recompence of their error

[Malkier]

If God is everywhere surley it follows that we are each part of God. Or God is not everywhere.
Also is this scripture not what christians use to defend their eating of foods which are forbidden by Kosher law as laid down in scripture. Correct me if i am wrong. But this seems to be Christian picking and choosing what is defiled to their own convieniance.

[Manic23]

[s]Paul wrote on 00:57, 7th Apr 2005:


How am I judging? I am quoting scripture which states that there are certain results for certain actions - not judging.


Sorry, What?

recompence of their error

What error is that? Being Gay? Recompence[sic] for being Gay?

[LonelyPilgrim]

1. It is difficult to argue against the Bible's injunction that homosexual acts are wrong in the eye's of God, in the sense that "No, it doesn't say that,"... yes, it does say that.

2. However, we live in a secular society, and as such, Biblical injunctions do not carry the weight of law.

3. HIV is not a selective disease... and this is the flaw in the "It's a judgement from God" line. Suppose a man cheats on his wife, and catches HIV... then goes and lays with her. He passes it on to her, but she gets pregnant, then has a child, also with HIV. Now, that's two persons, innocent of any sin this disease is supposed to punish. Last time I checked, there's a big deal made about God being just. This does not in any way resemble a just situation.

4. Every disease that has plagued mankind gets attributed to God by some, and every disease gets proven to be just a disease, operating under the same biological principles; seeking out believer and unbeliever without discrimination.

[hr]I sing of arms, and the man...

[Nepos]

[s]Grandpa wrote on 01:07, 7th Apr 2005:
I got shouted down and called a plonker.

Poor baby. Perhaps if you'd added something useful to the Sinner instead of clogging the boards up with your errant nonsense?

[Grandpa]

[s]Nepos wrote on 15:09, 7th Apr 2005:


Poor baby. Perhaps if you'd added something useful to the Sinner instead of clogging the boards up with your errant nonsense?
[/i]

It's the likes of you who do nothing to contribute to the forum in general. I was merely explaining a few things.

Now go home and stop whining.

[hr]
God save The Queen, long live Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

[Grandpa]

[s]Grandpa wrote on 15:40, 7th Apr 2005:
[s]Nepos wrote on 15:09, 7th Apr 2005:[i]


Poor baby. Perhaps if you'd added something useful to the Sinner instead of clogging the boards up with your errant nonsense?
[/i]

It's the likes of you who do nothing to contribute to the forum in general. I was merely explaining a few things. Additionally: I eveidently have more good humour than you, especially seeing as I am prepared to make fun of myself and not feel hard done by in the process.

I recommend you find the thread in question and read it thoroughly before entering into 'errant nonsense' yourself.

Now go home and stop whining.

[hr]
God save The Queen, long live Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

[exnihilo]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 08:47, 7th Apr 2005:
1. It is difficult to argue against the Bible's injunction that homosexual acts are wrong in the eye's of God, in the sense that "No, it doesn't say that,"... yes, it does say that.


Actually, it's perfectly easy to do, I've done it on this very board. It can certainly be argued that the standard interpretation of Leviticus' view on it is innacurate and was meant to apply only to married men, and it can be demonstrated with ease that the Old Testament/Tanakh refers to homosexuality between unmarried men and male prostitutes and condemns only the giving of monies raised from such to the Temple, not the act itself.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Well, yes, exnihilo, I remember that, as you were explaining that point directly to me. And, I for one find your explanation fairly convincing.

However, you would be hard pressed, I think, to find a 'Bible' that says that. And even harder pressed to convince most Christians that thier Bible is wrong in its translation. But by all means, be my guest to try...

[hr]I sing of arms, and the man...

[Humphrey]

Is Paul a real person, or the greatest wind-up ever?

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[flarewearer]

[s]Humphrey wrote on 20:19, 7th Apr 2005:
Is Paul a real person, or the greatest wind-up ever?


He is the prototype computer with the God 3.11 for workgroups operating system. Unfortunately there is a fault in the text formatting codelines which leads to RANDOM ACTS OF BOLDNESS

[hr]
[s]It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas and half a pack of cigarettes. It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.[/s]
http://www.magnificentoctopus.com/

[Humphrey]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 08:47, 7th Apr 2005:
3. HIV is not a selective disease... and this is the flaw in the "It's a judgement from God" line. Suppose a man cheats on his wife, and catches HIV... then goes and lays with her. He passes it on to her, but she gets pregnant, then has a child, also with HIV. Now, that's two persons, innocent of any sin this disease is supposed to punish. Last time I checked, there's a big deal made about God being just. This does not in any way resemble a just situation.


Actually it is a just situation because those two people clearly did something evil in their past lives (e.g shagged a goat). They are therefore designated for punishment in this life, at least thats what Glen Hoddle told me.

[hr]
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[exnihilo]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 20:15, 7th Apr 2005:
Well, yes, exnihilo, I remember that, as you were explaining that point directly to me. And, I for one find your explanation fairly convincing.

