you have proffered no reason why anyone should not exclude homosexuals from becoming members of the congregation as every other organisation has rules of conduct its adherents must abide by, thus your assertions of bigotry are without foundation and simply reflect a desperate attempt to discredit the character of those who oppose your own personal world view.
If you aren't trying to justify those, including yourself, who support the bigotry and hypocrisy of ostracizing homosexuals from their church, then what are you doing? Earlier you claimed that it is because it goes against "the revealed word of God", yet you allow members to remain who also go against "the revealed word of God". If you wear clothing made ...[text shortened]... fiber, such as a cotton / poly blend, then you too go against "the revealed word of God".
24 Feb 10
4 edits
Originally posted by josephwI'm glad you recognize the hypocrisy of those who support the ostracization of homosexuals from their church. Yes, they are people. Unfortunately there are many, like W and RC, who seem to see them as less than people and use the Bible as a weapon in furthering their bigotry. Look at how RC keeps trying to justify his position even though it is indefensible. Look at the manner of his "defense". He hides behind the Bible and the "organization". It is devoid of reason and justice. I have to believe that Jesus would point out their hypocrisy.
I know. I know.
It's a complicated mess. I have nothing against homosexuals. They are people, and sinners, just like everyone else. But the warning against homosexuality is clear and affirmative, but so is every other sin.
I'm not going to single out any one group of people as worse than any other. We're all on this sinking ship together, and all I se ...[text shortened]... news of God's grace to all I meet.
It seems I'm doing a poor job of it around here. :'(
24 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe point is that you allow others who sin to remain even though they also go against "the revealed word of God". If your church only allowed those who do not sin, then I would have less problem with it. Then at least you wouldn't be a hypocrite, though I'd still think that you understand nothing of the teachings of Jesus.
why is that, for the mosaic law has been nullified in practise, although the principles remain. Its not our fault that the Bible condemns homosexuality, we did not write it did we? But i am tired and bored of this argument, you have proffered no reason why anyone should not exclude homosexuals from becoming members of the congregation as every othe ...[text shortened]... a desperate attempt to discredit the character of those who oppose your own personal world view.