Militant Gay Agenda To Homosexualize Ontario Children Thwarted

[Wiglaf]

NO KEEP IT HERE. Someone is WRONG on the Internet

[Ben Kenobi]

If I could, would it be morally acceptable to you?

Sure. It would mean you were God.

I can do one better, how about a virgin birth? I could have my seed artificially implanted in a virgin.

Berz, she was a virgin after the birth. Hence a virgin birth, not a virgin conception.

You're missing the point, if God was so strongly opposed to fornication and adultery, God wouldn't offer us a son born thru fornication/adultery.

The point being that he chose Mary. There was no 'adultery' nor was there fornication because no sexual intercourse occurred.

I believe it is a myth that goes back to Sumerian creation stories of our origins.

Ok. That's the real issue here. Not the annunciation but the Virgin Birth.

I dont believe the Mother of Jesus was a virgin (I thought at least James was older than Jesus).

He may have been the son of Joseph, and the brother of Christ and older then him, but not the son of Mary, as Joseph was quite a bit older than Mary. This is actually one of the possible interpretations of 'kinsmen' used to refer as James, the 'brethren' of the Lord. We simply do not know, as the bible doesn't spell it out for us.

I think the gospel writers are relying on very ancient traditions that meld the new religion of Jesus with existing traditions to facilitate acceptance.

The problem is that the Gospel explicitly records the annunciation, records the virgin birth and attests to it as the fulfillment of prophecy. This is all at the start of Matthew, and some of Luke as well. It's not just that the Virgin birth as a miracle occurred, but that it was fortold to occur.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel

Isaiah 7:14

Christ fulfilled this not only through the Virgin birth, but also the place.

Micah 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Christ fulfilled this in his birth on Bethelehem, even though he was a Nazirite by origin. The NT even alludes to this in passinge in John 1:46

"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip.

He didn't say sex bound them, he said God matching them up bound them

He says that the two become one flesh. Through sex. Therefore a man will leave his mother and father and will cleave to his wife. They are joined together in the sexual union of a man and a woman together.

But I also believe the OT punishment for fornication was marriage, the young couple were given a "shotgun wedding". So here's a relevant question: if the fornicators ended up marrying different people, are they all adulterers? If not, sex alone does not define "one"ness.

Which is what Christ gets at later. It is adultery if the former spouse is still alive. This is what Christ talks about to the woman who has had 5 husbands.

John 4:17-8

I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

Then later on:

Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all of my sins."

The Jesus quote is n/a

Then it does not matter whether I quote Paul or Christ because you will not listen to either.

But that proves my point a prostitute and her clientele aint married. Not even in any biblical sense.

It proves mine. The union of the two becoming one flesh is through sex, not marriage. If you have sex with someone you are one with them.

And for cheating husbands, going to a prostitute would be polygamy instead of adultery because the act of sex with a prostitute automatically marries the two.

It is adultery because you are taking the union between yourself and your wife, and replacing it for the union with the prostitute. You can't have two at the same time. You can only be bonded to the one. This is part of the problem with fornication. You are replacing the former bond with the new.

Hehe, no... Jesus was accused of defiling the bodily temple by eating with the unclean.

But what did Jesus say about that? He said that what is unclean is what comes out of a man, not what he puts in. This is why Paul refers later to saying that the one who sins sexually sins against his own body. It's the same principle. This is why sexual sins are so pernicious because they go to the root.

I understand that, but we aint talking about married people. We're talking about all the single people who cant have sex because of religious taboo on fornication.

Again, is it a taboo for Muslim men to fornicate? I don't believe it is. It is for the women, but not for the men.

I cant see it from here either But unless those men are fornicating with each other (I think thats a death penalty in many places) then there aint much goin on if the women aint involved much.

From my understanding is that they use non-muslim prostitutes.

Good and bad consequences are possible, but more knowledge about someone you might love is better than ignorance. This really aint even debatable, "I dont know and I dont wanna know" is not preferable to "now I know".

Ok, let me ask you something. You say that more knowledge about someone is always good. What if I learn about my future wife by stalking her and keeping a camera on her bed so I can watch her every night.

Yes, knowledge is good, but it must be obtained through moral means. I'm arguing that knowing my future wife before we are married falls in the latter category. Yes, it would be good to know, but it doesn't justify the act.

Thats not condemning slavery, its identifying a different slavemaster.

Ultimately, he says we are slaves to sin, and that sin enslaves us both spiritually, and in some cases, bodily. If slavery were an acceptable situation, why would Christ want us to break the bonds of the slavery of sin? Clearly it's not acceptable.

Did he say those words to a slaveowner who was asking him about slavery? Or was this some generality he tossed out during a sermon dealing with a variety of subjects? Did he tell people to free their slaves or not?

It's right there in the sermon on the mount. I'd quote one instance, but I'm going to tell you read the Gospels. Christ is very explicit.

And before the fall, it was far different.

Before the fall the Adam was tilling the ground, same as after.

And God created a woman just for him. I think he can be forgiven for thinking after God tells him so, that Eve was to be his wife.

