PDA

View Full Version : US Senate votes to allow sex with animals and permits sodomy


Chris F
12-14-2011, 08:57 PM
http://tumfweko.com/2011/12/11/america-legalizes-sex-with-animals-for-military-personnel/

rockdawg21
12-14-2011, 09:20 PM
Well, at least PETA can finally bring their true feelings public.

Miss Foxy
12-14-2011, 09:35 PM
I am sooooo disgusted.. I can't even think of a comment...

adamt
12-14-2011, 09:53 PM
i seriously hope God kicks our butts severely and soon, I personally don't think I really need it since I try to align myself to Him, but I know alot of christians that think they are aligned and they obviously aren't, so for all I know I may not be aligned either. But either way, I will gladly suffer with the rest of America through any judgement that God hands out, just because I am so sick and tired and disgusted of sin and sinful people and spoiled hypocritical christians

Spiritwalker
12-14-2011, 10:38 PM
At least read the article before you condemn.... Gotta love knee jerk reaction-ism..


Page 132.. and on....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Basically.... "non news"

Chris F
12-14-2011, 11:57 PM
At least read the article before you condemn.... Gotta love knee jerk reaction-ism..


Page 132.. and on....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Basically.... "non news"

it is far from Knee jerk. It starts with this and progresses from there. Nothing In the bill makes this filth any more palatable. You may want to think it is non news. But to people of more moral integrity it is news sir. Please by all means cite exactly where in that bill make sex with animals any more acceptable. This is an honest question because I did not see anything that said so. Until I see said evidence I prefer to hold onto my reactionism.

bradwright
12-14-2011, 11:59 PM
i seriously hope God kicks our butts severely and soon, I personally don't think I really need it since I try to align myself to Him, but I know alot of christians that think they are aligned and they obviously aren't, so for all I know I may not be aligned either. But either way, I will gladly suffer with the rest of America through any judgement that God hands out, just because I am so sick and tired and disgusted of sin and sinful people and spoiled hypocritical christians

so you are saying you are not a sinfull person ?

Spiritwalker
12-15-2011, 03:30 AM
it is far from Knee jerk. It starts with this and progresses from there. Nothing In the bill makes this filth any more palatable. You may want to think it is non news. But to people of more moral integrity it is news sir. Please by all means cite exactly where in that bill make sex with animals any more acceptable. This is an honest question because I did not see anything that said so. Until I see said evidence I prefer to hold onto my reactionism.

Try reading.... it's FUNdamental... the evidence is right there... stop relying on others to provide you with information.. or in this case.. MISinformation...

As far as my moral integrity... your one to toss stones... like I said... page 132 and so on... but they my be off due to my resolution...

adamt
12-15-2011, 04:18 AM
so you are saying you are not a sinfull person ?

wow you are really looking for a fight, quite the antagonist aren't you

:unsure-1: kinda like a stalker or something

County Mike
12-15-2011, 12:14 PM
I don't think the intent of removing the law was to allow beastiality. It's just that sodomy and beastiality were part of the same law. They want to let people BF each other and the sex with animals part just goes along for the ride.

I'm not really cool with the gayness either but I don't think we'll see a huge increase in animal sex because of this.

Chris F
12-15-2011, 05:34 PM
Try reading.... it's FUNdamental... the evidence is right there... stop relying on others to provide you with information.. or in this case.. MISinformation...

As far as my moral integrity... your one to toss stones... like I said... page 132 and so on... but they my be off due to my resolution...

typical SW response you make claims than refuse to back them up. Burden of proof is on you moron. You made the claim now back it up. I tried to be civil with you. Plus what happen to you never responding to my post or threads again. Luckily County Mike was so kind enough to properly articulate the situation instead of being a pompous jerk like you sir.

Nevertheless they could have amended the bill to remove the language of bestiality from the omnibus. However they chose not to thus by default they allow sex with animals. So the story is true and it is new worthy. So SW I hope the next comment is either proof or an I was wrong.

Chris F
12-15-2011, 05:36 PM
I don't think the intent of removing the law was to allow beastiality. It's just that sodomy and beastiality were part of the same law. They want to let people BF each other and the sex with animals part just goes along for the ride.

I'm not really cool with the gayness either but I don't think we'll see a huge increase in animal sex because of this.

true enough Mike but they could have if they wanted change the wording so to make beasility still illegal and they didn't so makes one wonder what they do up there. I guess they love to vote on things they never read.

rearnakedchoke
12-15-2011, 05:53 PM
the fact that sodomy is against the law is dumb .. animal sex should be .. they coulda changed the law to allow sodomy and still make animal sex illegal ...

Spiritwalker
12-15-2011, 06:21 PM
I don't think the intent of removing the law was to allow beastiality. It's just that sodomy and beastiality were part of the same law. They want to let people BF each other and the sex with animals part just goes along for the ride.

I'm not really cool with the gayness either but I don't think we'll see a huge increase in animal sex because of this.


agreed.

NateR
12-15-2011, 07:24 PM
It would have been just as easy to remove the section banning sodomy with humans while still leaving the prohibition on sex with animals intact. The fact that it was all removed at once betrays a larger agenda. But I can't figure out if it's the Liberals treating our military like a giant social experiment or if they are simply trying to demoralize our troops in every way possible. My guess would be the latter, since I know that Liberals have no love for the military.

Bonnie
12-15-2011, 07:47 PM
true enough Mike but they could have if they wanted change the wording so to make beasility still illegal and they didn't so makes one wonder what they do up there. I guess they love to vote on things they never read.

It would have been just as easy to remove the section banning sodomy with humans while still leaving the prohibition on sex with animals intact. The fact that it was all removed at once betrays a larger agenda. But I can't figure out if it's the Liberals treating our military like a giant social experiment or if they are simply trying to demoralize our troops in every way possible. My guess would be the latter, since I know that Liberals have no love for the military.

You both hit the nail on the head!

County Mike
12-15-2011, 07:53 PM
Maybe they think a law against beastiality shouldn't even be necessary. Do people really think screwing an animal is OK unless there's a law against it? Do people really want to screw animals? WTF?

Law or no law, I think it's pretty obvious that's just wrong.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 07:55 PM
Maybe they think a law against beastiality shouldn't even be necessary. Do people really think screwing an animal is OK unless there's a law against it? Do people really want to screw animals? WTF?

Law or no law, I think it's pretty obvious that's just wrong.

+1

Spiritwalker
12-15-2011, 08:03 PM
typical SW response you make claims than refuse to back them up. Burden of proof is on you moron. You made the claim now back it up. I tried to be civil with you. Plus what happen to you never responding to my post or threads again. Luckily County Mike was so kind enough to properly articulate the situation instead of being a pompous jerk like you sir..


Hardly typical... you imply that I am immoral... now you call me a moron.. I don't remember saying I wouldn't reply to your posts.. but it has a ring to it...

sorry your "knee jerk reactionism".. doesn't include just a little thought.. I even gave you the page to read.. did you? hmmmm?


Nevertheless they could have amended the bill to remove the language of bestiality from the omnibus. However they chose not to thus by default they allow sex with animals. So the story is true and it is new worthy. So SW I hope the next comment is either proof or I was wrong.


