[The-Bucket]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

First, God's mind is unknowable to us mere men. Second, God already did. God is Jesus and He did tell us all to stop sinning. God also appeared to countless people all throughout history, as the Bible tells us, Exodus 24:9-12 is a nice and clear example of God appearing to people to tell them to follow His Law.

9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Now I have proven that God is smarter than you and has already done everything you ask of Him, it is time for you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and stop sinning.

But those were only a few people. God is omnipresent, is he not?
Moses was just one to whom God showed himself but then again Moses did not actually see Him: "20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live.
<< Exodus 33:19Exodus 33:20Exodus 33:21 >>", God left the rest of the people at the base of the mountain, where they could not see him, and they made the golden calf (which was a stupid, unnecessary move of those people).

God is all-powerful, so he could easily just make himself able to be seen while everyone was alive. If he cannot do that, we'd have a bunch of dead people all over the Earth after "10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

[Mark L. Snyde, PhD]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Yes, God is omnipotent, but He cannot go against His own nature. He cannot sin. He is perfect and cannot be otherwise, which is what would be required in order for men to gaze upon his face.

Why not get to know Him through His Word, friend?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

God is all-powerful, so he could easily just make himself able to be seen while everyone was alive.

Friend, God could easily do whatever He wanted to do. He's thrown thunder and hail from the skies (Exodus 9:23), walked on water (John 6:15-21), raised an army of undead... twice (Ezekiel 37:5-10; Matthew 27:51-53). What makes you think He couldn't have easily made Himself able to be seen while everyone was a live? Of course He could, but He didn't want to, and frankly, He doesn't have to answer to you. You, however, will have to answer to Him (Matthew 25:31-46 ). That's just how it goes. So why not lay down your arms of rebellion, and accept the LORD's loving kindness?

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Yes, God is omnipotent, but He cannot go against His own nature. He cannot sin. He is perfect and cannot be otherwise, which is what would be required in order for men to gaze upon his face.

Why not get to know Him through His Word, friend?

This is so. It is like a straight line. It can only be straight. By definition.

Is his atheist saying God is bent?

YIC

[The-Bucket]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Yes, God is omnipotent, but He cannot go against His own nature. He cannot sin. He is perfect and cannot be otherwise, which is what would be required in order for men to gaze upon his face.

Why not get to know Him through His Word, friend?

Wait... if God is omnipotent, then how come He "cannot sin", "cannot be otherwise" and "cannot go against His own nature"?

[Mark L. Snyde, PhD]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Wait... if God is omnipotent, then how come He "cannot sin", "cannot be otherwise" and "cannot go against His own nature"?

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.

Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information. Therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate. What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

For example, I have human nature. I can run, but I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated His nature, like make a rock so big He couldn't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

Another way to look at it is to realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.

Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition, is not infinitely large. So to say the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.

What the critics are asking is that God become self-contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. What they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They are being illogical to prove God doesn't exist, instead of using logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

[The-Bucket]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

What God proves by not being able to break all rules, including those of logic, is that He is only stronger than us, but that those rules are stronger than He is.
If we build a robot, we have authority over said robot, we can make it do stuff, we can shut it down... the robot will not be able to build us though, or order us around. This means we are stronger than the robot. But we cannot be omnipotent just because we built the robot, there are plenty of things we cannot do either. So, if we claim to be omnipotent, the robot will believe us, but if the robot knows the definition, it will ask us to do something against the rules of the world. When it sees we can't, it will say we lied that we are omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a paradox. God's existence does not sound like a paradox. God having the supreme power over us, I'd agree. But if God claims he is omnipotent, then God himself claims to be a paradox.
Either God is one with the rules that this world is based of and could modify them at will, or God is also subject to these rules, in which case the rules are stronger than God Himself.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

What God proves by not being able to break all rules, including those of logic, is that He is only stronger than us, but that those rules are stronger than He is.
If we build a robot, we have authority over said robot, we can make it do stuff, we can shut it down... the robot will not be able to build us though, or order us around. This means we are stronger than the robot. But we cannot be omnipotent just because we built the robot, there are plenty of things we cannot do either. So, if we claim to be omnipotent, the robot will believe us, but if the robot knows the definition, it will ask us to do something against the rules of the world. When it sees we can't, it will say we lied that we are omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a paradox. God's existence does not sound like a paradox. God having the supreme power over us, I'd agree. But if God claims he is omnipotent, then God himself claims to be a paradox.
Either God is one with the rules that this world is based of and could modify them at will, or God is also subject to these rules, in which case the rules are stronger than God Himself.