It isn't different, this is why Christ says, that Genesis, the union of a man and woman found in Adam and Eve is the same model for today.

I'm familiar with various definitions but never settled on one

Well, the biblical authors use sodomy. Romans 1:26 refers to sodomites and catamites, the 'givers' and the 'receivers' so to speak.

So it really doesn't matter what your beliefs are, what matters is what the authors of the bible meant when they use the term sodomy. And they use sodomy to refer to anal sex.

1 Cor 6: 9-10

οὔτε πόρνοι (there's that word again)
οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι
οὔτε μοιχοὶ
οὔτε μαλακοὶ
οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

Neither fornicators
Neither idolators
Neither adulterers
Neither sodomites
Neither catamites

shall inherit the Kingdom of God

Marriage is a bigger commitment than sex

If sex is no big deal then who cares about sleeping with someone who's not your spouse? It's just about the sex isn't it?

So you equated teaching children homosexuality is evil with teaching them to abuse drugs. But you also said its responsible for Christians to teach children homosexuality is evil. You aint making sense.

I'm making perfect sense. Homosexuality is wrong because it hurts people. Teaching children to hurt themselves or others on purpose is wrong. Therefore parents should not be teaching their children about homosexuality. Your dispute is with the first preposition.

Jesus said it was wrong for married people to lust after others, they're married - thats the difference.

That is NOT what he said.

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

You have committed adultery with them in your heart. That's the point. The point is that it's not enough to merely follow the law in your actions, but your heart must be true as well. Would it be right for an unmarried man to lust upon a married woman, or has he not committed adultery with her in his heart? He's not just talking about married people here.

Did God (and Adam) need to wait for Eve's consent? If they were married before having sex, then sex doesn't define marriage.

Quite right, sex doesn't define marriage. But they were married even before Eve was formed. This is what I'm trying to get across to you. God created Eve to be a helpmate to Adam.

On the contrary, when Adam and Eve did have sex and they conceived a child, God became so mad he kicked them out of the Garden.

Where does it say this in Genesis?

Quite the contrary:

Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Says nothing about Sex there. God commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. It's got nothing to do with sex. Quite the contrary.

Genesis 1:27-8

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it

[David Floyd]

Ultimately, he says we are slaves to sin, and that sin enslaves us both spiritually, and in some cases, bodily. If slavery were an acceptable situation, why would Christ want us to break the bonds of the slavery of sin? Clearly it's not acceptable.

Sorry to butt in here, but you are continually dancing around the question. I understand - my mom does the exact same thing in the exact same way on the exact same subject.

The FACT is that there are acts and conditions in the Bible that Jesus felt strongly enough to SPECIFICALLY condemn. In fact, let's go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that the passages referring to fornication mean what you say they mean (and actually, I probably lean more towards your side on that interpretation anyway). If fornication was so bad that Jesus specifically called it out on multiple occasions, then it's fair to say fornication is sinful, yes?

By the way, let's take a brief segue here - when I say "Jesus said", I am not making a distinction between Jesus and Paul, for example, because the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. That being the case, the messenger doesn't really matter, yes? I'm not saying that the Bible self-referencing itself as the inspired word of God makes any logical sense whatsoever, but I know you believe that, so we'll run with it.

In any case, in no case is human slavery condemned as directly, as specifically, or as often as fornication. That pretty much tells us that Jesus, God, the Bible, etc., see fornication as worse than slavery. And that's if I accept your position that the Bible "interpretively" condemns slavery, which I don't accept for even a second. Quite frankly, I don't believe slavery was condemned in the Bible because in the context of the time, slavery was not seen as "wrong", and in fact was somewhat encouraged by the God of the Old Testament.

The only New Testament passage I can think of which directly references slavery simply commands slaves to obey their masters.

So, either slavery IS wrong, but not as wrong as fornication (or not a big enough deal to even really be mentioned), OR slavery isn't considered wrong in the Bible. Kind of a chilling moral code to follow either way you cut it.

And as for your baloney about Christians being the only ones to end the slave trade, stop being disingenuous. Just stop. Christians the ones who introduced African slaves to the Americas in the first place, and kept up the practice for centuries. If your point is that Christian nations were a bit more enlightened a bit sooner than the rest of the world (in most cases, although the CSA certainly wasn't), then I'd argue that it was more Western civilization than Christian religion. I'd also argue that those same nations that ended the slave trade are increasingly becoming the most atheistic countries in the world today, and yet we don't see a corresponding increase in slavery in, say, Great Britain. Wonder why that is?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, glad to see you around, Floyd.

And as for your baloney about Christians being the only ones to end the slave trade, stop being disingenuous.

Why? Wilberforce was a Christian and he was the first to end the slave trade altogether in Britain. I did a thesis on him, and his arguments were all couched in scripture, that men were created equal and this included the black men in Africa.

Just stop. Christians the ones who introduced African slaves to the Americas in the first place

African slaves, yes, but slavery was practiced by Mesoamerican cultures. The trade was huge among the African tribes themselves and the Muslims.

If your point is that Christian nations were a bit more enlightened a bit sooner than the rest of the world (in most cases, although the CSA certainly wasn't), then I'd argue that it was more Western civilization than Christian religion.