OK.. you are wrong.. just read it.. and then you get your proof.

I never said a negitive word to you,...

why do you love insulting me??? you have a thing for me or something??? Sorry.. I don't swing that way sweety.... and here I was.. thinking that you were a closed minded bigot...

flo
12-15-2011, 08:05 PM
Maybe they think a law against beastiality shouldn't even be necessary. Do people really think screwing an animal is OK unless there's a law against it? Do people really want to screw animals? WTF?

Law or no law, I think it's pretty obvious that's just wrong.

It's a tradition in Afghanistan, from what I've read. But not here so I tend to agree with Nate that it's just a subtle slap in the face to our military.

Ew.

Spiritwalker
12-15-2011, 08:05 PM
It would have been just as easy to remove the section banning sodomy with humans while still leaving the prohibition on sex with animals intact. The fact that it was all removed at once betrays a larger agenda. But I can't figure out if it's the Liberals treating our military like a giant social experiment or if they are simply trying to demoralize our troops in every way possible. My guess would be the latter, since I know that Liberals have no love for the military.

more on that later.. sorry.. don't have the time.. but I belive you are really on to something there...

NateR
12-15-2011, 08:14 PM
Maybe they think a law against beastiality shouldn't even be necessary. Do people really think screwing an animal is OK unless there's a law against it? Do people really want to screw animals? WTF?

Law or no law, I think it's pretty obvious that's just wrong.

People used to say the same thing about homosexuality.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 08:21 PM
People used to say the same thing about homosexuality.

two different things actually....

NateR
12-15-2011, 08:28 PM
two different things actually....

Not according to GOD. All immorality falls into the same category. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, voyeurism, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, sado-masochism, etc. it's all a perversion of the healthy sex life that GOD designed for a husband and wife.

Chris F
12-15-2011, 08:30 PM
Hardly typical... you imply that I am immoral... now you call me a moron.. I don't remember saying I wouldn't reply to your posts.. but it has a ring to it...

sorry your "knee jerk reactionism".. doesn't include just a little thought.. I even gave you the page to read.. did you? hmmmm?





OK.. you are wrong.. just read it.. and then you get your proof.

I never said a negitive word to you,...

why do you love insulting me??? you have a thing for me or something??? Sorry.. I don't swing that way sweety.... and here I was.. thinking that you were a closed minded bigot...

SW I never once implied anything. if you perceived it that way that is all you my man. I read the bill and read it even before you posted it. I read it again to see what you were talking about and as I thought nothing. So do you have evidence or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You made the claim I asked for proof you told me to look up your proof. If you go to court you can;t tell the judge well I gave you the law book now I am sure it is in there you find it. Sorry it does not work that way. Cite the exact line subsection whatever you got to prove you are right. Even County Mike was wise enough to see it and one did not need to place a picture of boobs for him to see it. (sorry mike just messing with ya man). NateR has now also pointed out the same thing. And you come back is more later. Why didn't you tell NateR to go figure it out himself? The truth is you have no clue and simply wanted to start a fight. Be honest with yourself and own up man.

Chris F
12-15-2011, 08:32 PM
Not according to GOD. All immorality falls into the same category. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, voyeurism, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, sado-masochism, etc. it's all a perversion of the healthy sex life that GOD designed for a husband and wife.

+1 sad thing is people do think it is okay to have sex with animals and that they were born with those urges to do so.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 08:39 PM
Not according to GOD. All immorality falls into the same category. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, voyeurism, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, sado-masochism, etc. it's all a perversion of the healthy sex life that GOD designed for a husband and wife.

i dont think this is the thread to bring all that up again...i think we have discussed morality when it comes to ones sexual preferences in a few different threads before this one and it just does more to drive people apart then bring them together.

so for the sake of peace on the forums i am going to just give in.

Merry Christmas Nate.:)

Spiritwalker
12-15-2011, 08:55 PM
SW I never once implied anything. if you perceived it that way that is all you my man.


But to people of more moral integrity it is news sir.
Burden of proof is on you moron.



Maybe I am just more polite that "others":unsure-1:



I read the bill and read it even before you posted it. I read it again to see what you were talking about and as I thought nothing. So do you have evidence or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You made the claim I asked for proof you told me to look up your proof. If you go to court you can;t tell the judge well I gave you the law book now I am sure it is in there you find it. Sorry it does not work that way. Cite the exact line subsection whatever you got to prove you are right. Even County Mike was wise enough to see it and one did not need to place a picture of boobs for him to see it. (sorry mike just messing with ya man). NateR has now also pointed out the same thing. And you come back is more later. Why didn't you tell NateR to go figure it out himself? The truth is you have no clue and simply wanted to start a fight. Be honest with yourself and own up man.


a. Just read it.. (oh yeah.. you have.. so what does that tell me?? You didn't comprehend) I gave you the page even... 132 and so on....
b.didn't know we were in court
c. I didn't tell Nate anything.. cause.. well.. he hadn't posted anything when I made my first post... or my second. Kinda difficult to show something to someone that hasn't even showed up yet...
d. Truth is.. you and many other people... read headlines.. and that's about it.

More on this later...

NateR
12-15-2011, 08:56 PM
i dont think this is the thread to bring all that up again...i think we have discussed morality when it comes to ones sexual preferences in a few different threads before this one and it just does more to drive people apart then bring them together.

so for the sake of peace on the forums i am going to just give in.

Merry Christmas Nate.:)

The Truth tends to drive people apart. Like shining a spotlight into a dark room. Everyone inside the room flees from the light, because they have become so accustomed to the darkness that the light actually causes them physical pain. Which is why Jesus Christ said that He didn't come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 09:03 PM
The Truth tends to drive people apart. Like shining a spotlight into a dark room. Everyone inside the room flees from the light, because they have become so accustomed to the darkness that the light actually causes them physical pain. Which is why Jesus Christ said that He didn't come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.

but i dont have to answer to Jesus...just God...and what does God have to say about peace on earth.

VCURamFan
12-15-2011, 09:07 PM
but i dont have to answer to Jesus...just God...and what does God have to say about peace on earth.
Jesus is God, so in answer to your question:

He didn't come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 09:09 PM
Jesus is God, so in answer to your question:

well to me Jesus is Gods Son...so even though i may be wrong i consider them 2 different entities.

NateR
12-15-2011, 09:10 PM
but i dont have to answer to Jesus...just God...and what does God have to say about peace on earth.

Jesus is GOD.

NateR
12-15-2011, 09:11 PM
well to me Jesus is Gods Son...so even though i may be wrong i consider them 2 different entities.

You cannot be a Christian and hold that opinion. It's impossible.

GOD, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are One.

VCURamFan
12-15-2011, 09:12 PM
well to me Jesus is Gods Son...so even though i may be wrong i consider them 2 different entities.
What are your thoughts on the Trinity?

bradwright
12-15-2011, 09:19 PM
You cannot be a Christian and hold that opinion. It's impossible.

well i am and i do...although i did say i might be wrong.

we could get into a discussion about my beliefs compared to yours but that i think it might be better done in private.

only because i know you have way more knowledge on the subject then i do and i'm at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to discussing the bible and Gods wisdom.

but Merry Christmas just the same Nate.:)

bradwright
12-15-2011, 09:24 PM
What are your thoughts on the Trinity?

well when Jesus roamed the earth he was Gods son...two different entities.

when he died on the cross he returned to become one with God once more.

thats kinda the way i see that one.

now like i said i could be wrong...

