[Elmer G. White]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

First of all, may I ask what your problem is? I legit tried to be nice to you and you decided to be rude? Okay then. Look, I'm gonna have to get you to use that small brain of yours to think okay? Your bible is different than the catholic one right? Have you wondered why? It's because 6 parts have been removed from ours and some of the wording is different. You all keep saying that god is the true authority and nobody should follow earthly leaders as you would God, but the thing is...you already did. We know for a fact that the 72 books in the catholic bible have been divinely inspired by God and that it truly is his word, however you took it upon yourselves to remove some of his holy word and say that its not right, that it doesn't matter. I would also like to point out that nowhere in the bible does it say that peter had a wife, he had a mother-in-law but no wife. In every single bible but yours, they do not mention a wife. You guys ADDED to the bible....uh oh, you ALL broke God's law. The thing is, I'm not even Catholic. I'm ignostic.

Dear Sinner,

How can you have a mother-in-law without a wife? Let us look at the text in the form God communicated it for the ancients (Textus Receptus) before the World was ready to receive it in it pure KJV form:

Matthew 8:14
Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Πέτρου εἶδεν τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτοῦ βεβλημένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν·

• πενθερὰν? Noun, feminine, singular, accusative. Verily, it is "mother-in-law". Let us see what this word means. We can use, e.g., the Cambridge Dictionary.

mother-in-law noun [ C ]

uk /ˈmʌð.ə.rɪn.lɔː/ us /ˈmʌð.ɚ.ɪn.lɑː/ plural mothers-in-law
B2 the mother of your husband or wife

Unless you wish to express that Peter had a husband, I fail to see how the KJV definition of being the "mother of his wife" would fail.

As for your being an ignostic, what is your purpose here? Ignosticism maintains that unless things are properly defined, any discussion about them is meaningless. Many ignostics refuse to engage in religious debate as they feel superior to anyone who puts his Faith™ in Jesus. How do you think that using ad hominem attacks towards our atheist friend ("small brain") would would constitute a discussion that would be meaningful from the ignostic point of view? Please define it in a precise manner so that it makes sense within your world view. As you can see, the Bible is well ahead of you in that respect!

1 Corinthians 14:11
Therefore if I know not the meaning meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Hereigns]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

First of all, may I ask what your problem is? I legit tried to be nice to you and you decided to be rude? Okay then. Look, I'm gonna have to get you to use that small brain of yours to think okay? Your bible is different than the catholic one right? Have you wondered why? It's because 6 parts have been removed from ours and some of the wording is different. You all keep saying that god is the true authority and nobody should follow earthly leaders as you would God, but the thing is...you already did. We know for a fact that the 72 books in the catholic bible have been divinely inspired by God and that it truly is his word, however you took it upon yourselves to remove some of his holy word and say that its not right, that it doesn't matter. I would also like to point out that nowhere in the bible does it say that peter had a wife, he had a mother-in-law but no wife. In every single bible but yours, they do not mention a wife. You guys ADDED to the bible....uh oh, you ALL broke God's law. The thing is, I'm not even Catholic. I'm ignostic.

[Didymus Much]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

You are correct, I should be more respectful to your opinions, after all it is america!...

I'm not sure if we have a language issue here, but the only thing that will be respected here is the one right that the Constitution actually protects, that is one's right to hold an opinion that differs from others'. Whether the opinion itself is worthy of any respect is an entirely different question (that must be judged on the evidence available, and the only evidence admissible here is Scripture from the KJV).

...I'm sorry for any offense my comments brought you...

Ooh, offending me? Good luck.

Offending the True Christians? Impossible.

Psalm 119:165 "Great peace have they which love thy law:
And nothing shall offend them."

...If you'd like, I can go through all of it with you and disprove all of it, just tell me.

Please bring your applicable Scripture from the KJV to the appropriate thread. Let's keep this one on topic.

[Hereigns]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

You are correct, I should be more respectful to your opinions, after all it is america! I'm sorry for any offense my comments brought you, but there is a reason for why everything is the way it is in the church, I looked at the subform. If you'd like, I can go through all of it with you and disprove all of it, just tell me.

[Des]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

That's not what the Bible says. Learn yourself some Scripture here: True Christians are Perfect!

Catlickers are even more adverse to reading the Bible than atheists.


YIC
BIH

[Didymus Much]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

...For pete's sake, you wanna claim that catholics are real christians??...

There's an entire subforum here dedicated to their heresies, so, um, NO!

...And then you decided to remove 6 books misguided myths that were tainting the bible...

FTFY.

...15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions [paradosis i.e. law or ordinance]which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." ...

Notice the tense used? Past tense. Meaning it's already been taught, at that point in time. Not included in that description is stuff that people (i.e. Catholics) decided to add in later on. like Mary being anything more than a handy uterus.

Jesus' "tradition" was to be tolerant and LOVING towards sinners...

Before He tosses their unrepentant asses into everlasting fire. So many "Christians" completely overlook that part.

...at least be RESPECTFUL and stop acting like you are all perfect and righteous...