You don't make any sense. Man is not a robot, and God can't be bested by a robot. You watch too much t.v.

You might instead educate yourself: Bible paradoxes

[august]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

"Asexuality" isn't even a lifestyle choice. It's just a cover story used by ugly people to explain why they don't have a date on Saturday night.

What is it to you or anyone if that makes them feel better?

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

What is it to you or anyone if that makes them feel better?

By that logic, people who molest children are fine because, you know, it makes them "feel better."

[thetrueseeker]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

The Perversion

We spend a lot of time on this forum deploring homers, and rightly so. But there is a new group of perverts that until recently has been flying below the radar. The asexual agenda has been gaining momentum over the last few years, so much so that supposedly “acephobia” is now a thing. Asexuals are people who say they have no desire to have sex. They claim it is a sexual preference or orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Most liberal Christians view asexuality as okay. After all, doesn’t Jesus condone celibacy (Matt 19:12)? And doesn’t Paul speak of a “gift of singleness” (1 Cor 7:7)?

First off let me say that there is doubt even in the secular community as to whether asexuality really exists. Wickedpedia says, “[Other scholars] state that it is the denial of one's natural sexuality, and that it is a disorder caused by shame of sexuality or anxiety....” It is possible that many asexuals are suppressing their desire for marriage and children simply because they are impotent or queer or too ugly to find a partner. But the fact remains that there are a growing number of people who claim to be asexual, and many of them use passages like Matt 19:12 and 1 Cor 7:7 to justify their behavior.


The Biblical Standard

Right at the outset of the Bible, God makes it clear that a man shall “leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Men ought to marry and, once married, cleave to their wives and become one flesh with them — in other words, have sex. Sexless marriages are not an option for asexuals, not an easy out, for Paul says to married couples, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (1 Cor 7:5).

Procreation is another divine requirement. God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Gen 1:28a). It is especially important that a woman not shirk her duty to bear sons, for “she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (1 Tim 2:15). All women should strive to be like Rachel, who said to her husband Jacob, “Give me children, or else I die” (Gen 30:1). In fact, all beings are expected to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:22). Studies done by secular scientists claiming that asexuality is observable in the animal kingdom must therefore be rejected. They are as spurious as the claims that homosexuality has been observed among animals.


The Controversy

Now let’s examine Matt 19:12 — “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.” Does this passage really condone asexuality? Jesus describes three kinds of eunuchs:

1) Those “which were born so from their mother’s womb.” These are people born without the ability to reproduce. It is significant that Jesus calls them eunuchs, suggesting that they have some sort of congenital defect that prevents them from reproducing or engaging in sex. Asexuals cannot use this passage to say that they were “born that way,” without the desire to have sex. All babies are born without the desire to have sex! Satan only begins to tempt people with sexual desire when they hit puberty.

2) Those “which were made eunuchs of men.” These are real eunuchs, men who have been castrated. It is important to remember that “he that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deut 23:1).

3) Those “which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.” Of course eunuch in this sense is metaphorical. Where in all of God’s holy Word does He require His people to physically mutilate their genitalia? These people deny their desire to serve God in marriage and procreation that they may serve God in the furtherance of His kingdom. No doubt this sacrifice is like having one’s stones cut off, hence Jesus’ choice of the word eunuch. I believe this is an extremely rare calling, but more on that later.

This verse says nothing about women. Women can’t be eunuchs. And it doesn’t let the unsaved off the hook.