VCURamFan
12-15-2011, 09:28 PM
well when Jesus roamed the earth he was Gods son...two different entities.

when he died on the cross he returned to become one with God once more.

thats kinda the way i see that one.

now like i said i could be wrong...
So there is one God, who temporarily divided Himself so that a portion inhabited a human body long enough for Christ's ministry on earth, but the re-united with God. Is that a fair representation of your view?

bradwright
12-15-2011, 09:36 PM
So there is one God, who temporarily divided Himself so that a portion inhabited a human body long enough for Christ's ministry on earth, but the re-united with God. Is that a fair representation of your view?

yes but when Jesus was on earth he was a separate entity from God and had free will of mind and body.
so to me the only time Jesus existed was when he was on earth.

i am not telling this to you Ben to try and offend anyone...its just how i see it.

VCURamFan
12-15-2011, 09:38 PM
yes but when Jesus was on earth he was a separate entity from God and had free will of mind and body.
so to me the only time Jesus existed was when he was on earth.

i am not telling this to you Ben to try and offend anyone...its just how i see it.
No, I understand you're not trying to piss anyone off & I'm not trying to bait you into starting anything. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what your position was before starting a discussion about it. Would be kinda crazy to go off full-tilt on a "flaw" if you didn't actually believe in that, right? :laugh:

bradwright
12-15-2011, 09:41 PM
No, I understand you're not trying to piss anyone off & I'm not trying to bait you into starting anything. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what your position was before starting a discussion about it. Would be kinda crazy to go off full-tilt on a "flaw" if you didn't actually believe in that, right? :laugh:

right.

VCURamFan
12-15-2011, 09:42 PM
Tell you what, I'm about to leave work & don't have time to craft a response right now. On top of that, I don't wanna de-rail this thread. When I've got a little more time at home, I'm gonna start a new thread in the Christianity section about it.

If you're interested, that is.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 09:50 PM
Tell you what, I'm about to leave work & don't have time to craft a response right now. On top of that, I don't wanna de-rail this thread. When I've got a little more time at home, I'm gonna start a new thread in the Christianity section about it.

If you're interested, that is.

yes Ben i'm interested in what you,Nate and some others have to say on the subject but i dont want to fight about it.

NateR
12-15-2011, 09:59 PM
yes but when Jesus was on earth he was a separate entity from God and had free will of mind and body.
so to me the only time Jesus existed was when he was on earth.

i am not telling this to you Ben to try and offend anyone...its just how i see it.

That's definitely not the story that the Bible teaches. Jesus was fully man and fully GOD in a way that we will probably never understand.

According to John chapter 1, Jesus existed in the eternity before creation and was actually responsible for the creation of the entire universe.

There are three beings in the Trinity, but the Trinity is still One GOD. They have distinct personalities, but They are still a part of the same Entity. If you have trouble understanding that, then join the club. It's not really possible for finite beings to fully comprehend an infinite GOD. We might understand it when we get to Heaven, but for right now, it's impossible. However, inability to understand is no excuse for unbelief.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 10:15 PM
That's definitely not the story that the Bible teaches. Jesus was fully man and fully GOD in a way that we will probably never understand.

According to John chapter 1, Jesus existed in the eternity before creation and was actually responsible for the creation of the entire universe.

There are three beings in the Trinity, but the Trinity is still One GOD. They have distinct personalities, but They are still a part of the same Entity. If you have trouble understanding that, then join the club. It's not really possible for finite beings to fully comprehend an infinite GOD. We might understand it when we get to Heaven, but for right now, it's impossible. However, inability to understand is no excuse for unbelief.

but i do believe in GOD,Jesus and the holy spirit.

but to me GOD is the holy spirit and the holy spirit is GOD.

But Jesus although part of GOD before his life on earth and after his death,never exsisted as Jesus other then on earth.

Chris F
12-15-2011, 10:29 PM
But to people of more moral integrity it is news sir.
Burden of proof is on you moron.



Maybe I am just more polite that "others":unsure-1:





a. Just read it.. (oh yeah.. you have.. so what does that tell me?? You didn't comprehend) I gave you the page even... 132 and so on....
b.didn't know we were in court
c. I didn't tell Nate anything.. cause.. well.. he hadn't posted anything when I made my first post... or my second. Kinda difficult to show something to someone that hasn't even showed up yet...
d. Truth is.. you and many other people... read headlines.. and that's about it.

More on this later...

Sorry SW I cannot help how you take something. It does not imply anything toward you. As for burden of proof moron comment that was indeed directed to you and a honest assessment considering your unwillingness to be honest about it.

a- sure and where from pg 132 and so on does it say anything that bestiality was not part of the deal? Basically prove it is perfectly fine to allow the military to have sex with animals.

b-when to people discuss or debate there are a few rules of logic one should follow. You seems to want to play by another set of rules. Sorry son but it does not work that way. You want to play with the big boys you need to follow the rules sir.

c- you did say more on this later on an earlie post. So if that was not directed to Nate than so be it. But you did say it.

d-you do not know me from adam and you are wrong about me. I am anal about information and dig into everything. As a historian and theologian I never accept anything without care dissection and proper context. So for the third time SW show us the evidence and be honest with yourself.

NateR
12-15-2011, 10:30 PM
but i do believe in GOD,Jesus and the holy spirit.

but to me GOD is the holy spirit and the holy spirit is GOD.

But Jesus although part of GOD before his life on earth and after his death,never exsisted as Jesus other then on earth.

What scriptures would you use to back up these beliefs?

Chris F
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
but i do believe in GOD,Jesus and the holy spirit.

but to me GOD is the holy spirit and the holy spirit is GOD.

But Jesus although part of GOD before his life on earth and after his death,never exsisted as Jesus other then on earth.

brad I see you rpoint brother and I think you are just a little misunderstood. For example like you said how can Jesus sit at the right hand of the father if he is God. Or how is he an advocate to the father on our behalf but still the father as well. The answer is that is his nature. I Chris am a Father, husband, minister. In all those duties I operate in different terms of my nature but I am still just Chris. He is God in three persons. The Holy Spirit is currently here on earth in a separate person but it is still God. What you are advocating is three separate Gods is they are not 3 in one and that does not work in Christian theology. What you are saying here is what the Mormonism believe (the trinity is an office held by 3 separate Gods). Another example is time. Time is past, present, and future but there is not 3 times but one time.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 10:42 PM
What scriptures would you use to back up these beliefs?

i dont have one that would defend my position...at least not one i know of.
but seeing as how you are asking i think i could safely assume there isn't one.

but that still doesn't mean i dont believe it.

you and i Nate believe different things for different reasons..

not saying i'm right and you are wrong...just different.