However, you would be hard pressed, I think, to find a 'Bible' that says that. And even harder pressed to convince most Christians that thier Bible is wrong in its translation. But by all means, be my guest to try...

[hr]I sing of arms, and the man...



I have no interest whatever in trying. but what held true of that translation, can be applied to every other reference to homosexuality - at least in the Torah, and as I read that in Hebrew, my interpretation is as valid as anyone else's. What other people choose to believe, is their concern.

[amac]

[s]flarewearer wrote on 20:23, 7th Apr 2005:
[s]Humphrey wrote on 20:19, 7th Apr 2005:[i]
Is Paul a real person, or the greatest wind-up ever?


He is the prototype computer with the God 3.11 for workgroups operating system. Unfortunately there is a fault in the text formatting codelines which leads to RANDOM ACTS OF BOLDNESS
[/i]

The boldness jokes stopped being funny a long, long time ago.

[Paul]

[s]Humphrey wrote on 20:30, 7th Apr 2005:

Actually it is a just situation because those two people clearly did something evil in their past lives ... at least thats what Glen Hoddle told me.


Having a past life (known as reincarnation) is a lie. The truth is: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." - Hebrews 9:27-28

[Manic23]

You know Paul, there is a slim possibility, Very slim mind you, that Humphrey may actually have been joking

[Paul]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 08:47, 7th Apr 2005:
3. HIV is not a selective disease... and this is the flaw in the "It's a judgement from God" line. Suppose a man cheats on his wife, and catches HIV... then goes and lays with her. He passes it on to her, but she gets pregnant, then has a child, also with HIV. Now, that's two persons, innocent of any sin this disease is supposed to punish. Last time I checked, there's a big deal made about God being just. This does not in any way resemble a just situation.


I understand your point, but AIDS (not HIV) is selective!

There is evidence that faithful, monogamous couples who have had no other secual partners, and do not abuse drugs, do not get AIDS.

There is evidence that some prostitutes in Africa, and some promiscuous men, do not get AIDS, despite having unprotected sex with infeced persons.

There is also evidence (a Bristol University Study) that one sure-fire way to acquire infection from an infected person is to have unprotected, anal sex.

Secondly, you mention two persons "innocent of sin". No-one is innocent of sin, for "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" - Romans 6:23.

Thirdly, God said, "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. " - Exodus 20:5-6

[Paul]

[s]Manic23 wrote on 23:43, 7th Apr 2005:
You know Paul, there is a slim possibility, Very slim mind you, that Humphrey may actually have been joking


He may have been, but there are most certainly many who sincerely believe in such a thing.

[Pender Native]

[s]Paul wrote on 23:49, 7th Apr 2005:


There is evidence that faithful, monogamous couples who have had no other secual partners, and do not abuse drugs, do not get AIDS.

There is evidence that some prostitutes in Africa, and some promiscuous men, do not get AIDS, despite having unprotected sex with infeced persons.



Surely it's not saying much to say that people who don't come into contact with a disease don't catch it. Nor does it prove that a disease is selective just because not everyone who comes into contact with it catches it - I'm no biologist but that seems pretty standard disease like behaviour.

And surely by your system of morality, the prostitutes and the promiscuous men are just as worthy of God's judgement, therefore teh fact that they didn't catch AIDS seems to go against your argument

[LonelyPilgrim]

[s]Paul wrote on 23:49, 7th Apr 2005:

Secondly, you mention two persons "innocent of sin". No-one is innocent of sin, for "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" - Romans 6:23.

I'm afraid you took my statement out of context, let me repeat it... "innocent of the sins this disease is meant to punish". I'm well aware that no one is free from all sin. I mean, if someone was, other than Christ, it would be a bit of a sticking point, no? (note that's a rhetorical question!)(Sheesh... you know Paul, talking to you is getting to be like talking to a lawyer... )

My understanding of HIV's behaviour is that:

1. In order to contract it there needs to be an open sore within the vagina or on the penis. Even a very small cut will do, but a perfectly unblemished surface will protect.

2. Unprotected anal sex pretty much always ends up with open sores for both parties, therefore is VERY prone to conduct the disease, not for any moral or religious reason, but for a purely biological one.

3. Some small percentage of the population, around 1%, if I recall, appear to be either immune or highly resistant to HIV, not because of their lifestyle. After all, if they had a 'holy' lifestyle they'd never find out they are immune, now would they?

Taking these things into consideration, it should not be surprising that a) not everyone who comes into contact contracts HIV, or that anal sex is a 'surefire' means of contracting it.

[hr]
I sing of arms, and the man...

[Humphrey]

[s]Paul wrote on 23:55, 7th Apr 2005:
[s]Manic23 wrote on 23:43, 7th Apr 2005:

He may have been, but there are most certainly many who sincerely believe in such a thing.


Holy shit, does this guy jerk off over the bible or what!

EDIT : Is that actually illegal according to scripture?

[hr]
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/