For clarification!

[subllibrm]

Uhhg.  No they are not born with an inclination to a particular sin.  They learn it....they think on it...  they then act on it.  Your attempt to blame God...it seems to me is rediculous.  It is sin no matter which sin and you are responsible to God for it..period.

Nurture/nature. What difference does it make? We are all born with an inclination to sin. Actually the inabilty not to sin. Toddlers do not need to "learn it .... think on it ... then act on it" to disobey. Who knows when or where our "inclinations" come from? I am at no risk of becoming a drunk, because I can't stand the taste of alcohol. But leave a bag of Hersey Kisses out and they and I will commune until one of us is no more. I developed a taste for one and not the other. I can believe that there are people with a same sex attraction that predates, at minimum, their conscious memory. Born that way? I have doubts and it would still not be an excuse. But if they say they cannot remember never being otherwise how am I to claim differently?

Bob - "I cannot remember a time when I was ever attracted to girls but I have always felt an attractions to boys".

ubyy - "Yes you did like girls and then you learned, thought and acted. Stop blaming God".

Yeah, that is going no where fast.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Really? I must have missed the passages where God told people to attach themselves to people with whom they have no interest simply so they didn't have to control their passions.

Yeah. I posted the verse. Too bad you hold the bible in such contempt.

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

And to jump on point 3, "to marry instead of burn" is a very poor reason to marry, IMHO.

Wow. You really have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Do you really think God has given us a "very poor reason to marry" in 1 Corinthians 7:2? "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And to jump on point 3, "to marry instead of burn" is a very poor reason to marry, IMHO.

Wow. You really have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Do you really think God has given us a "very poor reason to marry" in 1 Corinthians 7:2? "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

I think that was "of Paul" and not "of God". Look at the rest of the chapter as he admits much of his view was his personal opinion and not from God.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So do you really believe that marrying solely to have free sex is healthy for a marriage relationship? Perhaps back in the day when women were considered to be property so true love in the marriage relationship didn't matter, but I believe in our society, as well as believing Jesus promoted gender equality, I disagree that sex should be the primary reason to marry another. I don't care if Paul said it or not.

It seems to me that Paul seemed to have some contempt for an intimate marriage. He did not believe one could be married and totally devoted to God:

From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none...

The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,  and his interests are divided... I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

So Paul's view of marriage is that the woman is there for sex and since the husband cannot devote himself to both her and God at the same time, he should use her for sex and live his life in devotion to God as if he weren't married. Sorry, but I won't buy into that, baby down the drain or not.

 

[rsc2a]

Really? I must have missed the passages where God told people to attach themselves to people with whom they have no interest simply so they didn't have to control their passions.

Yeah. I posted the verse. Too bad you hold the bible in such contempt.

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Is it better for some guy and his gal to get married rather than put it off for years until "they can afford it" or they graduate college or whatever? Sure (most often).

Is it wise for someone marry another person of whom they have absolutely no interest in whatsoever simply so they can have sex with them? No...actually that would be definitively evil.

Am I surprised that a hyper-fundie (male) is making marriage primarily about sex, ignoring the high calling of singleness, and treating people with homosexual attraction as if their attraction isn't real? Nope.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

I think that was "of Paul" and not "of God". Look at the rest of the chapter as he admits much of his view was his personal opinion and not from God.

When Paul made such statements he did not mean that what he was writing was not the inspired word of God. What he meant was that this was not something Jesus addressed during His earthly ministry. But Paul's epistles still carry the full weight of inspired scripture.

So do you really believe that marrying solely to have free sex is healthy for a marriage relationship?

I have never made any such statement and do not believe any such thing. What I said was that a man who experienced same-gender attraction had, as an option, to find a woman he could love, and who loved him, and explain the situation to her and have her help him resist the same-gender temptations while giving him a legitimate outlet for his sex drive.

I don't care if Paul said it or not.

Even when Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Really? I must have missed the passages where God told people to attach themselves to people with whom they have no interest simply so they didn't have to control their passions.

Yeah. I posted the verse. Too bad you hold the bible in such contempt.

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Is it better for some guy and his gal to get married rather than put it off for years until "they can afford it" or they graduate college or whatever? Sure (most often).

Is it wise for someone marry another person of whom they have absolutely no interest in whatsoever simply so they can have sex with them? No...actually that would be definitively evil.

Am I surprised that a hyper-fundie (male) is making marriage primarily about sex, ignoring the high calling of singleness, and treating people with homosexual attraction as if their attraction isn't real? Nope.

Your posts are so full of lies I am not even going to respond to them.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When Paul made such statements he did not mean that what he was writing was not the inspired word of God. What he meant was that this was not something Jesus addressed during His earthly ministry. But Paul's epistles still carry the full weight of inspired scripture.

Much of what Paul wrote was stuff Jesus never addressed during His earthly ministry. And no, his words do not carry the same weight as those that Jesus spoke. I do admit that all we have of Jesus was that which was said that He said but if Jesus is to be the only teacher and a servant is not greater than his master, then the words of Jesus (as we understand it) should carry more weight.

have never made any such statement and do not believe any such thing. What I said was that a man who experienced same-gender attraction had, as an option, to find a woman he could love, and who loved him, and explain the situation to her and have her help him resist the same-gender temptations while giving him a legitimate outlet for his sex drive.