Chris F
12-15-2011, 10:51 PM
i dont have one that would defend my position...at least not one i know of.
but seeing as how you are asking i think i could safely assume there isn't one.

but that still doesn't mean i dont believe it.

you and i Nate believe different things for different reasons..

not saying i'm right and you are wrong...just different.

true brad but in Christianity there can be no grey. The bible is the only source we cannot trust our own hearts and minds to comprehend God. We must accept or reject the authority of scripture. When we leave it up to our own thinking we cause false doctrine to ran rampant. If this were say women speaking in church, drinking, speaking in tongues than one can say hey we are just different. But and heaven or hell issue like this one cannot simply be different. This is a core doctrine.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 10:51 PM
brad I see you rpoint brother and I think you are just a little misunderstood. For example like you said how can Jesus sit at the right hand of the father if he is God. Or how is he an advocate to the father on our behalf but still the father as well. The answer is that is his nature. I Chris am a Father, husband, minister. In all those duties I operate in different terms of my nature but I am still just Chris. He is God in three persons. The Holy Spirit is currently here on earth in a separate person but it is still God. What you are advocating is three separate Gods is they are not 3 in one and that does not work in Christian theology. What you are saying here is what the Mormonism believe (the trinity is an office held by 3 separate Gods). Another example is time. Time is past, present, and future but there is not 3 times but one time.

i actually dont believe there are 3 different Gods as you suggest.

i believe there is only 1 God and 1 holy spirit and they are one and the same.

Jesus to me was not God while on earth...only before and after.

Chris F
12-15-2011, 10:57 PM
i actually dont believe there are 3 different Gods as you suggest.

i believe there is only 1 God and 1 holy spirit and they are one and the same.

Jesus to me was not God while on earth...only before and after.

Oh I see. Well as NateR already showed you the bible is clear Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. He forgave sins, he accepted worship, he saw in the hearts of man and woman. A man could never do this. However he ate, he slept, he died. A God does not do these things. So Jesus was both at the same time.

bradwright
12-15-2011, 10:58 PM
true brad but in Christianity there can be no grey. The bible is the only source we cannot trust our own hearts and minds to comprehend God. We must accept or reject the authority of scripture. When we leave it up to our own thinking we cause false doctrine to ran rampant. If this were say women speaking in church, drinking, speaking in tongues than one can say hey we are just different. But and heaven or hell issue like this one cannot simply be different. This is a core doctrine.

so let me see if i understand this...
in your eyes i couldn't be a Cristian because of the way God,Jesus and the holy spirit are defined by my beliefs ?

i cant claim to be saved by God then ?..not that i do claim to be saved...not just yet anyway.

is that really all there is to it ?

Chris F
12-15-2011, 11:04 PM
so let me see if i understand this...
in your eyes i couldn't be a Cristian because of the way God,Jesus and the holy spirit are defined by my beliefs ?

i cant claim to be saved by God then ?..not that i do claim to be saved...not just yet anyway.

is that really all there is to it ?

I cannot say if you are saved in any circumstance because I am not God and do not know your heart. I can judge your fruits but since I do not know you that would not be very fair. What I can say is what the bible says and it is clear Jesus is God and Jesus proved it, Peter, John, Paul and so on all said he was. For there to be one true God there cannot be any wavier form that. The fact that you said he is God now helps a lot. My advice is seek the scripture about it and not worry so much on what we say but let the Holy Spirit reveal himself to you through Gods Holy word. Salvation comes from what Jesus did on the cross and our beliefs and subsequent reactions to that belief. Everything else must be worked out with fear and trembling.

Spiritwalker
12-16-2011, 03:39 AM
Sorry SW I cannot help how you take something. It does not imply anything toward you. As for burden of proof moron comment that was indeed directed to you and a honest assessment considering your unwillingness to be honest about it.


since you need to be held by the hand.....

11 ‘‘(6) INDECENT MANNER.—The term ‘indecent
12 manner’ means conduct that amounts to a form of
13 immorality relating to sexual impurity which is
14 grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common
15 propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or de
16 prave morals with respect to sexual relations.’’.

basically the Sodomy article was repealed, taking bestiality with it and "Indecent Manner" takes it's place.



a- sure and where from pg 132 and so on does it say anything that bestiality was not part of the deal? Basically prove it is perfectly fine to allow the military to have sex with animals.




11 ‘‘(6) INDECENT MANNER.—The term ‘indecent
12 manner’ means conduct that amounts to a form of
13 immorality relating to sexual impurity which is
14 grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common
15 propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or de
16 prave morals with respect to sexual relations.’’.


b-when to people discuss or debate there are a few rules of logic one should follow. You seems to want to play by another set of rules. Sorry son but it does not work that way. You want to play with the big boys you need to follow the rules sir.

the rule of logic I asked YOU to follow.. was to simply read... comprehend.. but nope....

c- you did say more on this later on an earlie post. So if that was not directed to Nate than so be it. But you did say it.

That was referring to Liberals hating the military... keep up "son".

d-you do not know me from adam and you are wrong about me. I am anal about information and dig into everything. As a historian and theologian I never accept anything without care dissection and proper context. So for the third time SW show us the evidence and be honest with yourself.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...... nice one!!! best I have heard in days...you?? a "historian"...that is a LAUGH!!! I can see theologian .. YEAH right!!!! haha... Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.. your truth is the only "right" truth...


Tell me "theologian" what kind of man was Moses?

Tell me "theologian" How old do you think Noah really was?

As for being honest with myself.... I am brutally honest with myself...

Chris F
12-16-2011, 05:16 AM
since you need to be held by the hand.....

11 ‘‘(6) INDECENT MANNER.—The term ‘indecent
12 manner’ means conduct that amounts to a form of
13 immorality relating to sexual impurity which is
14 grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common
15 propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or de
16 prave morals with respect to sexual relations.’’.

basically the Sodomy article was repealed, taking bestiality with it and "Indecent Manner" takes it's place.








11 ‘‘(6) INDECENT MANNER.—The term ‘indecent
12 manner’ means conduct that amounts to a form of
13 immorality relating to sexual impurity which is
14 grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common
15 propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or de
16 prave morals with respect to sexual relations.’’.




the rule of logic I asked YOU to follow.. was to simply read... comprehend.. but nope....



That was referring to Liberals hating the military... keep up "son".




hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...... nice one!!! best I have heard in days...you?? a "historian"...that is a LAUGH!!! I can see theologian .. YEAH right!!!! haha... Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.. your truth is the only "right" truth...


Tell me "theologian" what kind of man was Moses?

Tell me "theologian" How old do you think Noah really was?

As for being honest with myself.... I am brutally honest with myself...

:laugh: you clueless man. This proves nothing. You need a class in civics. Talking to you is like talking to a 2 year old with his hands in his ears. When you grow up come join the adults in a meaningful conversation. Nothing you posted changes the facts. Your interpretation of the bill is not more valid than the price of tea in china. The fact is the language is still in there. Thus it is still in the eyes of the government morally right for solider to engage in sex with an animal. So try again SW. And I will ignore your childish rant in the end there.

County Mike
12-16-2011, 01:01 PM
Nice to see all the Christians discussing things in such a Christian manner.