It wasn't the French Revolution or the Enlightenment which did away with slavery. Jefferson was a slaveowner. It wasn't until Wilberforce that there was an active antislavery movement, which really took off, at least in England in the 1830s, and they weren't in the habit of quoting Voltaire.

I'd also argue that those same nations that ended the slave trade are increasingly becoming the most atheistic countries in the world today, and yet we don't see a corresponding increase in slavery in, say, Great Britain. Wonder why that is?

Not yet, but we will very soon. As for atheism in Britain, you might want to check out mosque construction. The decline is not in overall religiousity, but in a shift away from the CoE to the Catholics and to the Muslims. There are more Catholics now in England than members of the CoE.

The FACT is that there are acts and conditions in the Bible that Jesus felt strongly enough to SPECIFICALLY condemn.

True. Among them things like fornication and adultery. Jesus for the most part chose to emphasise the 'should' rather than the 'should not' in demonstrating for us how we ought to live.

In fact, let's go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that the passages referring to fornication mean what you say they mean (and actually, I probably lean more towards your side on that interpretation anyway). If fornication was so bad that Jesus specifically called it out on multiple occasions, then it's fair to say fornication is sinful, yes?

I think the one passage is in itself significant. Do recall that not all of Jesus's teachings are in the bible, only the ones which the Apostles regarded as the most significant.

By the way, let's take a brief segue here - when I say "Jesus said", I am not making a distinction between Jesus and Paul, for example, because the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. That being the case, the messenger doesn't really matter, yes? I'm not saying that the Bible self-referencing itself as the inspired word of God makes any logical sense whatsoever, but I know you believe that, so we'll run with it.

I believe in it, but Berz does not, so my arguments are slightly different with him.

In any case, in no case is human slavery condemned as directly, as specifically, or as often as fornication.

I'd agree with this.

That pretty much tells us that Jesus, God, the Bible, etc., see fornication as worse than slavery. And that's if I accept your position that the Bible "interpretively" condemns slavery, which I don't accept for even a second.

There's no passages that state that slavery is a moral good in the world. Jesus consistantly uses slavery wrt to sin to express the relationship between man and sin, and does so in an exclusively negative fashion. He argues that men are equal and that they have a higher Master in Christ himself. I think it's pretty clear whereas Christ does not explicitly condemn slavery in so many words, that slavery is not how God intended men to be and is contrary to his will.

The only New Testament passage I can think of which directly references slavery simply commands slaves to obey their masters.

Two passages from Paul. One where Paul says that if a slave has an opportunity to obtain his freedom that he should take the opportunity, and the second you've quoted here. Again, I think Paul is pretty clear that he sees slavery as a state contrary to God's will.

So, either slavery IS wrong, but not as wrong as fornication (or not a big enough deal to even really be mentioned), OR slavery isn't considered wrong in the Bible. Kind of a chilling moral code to follow either way you cut it.

Or simply that God affirmed the common origin of mankind and completely undermined the justifications for slavery. That's how I see it.

[Wezil]

Ben, you should start a poll with the question "are you friends with Ben Kenobi." Make it anonymous in case somebody on here hates gay people but doesn't want to publicly admit to it. That should once and for all answer the question of whether or not you are universally loathed.

The admin here won't allow that poll. I tried.

I figured if Ben could see how despised he really is at Poly he might try to find some site where they don't know him.

[Ecofarm]

Between Ben's "OH, I got friends!" and Asher's "Is he talkin' to me?"

I think we've hit new lows. This is starting to be embarrassing just to watch.

[Asher]

Only solution is to get rid of Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

I figured if Ben could see how despised he really is at Poly he might try to find some site where they don't know him.

I do post on other sites, and golly gee, I'm respected there as well.

Seems to me the problem isn't me, but the problem are the usual gang of idiots here at Poly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Only solution is to get rid of Ben.

Why not permaban Asher and see if the annoyance goes away? I remember this forum without Asher and it was bliss!

[giblets]

Why not permaban Asher and see if the annoyance goes away? I remember this forum without Asher and it was bliss!

hmmm you only signed up a few years after Asher

[Ben Kenobi]

Yessir!

But I've had years to learn to loathe him.

You've had what, a month?

[Hauldren Collider]

Wait...how does he remember something...that never existed

Nevermind. I don't want to try to comprehend Ben. He is best left to his own manic devices.

[Wezil]

Yet he keeps posting.

What a sad sack.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher has been banned, DL.

[Flubber]

hmmm

I am kind of wondering how all these biblical references relate to the militant homosexual agenda in Ontario but on second though never mind-- I can't be assed to read back that far and definitely don't want Ben to explain it.


Oh and ben as a frequent bystander to your spats I can understand why many dislike you. I won't enage you on church or gay rights etc etc but even on something as simple as hockey, you are a fundamentally dishonest debater. On that I have come to find myself in full agreement with Asher.

Asher? he is often crude and is absolutely arrogant and is frequently guilty of hyberbole or over the top rhetoric but, in my experience, he doesn't disown positions while trying claiming he is consistent.