Why? Surely you're not one of those idiots who think we HAVE to respect anyone's opinion on any subject, no matter how ignorant, uninformed, or even dangerous?

...cause you aren't.

That's not what the Bible says. Learn yourself some Scripture here: True Christians are Perfect!

[Alvin Moss]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Drivel removed for brevity. Oh, look; there's nothing left.

You are another Roman Catholic, I presume. We get some of your tribe from time to time. As an idol worshipping pervert, do you think God loves you?

[Hereigns]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

I swear, all you guys to is spread hate to the LBGT community. For pete's sake, you wanna claim that catholics are real christians?? You guys took almost all of the catholic teachings and modified it to fit the salvation by faith alone! And then you decided to take out 6 books of the bible, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions [paradosis i.e. law or ordinance]which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." And this was in YOUR bible! Not only is it scripture, but traditions. Jesus' "tradition" was to be tolerant and LOVING towards sinners. You don't have to agree with the life style, but at least be RESPECTFUL and stop acting like you are all perfect and righteous...cause you aren't.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

.......and you totally missed the point again
It was part of the discussion Basilissa and I are having. Where did I say you were the one who said it?

I'm not on any "side", I cannot be. You are a perv, I will not be on your side. Basilissa and Handmaiden are True Christians, and I am not, so I cannot be on their side. When you say your "side" it was me, and only me.

I dropped the argument on infants when you said -correctly- that they were killed for being from a particular race (being damned from birth then...)


So I was arguing your point on "little children" being mature. The rest was being argued by other people. You have nothing on the matter I'm interested. Moving on then.

And yet you have a curious lack of clear scripture to back up your supposed opinion.

And that is why it is called an opinion ("supposed" opinion?). If I had scripture to back that up, then it would be a fact.

[Basilissa]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Okay you're just not paying attention to what I even said.

Of course he doesn't. Brother Unbridgeable only pays attention to the Word of God.

I'll wait for Basilissa to reply, she can actually make decent logical arguments.

My arguments are not logical; God hates logic:

1 Corinthians 3:19: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 8:2-3: And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

1 Corinthians 13:8: Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

I simply repeat what the Bible says, without thinking too much whether what the Bible says is logical, ethical, etc. Too much thinking about the logic and ethics of the Holy Bible could turn you into a filthy atheist.

I do await your response, though.

[handmaiden]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Logic really is lost on you isn't it. The point I was trying to make was that what the Bible quotes them as saying indicates that, while they were referred to as children, they were definitely old enough to craft such an insult. The argument from your side was that that excerpt is an example of God sending infants to hell. These weren't infants, they were obviously quite mature.

I can't help but feel that when the Bible uses the word "children" it's not talking about 17 and a half year olds who still can't be legally charged as adults. The verse does specify "little children", right?


And speaking of charges, I am very pleased to see that you are willing to accept the Lord's sovereignty in choosing to have a ferocious predator tear 42 little children to bloody pieces because they dared to hurl hurtful comments at an important person.


It's good that you aren't questioning the fact that some people just deserve more respect than others and that God can and does kill youngsters when it suits His Holy Purpose. Actually, that's great, because I feel that we have finally found some area of consensus.


Furthermore, you are making the effort to list Bible verses, which is what we here at Landover Baptist like to see. Of course, you still seem to favor the verses that fit comfortably with a 21st century sensibility, whereas God is eternal and unchanging.


Really, when you think about it, if something were truly important to Him, you would think that He would have it codified in His Word. Which he did, actually. The problem for modern-minded "Christians" is that they continue to value values that aren't strictly Biblical.


God doesn't make powerful, dramatic pronouncements anywhere in His Word about individual liberty or the evils of slavery, just to name a couple of concepts that people seem to embrace now, but which God, Himself, did not see fit to mention.


God in the Bible makes powerful, dramatic statements about making fun of bald men, but He doesn't directly tell us that we can't own people. By the way, there's no logic lost in the preceding statement. I am only setting forth what is and is not in the Bible. You can fault my prose if you don't think that a she-bear tearing apart 42 little children isn't particularly dramatic, but you can't dispute the story as it is detailed in the Bible.


How do you feel about the Bible, by the way? I am curious. My position here is that it is the Holy Word of the One True God and has to be taken as sacred from the first page to the last. It's not a document that can be amended with the times, because God Himself said that He is unchanging and that we aren't supposed to pick and choose which of His Words to obey.


Inquisitively Yours,


Handmaiden

[Princess L]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Trying is the key. You were trying, you did not make it.
They were little children. Why can't you accept that? It is what is written. They don't need to be "mature" to make that joke. That's where you are making things up, twisting the argument to fit your beliefs.

.......and you totally missed the point again

Please quote where did I say "infants". I cannot find it, but as you are so clever...

It was part of the discussion Basilissa and I are having. Where did I say you were the one who said it?

See, that is my opinion. I did not say that God says it.

And yet you have a curious lack of clear scripture to back up your supposed opinion.

[Basilissa]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

I apologize for a delay in my response.

Agreed. Sadly no amount of "good works" is enough to cleanse the pernicious blot of sin.