NateR
12-16-2011, 01:07 PM
i dont have one that would defend my position...at least not one i know of.
but seeing as how you are asking i think i could safely assume there isn't one.

but that still doesn't mean i dont believe it.

you and i Nate believe different things for different reasons..

not saying i'm right and you are wrong...just different.

There are certain non-negotiables of the faith and the deity of Jesus Christ is one of them. He was 100% GOD and 100% man simultaneously the entire time He was on the earth. Of course, that's difficult for us to comprehend, because we are not GOD. However, we don't need to comprehend it we just need to believe.

If you are forming beliefs, relying on your own reasoning skills, and not checking those beliefs against Scripture; then you are crossing the line into heresy.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding

NateR
12-16-2011, 01:13 PM
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...... nice one!!! best I have heard in days...you?? a "historian"...that is a LAUGH!!! I can see theologian .. YEAH right!!!! haha... Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.. your truth is the only "right" truth...


Tell me "theologian" what kind of man was Moses?

Tell me "theologian" How old do you think Noah really was?

As for being honest with myself.... I am brutally honest with myself...

Watch it, you go too much further with these sorts of personal attacks and you will earn yourself a temporary ban from the site. I usually will allow some name calling, because I know that ChrisF can take it, but you are going way too far with your comments here. Consider this your warning.

Neezar
12-16-2011, 01:33 PM
since you need to be held by the hand.....

11 ‘‘(6) INDECENT MANNER.—The term ‘indecent
12 manner’ means conduct that amounts to a form of
13 immorality relating to sexual impurity which is
14 grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common
15 propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or de
16 prave morals with respect to sexual relations.’’.

basically the Sodomy article was repealed, taking bestiality with it and "Indecent Manner" takes it's place.



This is the scariest thing I have read so far! Who gets to decide what falls in these boundaries or what doesn't?

:unsure-1:

adamt
12-16-2011, 02:02 PM
i actually dont believe there are 3 different Gods as you suggest.

i believe there is only 1 God and 1 holy spirit and they are one and the same.

Jesus to me was not God while on earth...only before and after.


:laugh: anytime you see someone relegate themselves to using the term "to me", you know they are wrong..... relativism is the act of saying that God is not the standard, everyone is their own standard.... and saying "to me" is the perfect example of it

Nice to see all the Christians discussing things in such a Christian manner.


Excellent point Mike, you do have a aura of bluntness and facts about you don't you :)..... but I must point out that I don't think Spiritwalker claims to be a christian, and brad isn't a christian either, see his quote above. Anyone that denies the hypostalic union and denies Jesus' diety isn't a CHRISTian, that's like me claiming to be a vegan because I don't eat or wear the animals I kill, I just shoot lots of them and leave them laying.

This is the scariest thing I have read so far! Who gets to decide what falls in these boundaries or what doesn't?

:unsure-1:
That's what I thought too..... the quote was basically saying anything immoral is okay......

what's next? necrophilia? raping the enemy?

bradwright
12-16-2011, 03:33 PM
:laugh: anytime you see someone relegate themselves to using the term "to me", you know they are wrong..... relativism is the act of saying that God is not the standard, everyone is their own standard.... and saying "to me" is the perfect example of it




Excellent point Mike, you do have a aura of bluntness and facts about you don't you :)..... but I must point out that I don't think Spiritwalker claims to be a christian, and brad isn't a christian either, see his quote above. Anyone that denies the hypostalic union and denies Jesus' diety isn't a CHRISTian, that's like me claiming to be a vegan because I don't eat or wear the animals I kill, I just shoot lots of them and leave them laying.



That's what I thought too..... the quote was basically saying anything immoral is okay......

what's next? necrophilia? raping the enemy?

i'm not sure laughing at me and my beliefs is really helping anything here.

but if ridicule is the only way you know how to interact with people that disagree with you then there really isn't anything left for you and i to discuss.

and as for me being a Christian or not...well the jury is still out on that one..
it actually all depends on the definition of a Cristian.

you see adamt there actually are people that claim to be Christians who through out history looked at the trinity and Jesus pretty much the same way i do.

rearnakedchoke
12-16-2011, 04:01 PM
Nice to see all the Christians discussing things in such a Christian manner.

well, SW is usually just a troll to get people all mad and argue with him .. it's usually with Dave, but he got Chris to bite this time ..

Miss Foxy
12-16-2011, 04:19 PM
well, SW is usually just a troll to get people all mad and argue with him .. it's usually with Dave, but he got Chris to bite this time ..

Wow, when typing this you were clearly looking in the mirror... Isn't this what you do? Actually I believe your more of an instigator.. SW actually goes all out and argues.

rearnakedchoke
12-16-2011, 04:27 PM
Wow, when typing this you were clearly looking in the mirror... Isn't this what you do? Actually I believe your more of an instigator.. SW actually goes all out and argues.

yeah .. i am more of an instigator .. LOL ..

Chris F
12-16-2011, 04:37 PM
This is the scariest thing I have read so far! Who gets to decide what falls in these boundaries or what doesn't?

:unsure-1:

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris F
12-16-2011, 04:43 PM
Wow, when typing this you were clearly looking in the mirror... Isn't this what you do? Actually I believe your more of an instigator.. SW actually goes all out and argues.

I just like to argue as you all know. I will sometimes argue even when I agree just to argue. :laugh: I got no beef with SW he is who he is and I get amused at some of the things he says. RNC yeah is a bit of an instigator. But I rarely see it go into anything personal. I think the king of always wanting to argue even more than me is Dave by far. But at then end of the day it is all in good fun and we all love Matt!!!!!!!!!!

Miss Foxy
12-16-2011, 05:22 PM
I just like to argue as you all know. I will sometimes argue even when I agree just to argue. :laugh: I got no beef with SW he is who he is and I get amused at some of the things he says. RNC yeah is a bit of an instigator. But I rarely see it go into anything personal. I think the king of always wanting to argue even more than me is Dave by far. But at then end of the day it is all in good fun and we all love Matt!!!!!!!!!!

Good breakdown of your ways and yes we all love Matt that's one topic we can all agree on.. I don't fault ya Chris I know it's your Italiano ways ...:wink: kidding!!

rockdawg21
12-16-2011, 05:53 PM
All this means is more farmers will join the military.

flo
12-16-2011, 08:59 PM
But at then end of the day it is all in good fun and we all love Matt!!!!!!!!!!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/applause.gif

All this means is more farmers will join the military.

OMG, you are so bad! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

adamt
12-16-2011, 09:26 PM
i'm not sure laughing at me and my beliefs is really helping anything here.

but if ridicule is the only way you know how to interact with people that disagree with you then there really isn't anything left for you and i to discuss.

and as for me being a Christian or not...well the jury is still out on that one..
it actually all depends on the definition of a Cristian.

you see adamt there actually are people that claim to be Christians who through out history looked at the trinity and Jesus pretty much the same way i do.

Jesus said " I and my Father are one" He also claimed to be the "I AM", that was before Abraham

My question is how can anyone believe that God decided to stop being God....


Also, the term Christian is not relative, it means someone who believes on Jesus Christ as their only means to salvation and heaven by forgiveness, nothing they can earn, only accept. And you yourself said you didn't know if you were a christian or not. I can tell you one thing, if you are that confused about it, then you aren't. If you don't think Jesus is God or was God, you aren't either.