So what about the “gift of singleness?” It’s important to get 1 Cor 7:7 in context. Many asexual activists conveniently ignore the fact that just five verses earlier Paul wrote “let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (v2). When Paul writes, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that,” he is speaking of Christians. Every Christian has a gift of God. The unsaved don’t receive spiritual gifts from the Holy Ghost. Therefore the unsaved cannot have the gift of singleness. They are still obliged to marry and have sons or else incur God’s displeasure.

We know that when Paul wrote his letter to the church in Corinth, he was single (1 Cor 7:7-8), though he may have been married earlier in life. He describes his singleness as a gift. He had made himself eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. But how common is this gift? Paul himself told Timothy that “a bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2) and “let the deacons be the husbands of one wife” (1 Tim 3:12). Elders and deacons are required to marry so that they can prove their leadership skills to the church by “ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim 3:12). Therefore elders and deacons cannot have the gift of singleness.

I believe the gift of singleness is very rare. I would be very suspicious of any professing Christian today who claimed to have the gift. The Apostle Paul was an incredibly gifted man, able to perform signs and wonders (Acts 14:3, 1 Thes 1:5), heal the sick (Acts 28:9) and, on one occasion, raise the dead (Acts 20:9-10). He was working to expand the kingdom of heaven. We also know that Paul suffered many tribulations: “Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness” (2 Cor 11:23-27). God probably decided he didn’t need the additional burden of caring for a woman and so bestowed on him a special gift.

All these passages tell us is that God may grant a gift of singleness to a True Christian™ who is working to expand His kingdom. I would not dare call such a person an asexual. Asexuality applies only to unsaved people who refuse to marry and have sons because they claim to have no sexual desire.


The Problem

As we’ve seen in the oft-misquoted passages above, there is no Scripture that by any stretch of the imagination excuses the unsaved from following the Biblical imperative to be fruitful and multiply. Yet asexuals use their “orientation” as an excuse to disobey God. Asexuality is as unnatural as homosexuality, for even the majority of the unsaved by nature have the decency and the desire to marry and have children. The asexual agenda is a secular movement, not one dedicated to furthering the kingdom of heaven.

The Mary-worshipping, ring-kissing papists have been endorsing asexuality for centuries. They think it’s okay for their nuns, monks and priests not to marry. But Catholics aren’t Christians, and for many priests asexuality is a gateway preference that leads to pedophilia and homosexuality.

Contemporary secular concerns about climate change and overpopulation have been debunked numerous times on this forum, so I won’t go into here, only to say that it is no excuse for remaining single and childless.

To the unsaved asexuality may seem trivial, benign. Yet we know that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas 2:10) and “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them” (Deut 27:26a). We know that in Noah’s day, men had become so wicked that “it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth” (Gen 6:6). Yet even these guys still “did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all” (Lk 17:27). Ultimately, if you choose to be asexual in this life, if you spit on God’s institution of marriage and family and undermine the fabric of society, you will spend an eternity in outer darkness, where “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:12) and “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:44).


The Solution

If you have been born with a condition that prevents you from reproducing or having sex, or if you have been castrated or sustained an injury to your manhood, that’s too bad; you’d better pray for a miracle or something. Otherwise

MAN UP AND GET MARRIED!

I figures out why you retards hate asexuals because your retarded ***NAUGHTY WORDS REMOVED***.
Mystery solved
Go ***NAUGHTY WORDS REMOVED***
***NAUGHTY WORDS REMOVED*** retarded brainwashed idiotic ***NAUGHTY WORDS REMOVED***.

[Didymus Much]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

I figures out why you retards hate asexuals because your retarded $%@!
Mystery solved...

You'll be leaving, then?

[Secular1]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Asexual and proud, you child worshippers! I rather be a monkey worshipper than a child worshipper.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Asexual and proud, you child worshippers! I rather be a monkey worshipper than a child worshipper.

Who are you? Why are you here? Where is your introduction thread?



Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[TekcubEht]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

I have returned.