The Glade 4.0

Heaven has no place for those who presuppose their own salvation.

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

So you argue that God would have rape victims executed? You would argue that is just? Maybe you'd like to read, research, and pray some more. Just a suggestion.

Hubris is the cardinal sin, and Heaven has no place for those who presuppose their own salvation.

I would agree with you, if I thought for even a second that I somehow deserve salvation.

Because they are not damned until they stand before the judgment seat of God.

Whether or not you feel like you deserve salvation does little to change the fact that you think you'll be getting it.

I John 5:13 "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know you have eternal life."

That you may know. God doesn't desire to keep us guessing. We can know that we have eternal life.

Yes, that way the receiver cannot claim later it was rape when it wasn't; he's equally at fault. Evidently you don't understand eastern cultures very well; there's an odd hypocrisy there wherein the receiver of anal sex is shamed and though of as weak and womanly but the giver is considered strong and manly. By simply prohibiting it outright there is no question of rape or not, no breakdown in discipline where status is dependant on who did what to who, it's all just forbidden. Male-on-male rape at that time was not thought of in the way we think of today; in many cases it was really just expected.

Are there any depths you will not sink to in order to explain away the Scriptures? Even when faced with black-and-white Scripture that proves you wrong, you still try to explain it away, so you can cling to your own beliefs instead of humbling yourself before God and admitting you are wrong.

You cannot use Old Testament Scriptures to prove or disprove homosexuality for two basic reasons: cultural and fulfillment.

First, cultural differences. Accounts of perceived homosexual behavior or activities in the Old Testament must be reviewed in the context of the type of culture and social structure of the time. Debate continues on these cultural differences. It is these cultural differences which bogs down the discussions of the Genesis and Judges verses as to whether or not they refer to persons engaging in homosexual rape, orientation, or not sexual activity at all but some other behavior.

Second, the Law. The Old Testament Law continues to be debated as to whether or not it is fully fulfilled, done away with, whether or not sections of it apply today, its relevance and use. Currently, many Christians teach the Law may be divided into sections, and the Civil Laws, including the perceived prohibition of homosexuality, still apply today. However, foundational Christian Doctrine teaches ALL of the Law was fulfilled in Christ.

The Apostle Paul, in the New Testament, laid to rest the arguments of cultural differences and the Law. In his ministry, Paul rightly proved the foundational truths of Christianity.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28.

Paul destroyed the argument Gentiles needed to adhere to Jewish Laws. To Paul, slavery was not an issue; in fact, he sent a Christian slave back to a Christian master and told both to treat each other rightly. To Paul, gender was not an issue; declaring here there is no difference in sex.

When Jesus sent the seventy out to spread the Gospel he commanded them to eat whatever was given them and to stay in whatever house was offered them. To tell Jews who were required to obey dietary laws and refrain from fellowship with Gentiles was radical. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for being zealous for the Law but "missing the heart of the Law;" to Jesus, people were more important.

But, how quickly people forget. After Jesus returned to Heaven and gave the Holy Spirit to the new believers, the birth of the Church, the new Church was suddenly confronted with Gentiles, born again and Spirit-filled just as they, showing forth the evidence of sanctification and hearts of Love. This was contrary to their theology, who could or couldn't be saved; they were forced to rethink their theology. But, they did so with conditions; they accepted the Gentiles, accepted they could be Christians though uncircumcised, yet they felt it necessary to place some rules and restrictions upon them. These restrictions were instituted out of fear, fears of differences in values, cultures, etc. and fear of contamination or corruption. Among these restrictions were certain dietary laws, including the eating of foods sacrificed to idols.

It took the Apostle Paul to free the Gentiles, and all Christians from such rules and restrictions. To Paul, all people were the same no matter their race, sex or culture, all equal in Christ even though they may live differently or have different values. Paul destroyed cultural differences in I Cor. 8:4-13, the discussion of eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul says we know there are no idols, only God, and food offered to an idol is acceptable to eat. To Paul, it made no difference to him what was the food, how prepared or presented (see also I Timothy 4).

I'm not going to listen to that, either, since it's someone doing exactly the same thing you are doing: Pushing what you want to believe, instead of what God says to us through the Scriptures.

I would assume you realize that to many here, you're doing exactly what you accuse Diamondeye and the article of doing. You don't have a monopoly on proper Scripture interpretation.

This position is just as absurd as Beryllins. Only the most absurdly rabid evangelicals (and by that I mean less than 10,000 of them) would advocate something like that.

The only reason you're "pretty sure" of this is that you don't like religion, and it's easier to dislike it if the people practicing it are horrible monsters.

No, you're pretty much not following from his posts since he hasn't claimed that one person's sin justifies sinning against them. As for this "group", how much do you know about them? I'd be willing to bet it's like 2 people.

it is not that people do not believe you. It is that you drone on about it every time someone talks about gay people having rights that no one gives a **** anymore.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Still waiting for proof of God collectively smiting nations since the New Testament.

I'm not going to listen to that, either, since it's someone doing exactly the same thing you are doing: Pushing what you want to believe, instead of what God says to us through the Scriptures.

Given the example you provide, are you arguing that God is unjust because he expects people to honor their vows to Him?

Deuteronomy 23:21 "When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you."

There is nothing unjust in that; God did not force him to make that vow.

But, you are right about one thing: I haven't proven anything. It's the Scriptures themselves that prove you wrong.

And since I already addressed this, admitting there is no "proof", I guess you're just trying to bait me, now. Any reference is going to be about the destruction of Jerusalem, if there is any at all, and Rome occupied Judah prior to NT times. The time period over which the NT was written doesn't cover anything else, to my knowledge. But then, God does lots that aren't specifically recorded.

If you're wondering what group it is, it's the ministries that were led by this guy. I'm quite sure that the actual desire to kill homosexuals is very rare amongst Christians, that's why I even mentioned it with a caveat. It does exist though. However, I'm pretty convinced that evangelical Christians would make homosexuality illegal if they could. Beryllin is free to correct me on this point, but if he was running the country I'm pretty sure gay sex would be banned.

Ahh, got it. You won't listen to any evidence that you're incorrect about what God says through Scripture because it isn't what God says through Scripture. Circular argument is quite useful, isn't it?



I know there's nothing unjust in that. That's the point. However, that does not change the fact that there was a third party to the vow who was killed through no fault of her own.

Would you argue, therefore, that we can simply make vows to God to kill each other and that excuses us from the Commandment against murder?

I doubt it very much. The fact remains, however, that God understands justice far better than we do and therefore just because something seems unjust to you does not make it so. It is not unjust for God to allow a vow that results in an innocent's death to be carried out; it is also not unjust for God to make a rule prohibiting anal sex between men that simply forbids it rather than going into the complexities of rape.

By the way, there is no reference to female homosexuality in the OT at all, and the NT has only the reference in Romans 1:26-27, which is exceedingly vague and referes even to "exchanging natural relations for unnatural". If homosexuality were unequivocally condemned by God, why is there no prohibition in the OT for females and only the weakest and vaguest mention in the NT?

God would be unjust if He called for a rape victim to be executed. Since God cannot be unjust, therefore He does not.

The arrogance of what you've said here baffles me.