Please name the people throughout history to which you are referring, i am very interested in knowing.

also, please quote me so i know how i ridiculed you. Though that was a nice try to portray me as being obnoxious or negative

also i in no way laughed at you, only your odd reasoning. Prefacing something with "to me" doesn't make it true or more acceptable, it just shows you are a relativist---saying that what you believe is right for you, but might not be right for someone else, and that couldn't be any further from the truth

so let me see if i understand this...
in your eyes i couldn't be a Cristian because of the way God,Jesus and the holy spirit are defined by my beliefs ?

i cant claim to be saved by God then ?..not that i do claim to be saved...not just yet anyway.

is that really all there is to it ?

you can't even muster up enough to claim a desire to want to be saved, how can you even remotely entertain the thought that you are.....I'm not the one that said you weren't a christian, you did.... but be sure that if you don't claim Jesus real clear and strong He won't be claiming you either....

bradwright
12-16-2011, 09:47 PM
Jesus said " I and my Father are one" He also claimed to be the "I AM", that was before Abraham

My question is how can anyone believe that God decided to stop being God....


Also, the term Christian is not relative, it means someone who believes on Jesus Christ as their only means to salvation and heaven by forgiveness, nothing they can earn, only accept. And you yourself said you didn't know if you were a christian or not. I can tell you one thing, if you are that confused about it, then you aren't. If you don't think Jesus is God or was God, you aren't either.

Please name the people throughout history to which you are referring, i am very interested in knowing.

also, please quote me so i know how i ridiculed you. Though that was a nice try to portray me as being obnoxious or negative

also i in no way laughed at you, only your odd reasoning. Prefacing something with "to me" doesn't make it true or more acceptable, it just shows you are a relativist---saying that what you believe is right for you, but might not be right for someone else, and that couldn't be any further from the truth



you can't even muster up enough to claim a desire to want to be saved, how can you even remotely entertain the thought that you are.....I'm not the one that said you weren't a christian, you did.... but be sure that if you don't claim Jesus real clear and strong He won't be claiming you either....

thanks...but no thanks.
you are just a little to condescending for my liking.

Merry Christmas just the same though.:)

Spiritwalker
12-16-2011, 09:57 PM
Watch it, you go too much further with these sorts of personal attacks and you will earn yourself a temporary ban from the site. I usually will allow some name calling, because I know that ChrisF can take it, but you are going way too far with your comments here. Consider this your warning.

So it's ok for me to be called a moron... and to imply I am immoral...

But for me to question his title of theologian, and I get a warning??? Look into what a theologian is.. "a study of God and of God's relation to the world" .. the world is vastly different from year to year... do you not think that God's relation .. or the view of the relation should change?

I am called a troll??? because I have no problem arguing a topic.. debating.. taking the less popular side of a discussion.. for the sake of discussion??

In this specific thread.. I said.. this was non-news.. and when called to task.. I provided general information.. thinking that would be enough to get people to really read into this.. instead of reading headlines..

When further called to task... I provided very specific information..

Yet I am the troll?

I have been gone for months to put aside time for me and my training.. my family and all the other fun stuff in life.. I have popped in here now and again.. and now that I have some more free time.. I wanted to come back and see "friends"... well damn....

I stayed away from the religious threads because .. my genuine desire to understand the way that many OT Christians think..always gets confused with "something"..

I am nothing if I am not open minded... you should know that Nate... I have no problem with others view points.. but when someone won't open the door to someone with different views... then what do you get???

For instance.. I LOVE to listen to White Power peoples.. and I love to hear about what "the brothers" think about "Whitey"... is it because I agree with both??? No.. if for any reason.. the most base would be to "know your enemy"... But when I say ..as I did in another thread... "Homosexuality is a 2 inch curb that many people can't step over"... I get blasted ...

So before I get "warned" for speaking [edit = AFTER actually]... in the same (albeit more intelligent IMO) manner... maybe you might want to view your motivations.


You know I like you.. I respect the way you stand up for your belief system.. popular or not.. right or wrong... there is no misunderstanding you. I admire that in anyone.. even someone I want to punch in the face... But Nate... Is it ok for a Christian to stone a person.. for not agreeing with the Christian? If you can say yes to that... then I have really not understood you at all. If you can say no... then why do I get a warning yet others blast me.. Is it because I am more open and open minded with my thoughts? I am ok to disagree with.. and discuss/argue/debate.. so that makes me an easy target?? What is better to have? A terrorist and a spy.. or a person that openly questions???

Spiritwalker
12-16-2011, 09:59 PM
Wow, when typing this you were clearly looking in the mirror... Isn't this what you do? Actually I believe your more of an instigator.. SW actually goes all out and argues.


I would say thanks.. but I don't want you on the naughty list...

Play The Man
12-16-2011, 10:02 PM
i'm not sure laughing at me and my beliefs is really helping anything here.

but if ridicule is the only way you know how to interact with people that disagree with you then there really isn't anything left for you and i to discuss.

and as for me being a Christian or not...well the jury is still out on that one..
it actually all depends on the definition of a Cristian.

you see adamt there actually are people that claim to be Christians who through out history looked at the trinity and Jesus pretty much the same way i do.

BradWright, this excerpt from "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis addresses your issue of defining a Christian. I find it helpful:

Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my
use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of
Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a
Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far
more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who
do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very
spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being
useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors
want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another,
and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had
a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a
gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact.
If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving
information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a
gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an
M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably,
spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-"Ah, but surely the
important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but
the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman
should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than
John?"
They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course
a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same
thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a
man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of
giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is
"a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to
be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer
tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's
attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker
likes.)
A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old
coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker
likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of
approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if
anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he
cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as
they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will
speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves
will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in
the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see
into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.
It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not,
a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never
apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they
will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become
in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they
will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word
will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good.
Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful
purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name
Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to
those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its
being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they
should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some
refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ"
than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological,
or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all
understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine
lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than
to say he is not a Christian.


The Athanasian Creed is an helpful resource for learning what orthodox Christians have believed about the Trinity:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Chris F
12-16-2011, 10:19 PM
So it's ok for me to be called a moron... and to imply I am immoral...

But for me to question his title of theologian, and I get a warning??? Look into what a theologian is.. "a study of God and of God's relation to the world" .. the world is vastly different from year to year... do you not think that God's relation .. or the view of the relation should change?

I am called a troll??? because I have no problem arguing a topic.. debating.. taking the less popular side of a discussion.. for the sake of discussion??

In this specific thread.. I said.. this was non-news.. and when called to task.. I provided general information.. thinking that would be enough to get people to really read into this.. instead of reading headlines..

When further called to task... I provided very specific information..

Yet I am the troll?

I have been gone for months to put aside time for me and my training.. my family and all the other fun stuff in life.. I have popped in here now and again.. and now that I have some more free time.. I wanted to come back and see "friends"... well damn....

I stayed away from the religious threads because .. my genuine desire to understand the way that many OT Christians think..always gets confused with "something"..