I wasn't talking about what you said, but rather about what Paul said: that it is better to marry for sex than to burn in lust and to "use" one's wife in that manner so he can keep his thoughts on the things of God.

Even when Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Though he was right sometimes, I don't believe he ever did.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Though he was right sometimes, I don't believe he ever did [write under inspiration].

Then we have no basis to continue the discussion.

 

[Bruh]

Though he was right sometimes, I don't believe he ever did [write under inspiration].

Then we have no basis to continue the discussion.

Hard to believe that a person that claims to be born again believes like Smell in Coffee.

 

[rsc2a]

Though he was right sometimes, I don't believe he ever did [write under inspiration].

Then we have no basis to continue the discussion.

Hard to believe that a person that claims to be born again believes like Smell in Coffee.

Jesus saves us, not our acceptance of Paul's authority. Not even our knowledge of Jesus. Simply Jesus.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Though he was right sometimes, I don't believe he ever did [write under inspiration].

Then we have no basis to continue the discussion.

Hard to believe that a person that claims to be born again believes like Smell in Coffee.

Jesus saves us, not our acceptance of Paul's authority. Not even our knowledge of Jesus. Simply Jesus.

Exactly.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Though he was right sometimes, I don't believe he ever did [write under inspiration].

Then we have no basis to continue the discussion.

Hard to believe that a person that claims to be born again believes like Smell in Coffee.

Jesus saves us, not our acceptance of Paul's authority. Not even our knowledge of Jesus. Simply Jesus.

Exactly.

You're both exactingly..... wrong.

To say Jesus saves....without someone having knowledge of him is entirely ridiculous. You're suspending the nature of cause and effect. You may make the argument that Jesus enlightens those He says....... but its nonsense to say no knowledge has to exist of Jesus...... for Jesus to save you.

God reacts to our action. Not the lack thereof.

 

[rsc2a]

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when,according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You're both exactingly..... wrong.

To say Jesus saves....without someone having knowledge of him is entirely ridiculous. You're suspending the nature of cause and effect. You may make the argument that Jesus enlightens those He says....... but its nonsense to say no knowledge has to exist of Jesus...... for Jesus to save you.

God reacts to our action. Not the lack thereof.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

And these [those who do not do the above] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous [those that do the above] into eternal life

No mention about faith or even the knowledge of the existence of Jesus. The fact that these "righteous" people didn't realize they were doing it for Him shows that they didn't technically "know" Him, or at least his teaching in this particular passage.

 

[praise_yeshua]

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when,according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This is nothing more than Paul's attempt to show a natural law existed before the giving of God's law to Moses. Whether you realize this or not..... God had a message before Jew and Gentile ever existed.

Either way, just what are you trying to prove with these verses? The lack of cause and effect?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You're both exactingly..... wrong.

To say Jesus saves....without someone having knowledge of him is entirely ridiculous. You're suspending the nature of cause and effect. You may make the argument that Jesus enlightens those He says....... but its nonsense to say no knowledge has to exist of Jesus...... for Jesus to save you.

God reacts to our action. Not the lack thereof.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

And these [those who do not do the above] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous [those that do the above] into eternal life

No mention about faith or even the knowledge of the existence of Jesus. The fact that these "righteous" people didn't realize they were doing it for Him shows that they didn't technically "know" Him, or at least his teaching in this particular passage.

You may have an argument if these are the only words that Jesus ever spoke. You know that's not the case. Its rather obvious that those who replied didn't know that what they were doing was directly affecting their relationship with Christ Himself. Its not that they didn't know about Christ Jesus at all.

Do you read them saying.... "who are you" and "just what do you have to do with this"?????

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You may have an argument if these are the only words that Jesus ever spoke. You know that's not the case. Its rather obvious that those who replied didn't know that what they were doing was directly affecting their relationship with Christ Himself. Its not that they didn't know about Christ Jesus at all.

Jesus said HE was the way, truth and life and no man would come to the Father but through Him. Not through faith in Him but through Him. He is the judge/gatekeeper per se. No doubt Jesus taught forgiveness, obedience, repentance, identification and faith as salvific as well. Seems He taught a variety of criteria He will consider, this being one.

The common denominator? Jesus Himself. Hence, the need to obey His teachings and let Him decide thereafter.

Do you read them saying.... "who are you" and "just what do you have to do with this"?????

I'm sure at that point in time, there might be more understanding of the surrounding circumstances. Are you suggesting that in cultures that never even heard of the name of Jesus, not a single person will enter the kingdom?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm sure at that point in time, there might be more understanding of the surrounding circumstances. Are you suggesting that in cultures that never even heard of the name of Jesus, not a single person will enter the kingdom?

How shall they call on whom they have not heard?

Ultimately, its God's choice to do as He pleases. However, there is nothing in the Scriptures to make me believe that God will save someone that hasn't called upon Him.

Just who do you believe has heard? Are you saying that the message hasn't existed throughout the ages?

Psa 19:2  Day to day utters speech, and night to night proclaims knowledge.
Psa 19:3  There are no speeches or words, in which their voices are not heard.
Psa 19:4  Their voice is gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.

 

[rsc2a]

"I like Paul, just not all of Paul. Especially those parts where he explicitly says some will be saved who only know the smallest shadow of the truth."