Exactly. So we can agree that God wants the vast majority of humanity to go roast in . At least 2/3 of humans alive today will roast in Hell for following false religions - that's a generous count which gives all Christian denominations a path to Salvation, but if we take under account that there are many more false Christians who do not actually adhere to the Holy Bible, the actual percentage of people who are alive today and who have a fighting chance of truly accepting and going to Heaven is much smaller. Whichever count we take, the percentage of people having an actual chance of being Saved decreases exponentially the more we go back in history.

Every day I thank for loving me more than millions and millions of people who die being raised in another religion and therefore being indoctrinated to believe that Christianity is a false religion. The cultural indoctrination is so strong that changing an individual's religion without some form of coercion is practically impossible. A well-conducted genocide is a good example of such coercion of the survivors of such an event. Unfortunately, genocide, while highly praised in the Holy Bible, has been frowned upon by the Western civilization in relatively recent history.

Scripture makes perfect sense to me, your extrascriptural beliefs don't though.

...then he shall reward every man according to his works.

...Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Please explain: how are these verses extrascriptural? Or maybe you don't have these verses in your Bible or something? (to see the complete reference to where in the Bible these verses are, please see my previous post again).

He had the Israelites kill them sure, but does he ever say that those infants were also damned?

They did not follow the One True Religion, so of course they were damned. There is no Biblical evidence that babies that die in their infancy are somehow saved - we've been through that already, remember?

Of course, they were obviously mature enough to know that they were mocking a prophet.

And your interpretation of "little children" as "mature enough" doesn't strike you as extrascriptural?

I would be very careful implying that the death of children is pleasing to God.

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

This is just another example of God ordering a genocide. He specifically asks to kill the infants and sucklings.

He wants it to happen. He orders Israelites to do it. That means He likes it. That means it is pleasant for Him.

Just think about it for a minute: do you often wish things which are unpleasant to happen to you?

Where exactly does it say God "hated" Esau while he was still in the womb?

Well, He decided when the twins were still in the womb that one will serve the other:

Genesis 25:23-26
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, [there were] twins in her womb.
25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac [was] threescore years old when she bare them.

Uh, yeah actually. It's not a grudge, it's just a perfect divine being executing just punishment on knowingly disobedient members of mankind. The wages of sin are eternal death and torment after all.

And this, of course, is perfectly just, that the descendants of the guilty people should be punished forever.

Of course, this is not the only example of people being punished by God for the sins of their ancestors:

Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Because they were of the races that God commanded the Israelites to wipe out from the promise land. The Bible makes that very clear.

Isn't it truly heart-warming to know that there are cases when genocide is not only justified in the eyes of God, but actually ordered by Him?

3-year-olds aren't that clever.

I'm guessing you haven't encountered too many three year olds. Let me tell you: yes they are clever.

They were obviously old enough to understand who he was and that they were deliberately making fun of him.

Wait, hold on, where is that interpretation coming from? Where is the evidence?

What was that word again, that you like to use so much? Ah yes, here it is: extrascriptural.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Logic really is lost on you isn't it. The point I was trying to make was that what the Bible quotes them as saying indicates that, while they were referred to as children, they were definitely old enough to craft such an insult. The argument from your side was that that excerpt is an example of God sending infants to hell. These weren't infants, they were obviously quite mature.

Trying is the key. You were trying, you did not make it.
They were little children. Why can't you accept that? It is what is written. They don't need to be "mature" to make that joke. That's where you are making things up, twisting the argument to fit your beliefs.


Please quote where did I say "infants". I cannot find it, but as you are so clever...

Chapter and verse that says that please.
Otherwise that's nothing more than just your opinion.

See, that is my opinion. I did not say that God says it.

[Princess L]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

So God commands to kill little children, and they go to hell. You know that. We can agree. And compared with Roman Gods, our God is stronger, and kills more people. I'm proud of it.

Okay you're just not paying attention to what I even said. I'll wait for Basilissa to reply, she can actually make decent logical arguments.

Yes, they are that clever at 3 year old. Maybe you were not.


See what happens? A matter of interpretation. I've seen 3 year old kids being much more clever than "Go up thou bald head" which is, at 3 year old, only an innocent joke. Strong enough to make God angry, of course.


It is not like they were saying "hey you weirdo, you are masking your lack of social skills to get laid or your gay inclinations with something that you call asexuality" That would be mean (though not so clever, I know)

Logic really is lost on you isn't it. The point I was trying to make was that what the Bible quotes them as saying indicates that, while they were referred to as children, they were definitely old enough to craft such an insult. The argument from your side was that that excerpt is an example of God sending infants to hell. These weren't infants, they were obviously quite mature.

There is nothing in your previous answers, only your beliefs.

And your posts aren't about your beliefs? Just your way of saying that you don't have a good response toward them. If you can, prove to me using the Word of God that I am clearly in error.

And about the rudeness, the lack of sex makes people rude. Happens all the time. Man up, get married, and that will pass.

Chapter and verse that says that please.
Otherwise that's nothing more than just your opinion.