I am nothing if I am not open minded... you should know that Nate... I have no problem with others view points.. but when someone won't open the door to someone with different views... then what do you get???

For instance.. I LOVE to listen to White Power peoples.. and I love to hear about what "the brothers" think about "Whitey"... is it because I agree with both??? No.. if for any reason.. the most base would be to "know your enemy"... But when I say ..as I did in another thread... "Homosexuality is a 2 inch curb that many people can't step over"... I get blasted ...

So before I get "warned" for speaking [edit = AFTER actually]... in the same (albeit more intelligent IMO) manner... maybe you might want to view your motivations.


You know I like you.. I respect the way you stand up for your belief system.. popular or not.. right or wrong... there is no misunderstanding you. I admire that in anyone.. even someone I want to punch in the face... But Nate... Is it ok for a Christian to stone a person.. for not agreeing with the Christian? If you can say yes to that... then I have really not understood you at all. If you can say no... then why do I get a warning yet others blast me.. Is it because I am more open and open minded with my thoughts? I am ok to disagree with.. and discuss/argue/debate.. so that makes me an easy target?? What is better to have? A terrorist and a spy.. or a person that openly questions???

Tell us how you really feel SW. Anyhow. I got no beef with you questioning. It is when you get condesending that I have a problem. Nothing I said in my original post was directed to you. Do not flatter yourself I think about you as much as you think about me. I simply stated a that people of higher morals find issue with this law. That was no implication to you having any less morals because I for one have no idea what you feel on this. If you think it is morally OK for military personnel to get it on with a sheep then all the power to you and you lack same moral proclivity as the rest of us. That is your choice. But to assume I directed to you and than insult me is why people get upset. Like NateR said i can take it so you do not hurt my feelings. This is the woodshed after all. But if you want to think you are somehow more intelligent than us you may want to spend more time arguing facts and less time arguing people.

bradwright
12-17-2011, 12:36 AM
BradWright, this excerpt from "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis addresses your issue of defining a Christian. I find it helpful:




The Athanasian Creed is an helpful resource for learning what orthodox Christians have believed about the Trinity:



good read..thank you.

adamt
12-17-2011, 01:00 AM
thanks...but no thanks.




you're certainly welcome, i didn't think you actually had any people in history that thought the same way you do, and i knew i didn't "ridicule" you



merry christmas to you too!!!!:)

NateR
12-17-2011, 01:09 AM
anytime you see someone relegate themselves to using the term "to me", you know they are wrong..... relativism is the act of saying that God is not the standard, everyone is their own standard.... and saying "to me" is the perfect example of it

100% agreed. I keyed in on that right away. It doesn't matter what our personal opinions are, those are irrelevant. What matters is what GOD says in His Word.

bradwright
12-17-2011, 05:11 AM
you're certainly welcome, i didn't think you actually had any people in history that thought the same way you do, and i knew i didn't "ridicule" you



merry christmas to you too!!!!:)

Nontrinitarians

Main article: Nontrinitarianism

Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They are a small minority of Christians. Various nontrinitarian views, such as adoptionism or modalism, existed in early Christianity, leading to the disputes about Christology.[68] Nontrinitarianism later appeared again in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.


i wouldn't have bothered responding but you called me a liar...so there you go.

adamt
12-17-2011, 03:48 PM
Nontrinitarians

Main article: Nontrinitarianism

Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They are a small minority of Christians. Various nontrinitarian views, such as adoptionism or modalism, existed in early Christianity, leading to the disputes about Christology.[68] Nontrinitarianism later appeared again in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.


i wouldn't have bothered responding but you called me a liar...so there you go.



Wow, most everything you say is an exxageration.... I never called you a liar. I said as you pointed out that I didn't think you had examples, and you STILL didn't provide examples......

but saying I called you a liar is a lie, so I guess now would be the poignant time to refer to you as a liar if I so chose to, which I do not choose to....


thanks for the irrelevant copy and paste though, i thought about responding with my own irrelevant copy and paste but instead I found you some examples of people who believe like you do:
1. muslims and muhammad
2. joseph young and the mormorns, so you and romney are similar!
3. jehovah witnesses and charles taze russell
4.mary baker eddy and the christian scientists, so you and tom cruise are also similar!
5.constantinus the 2nd
6.ralph waldo emerson



so i stand corrected, there are other people in history who believe like you do!

bradwright
12-17-2011, 04:12 PM
Wow, most everything you say is an exxageration.... I never called you a liar. I said as you pointed out that I didn't think you had examples, and you STILL didn't provide examples......

but saying I called you a liar is a lie, so I guess now would be the poignant time to refer to you as a liar if I so chose to, which I do not choose to....


thanks for the irrelevant copy and paste though, i thought about responding with my own irrelevant copy and paste but instead I found you some examples of people who believe like you do:
1. muslims and muhammad
2. joseph young and the mormorns, so you and romney are similar!
3. jehovah witnesses and charles taze russell
4.mary baker eddy and the christian scientists, so you and tom cruise are also similar!
5.constantinus the 2nd
6.ralph waldo emerson



so i stand corrected, there are other people in history who believe like you do!

it amazes me you cant talk with me with out attacking me adam...

so i didn't provide examples but you say you stand corrected...hmm...

and yes when you said you didn't think i had anyone in history that thought like me would to me infer that i was lying...
you call it what ever you want but thats what it was.

you seem very bitter about life in general adam and when you try to take it out on me i have no time for it.

so i wish you good luck in your life,but i am done talking with you.

adamt
12-17-2011, 06:25 PM
you seem very bitter about life in general adam and when you try to take it out on me i have no time for it.

I take it you would rather editorialize me rather than my legitimate arguments about the actual issue we are discussing, is that correct?

Neezar
12-17-2011, 07:04 PM
Can we get back to the sex with animals part?





:laugh:

adamt
12-17-2011, 09:13 PM
:Can we get back to the sex with animals part?





:laugh:

:sign0006:


but isn't that what i just said with that needlessly longwinded post above yours :tongue0011: :laugh:

NateR
12-18-2011, 04:58 AM
Nontrinitarians

Main article: Nontrinitarianism

Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They are a small minority of Christians. Various nontrinitarian views, such as adoptionism or modalism, existed in early Christianity, leading to the disputes about Christology.[68] Nontrinitarianism later appeared again in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.

Those are generally seen to be heretical and apostate views of Christianity and they do not line up with the GOD of the Bible.

1 John 2:22-23
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

A major prophecy of Jesus from the Old Testament. "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" could never be used to refer to a mere man. So it shows that Jesus would be GOD.

Jeremiah 23:5-6
“ Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,

“ That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

A prophecy of Jesus' Second Coming using a name that could only be a reference to GOD not a man.

Tyburn
12-18-2011, 05:52 PM
I think this law is more about appeasement to gays then sex with animals.

although...if you felt such inclinement...I suppose you could use it as legal back up.

I know its all filth...but I cant help but see one as being more filthy then the other :unsure-1: sorry :ashamed:

NateR
12-18-2011, 06:14 PM
I think this law is more about appeasement to gays then sex with animals.

although...if you felt such inclinement...I suppose you could use it as legal back up.

I know its all filth...but I cant help but see one as being more filthy then the other :unsure-1: sorry :ashamed:

Well, one could argue that there is no way that an animal can really consent to a sexual relationship. So in that sense, bestiality would be worse that homosexuality in our eyes.

However, ability to consent doesn't necessarily make a sexual relationship un-sinful. Children can consent to sex with an adult, but it is still considered a crime.

bradwright
12-18-2011, 06:40 PM
Those are generally seen to be heretical and apostate views of Christianity and they do not line up with the GOD of the Bible.

1 John 2:22-23
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

A major prophecy of Jesus from the Old Testament. "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" could never be used to refer to a mere man. So it shows that Jesus would be GOD.

Jeremiah 23:5-6
“ Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,

“ That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

A prophecy of Jesus' Second Coming using a name that could only be a reference to GOD not a man.

i have read this over a few times now and while i understand what you have posted here i have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

Tyburn
12-18-2011, 11:00 PM
Well, one could argue that there is no way that an animal can really consent to a sexual relationship. So in that sense, bestiality would be worse that homosexuality in our eyes.

However, ability to consent doesn't necessarily make a sexual relationship un-sinful. Children can consent to sex with an adult, but it is still considered a crime.

exactly. Its pretty clear that neither are correct...and that consent doesnt come into it....infact consent sometimes makes it worse...If a Heathen commits Sodomy in a consenting relationship, thats one thing...but if an Enlightened Christian does the same when THEY KNOW its sinful...its deliberately conspiring to do sin...they cant hide behind ignorance of "I didnt know it was wrong" or "I did it accidently" They have nothing to hide behind except to say they knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

Everyone knows that the sinless Union is ONE Male, ONE Female, Consenting, Overaged, Spent and expressed between themselves and no other, and joined in Holy Matrimony

anything else is sodomy of some sort. Underaged, Rape, Kiddly Fiddlers, out of wedlock, in wedlock with more then one person, swapping partners, gays, lesbians, animals...deadbodies :blink: anything outside of GODs intent is wrong...and its wrong regardless of the Law of the land also.

But...personally, I still hold some sodomites as less sinful then others :laugh::ashamed: for me, gays will just never be quite as bad as those who have it off with other things. Though I admit none are by design and thus all sinful.

rearnakedchoke
12-19-2011, 02:46 PM
Well, one could argue that there is no way that an animal can really consent to a sexual relationship. So in that sense, bestiality would be worse that homosexuality in our eyes.

However, ability to consent doesn't necessarily make a sexual relationship un-sinful. Children can consent to sex with an adult, but it is still considered a crime.

hold on .. all this time my bird has been saying "polly wanna cracker" .. she doesn't want to date a white guy?

Tyburn
12-19-2011, 03:17 PM
hold on .. all this time my bird has been saying "polly wanna cracker" .. she doesn't want to date a white guy?

No...but whoever she has been listening to evidently does.

Contrary to popular belief talking birds can not just speak...they can ONLY repeat what they have heard...and usually many times. So if your bird says that, its because some dumbass has stood infront of her for hours saying it over and over again until she has figured out how to mimick the sounds.

Thats one of the reasons Jens only mumbles. I dont tend to speak unless I am recording a video...so what exactly is he supposed to say :laugh:

Neezar
12-20-2011, 12:24 PM
hold on .. all this time my bird has been saying "polly wanna cracker" .. she doesn't want to date a white guy?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Chris F
12-20-2011, 06:22 PM
No...but whoever she has been listening to evidently does.

Contrary to popular belief talking birds can not just speak...they can ONLY repeat what they have heard...and usually many times. So if your bird says that, its because some dumbass has stood infront of her for hours saying it over and over again until she has figured out how to mimick the sounds.

Thats one of the reasons Jens only mumbles. I dont tend to speak unless I am recording a video...so what exactly is he supposed to say :laugh:

Teach him to say "Chris F is always rrrrrright" :laugh: j/k

rockdawg21
12-20-2011, 11:17 PM
Can we get back to the sex with animals part?





:laugh:
Woot woot! That's what I'm talkin' about! :laugh:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fH7Gu09EhLA/TtmuA5d99lI/AAAAAAAAANU/JiA24mivbkU/s1600/nervous+goat.jpg

VCURamFan
12-21-2011, 03:29 AM
Woot woot! That's what I'm talkin' about! :laugh:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fH7Gu09EhLA/TtmuA5d99lI/AAAAAAAAANU/JiA24mivbkU/s1600/nervous+goat.jpg

Man, Danny looks young in that pic! :scared0011:

flo
12-21-2011, 03:46 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fH7Gu09EhLA/TtmuA5d99lI/AAAAAAAAANU/JiA24mivbkU/s1600/nervous+goat.jpg

Is that some kind of amulet Danny is wearing?

rockdawg21
12-21-2011, 04:52 AM
Is that some kind of amulet Danny is wearing?
Who is this "Danny" person you all keep mentioning? I found that photo searching Google images for "sex with animals (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/www.google.com/search?q=sex+with+animals&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=BGbxTsnPLcy_2QXLnvC4Ag&biw=1366&bih=664&sei=BmbxTrTpHISA2wXvqa2xAg)".

adamt
12-21-2011, 04:54 AM
yeah i hate to get this thread back on topic, but i learned something today about santa claus. we all know santa claus is based on saint nicholas, here is a short bit of info about st nick:
In AD 325 Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, the very first ecumenical council. More than 300 bishops came from all over the Christian world to debate the nature of the Holy Trinity. It was one of the early church's most intense theological questions. Arius, from Egypt, was teaching that Jesus the Son was not equal to God the Father. Arius forcefully argued his position at length. The bishops listened respectfully.

As Arius vigorously continued, Nicholas became more and more agitated. Finally, he could no longer bear what he believed was essential being attacked. The outraged Nicholas got up, crossed the room, and slapped Arius across the face! The bishops were shocked. It was unbelievable that a bishop would lose control and be so hotheaded in such a solemn assembly


i just thought it was incredibly ironic that santa claus %$#@!slapped a guy who didn't believe Jesus was God.....considering the two hotly debated topics we had lately.... now that is a guy i will let my kids believe in

flo
12-21-2011, 06:48 AM
Adam, I think the Santa topic is in the Christianity section.

Boy, rockdawg sure does search some awful stuff. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

adamt
12-21-2011, 02:06 PM
Adam, I think the Santa topic is in the Christianity section.

Boy, rockdawg sure does search some awful stuff. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

i know flo, i was considering more the topic we were discussing about the trinity in this thread, santa voted that Jesus is God :laugh:

flo
12-21-2011, 07:46 PM
i know flo, i was considering more the topic we were discussing about the trinity in this thread, santa voted that Jesus is God :laugh:

Oops, sorry adam!

adamt
12-21-2011, 09:01 PM
Oops, sorry adam!

no problem

i figure ptm or tyburn might appreciate the irony.... ptm prolly knows all about the council of nicea, but it was news to me:laugh:

Play The Man
12-22-2011, 01:28 AM
no problem

i figure ptm or tyburn might appreciate the irony.... ptm prolly knows all about the council of nicea, but it was news to me:laugh:


:Whistle:

http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=180477&postcount=63