Berkeley's Liberal Intolerance is about to bite them in the ass.

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Read closely, so you will all see why not ALL Christians don't just "pick and choose". While SOME do, I am not one:

The Old Testament has many "contracts" with man. These are known as covenants. Some are permanent, but others are listed as temporary. It's the Old Covenant in the Old Testament that was fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Covenant consists of the civil/ceremonial laws of the Jews. However, civil/ceremonial laws are very different from the moral laws in the Old Testament.

Examples of the civil or ceremonial laws might include this: Things like sacrificing lambs on Passover, it means they can't be eating pork or shellfish. Most of these civil or ceremonial laws are in the book of Exodus and Leviticus.

It is the moral laws, such as the 10 commandments and all other moral laws throughout the Old Testament that are still very, very, very intact to this day. These moral laws include murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

So, The reason why homosexuality in the Bible is still a sin is because the moral laws are still intact from the Old Testament. In addition to just the Old Testament, Jesus and Peter also preached against sexual immorality as a whole. Notice the root word of immoral is moral. That clearly means that nothing I said is being taken out of context to support a messed-up "narrative".

The sinfulness of homosexuality is not "picking and choosing", it is simple understanding of the Christian doctrine. Given the diversity of Christian denominations, there is a reason that they almost all agree on these simple Biblical truths.

Now I'm done with you guys. While you want to believe what you are all saying, your statements are simply not true. I am interested to see what you guys will do when faced with the truth, but I imagine it will be like earlier. Name-calling, deflection, etc. I will no longer respond whatsoever. I will focus on my grow log
Click to expand...
The part I am missing is: where is homosexuality specifically identified as immoral? I am unaware of a single passage that does this. I see it as the imposition of man's rule under the "protection" of god's name. Thus I submit that the viewpoint you espouse, thousands of well-indoctrinated ministers notwithstanding ... is the real sin.
 
Chunky Stool

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The part I am missing is: where is homosexuality specifically identified as immoral? I am unaware of a single passage that does this. I see it as the imposition of man's rule under the "protection" of god's name. Thus I submit that the viewpoint you espouse, thousands of well-indoctrinated ministers notwithstanding ... is the real sin.
Click to expand...
You're talking to someone who takes the bible literally. Talking snake, impossible flood, etc.
He says that he doesn't pick and choose what to believe, but I bet he doesn't want to talk about slavery, ethnic cleansing, incest, statutory rape, etc -- all condoned in the bible.
People like him are not capable of thinking outside their little box.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
If I remember right...
The only time Jesus was really upset was at the Money Handlers in the Market and he made a show of it.

It requires interpretation from priest's for it to be? What denomination would be right one to be saved?
God doesn't cause confusion.

Here, I have proof. bongsmilie
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Chunky Stool said:
You're talking to someone who takes the bible literally. Talking snake, impossible flood, etc.
He says that he doesn't pick and choose what to believe, but I bet he doesn't want to talk about slavery, ethnic cleansing, incest, statutory rape, etc -- all condoned in the bible.
People like him are not capable of thinking outside their little box.
Click to expand...
My reading of that tome showed me at least two outright internal contradictions. For that reason alone (discounting the others) I don't accept literalist "teaching".

Another difficulty is the drift of meaning as the collected volume suffered serial translations. (Which mistranslation is the true word, if you rent that it was God's comms in the first place?) So I rather doubt the original text specifies what our young proselyte seeks to impress upon us poor unbelievers.

Ultimately, I question the spiritual integrity of someone who chooses to spray Jesus on a pot website. Trolling for God is a concept that I cannot make work in my head.
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Read closely, so you will all see why not ALL Christians don't just "pick and choose". While SOME do, I am not one:

The Old Testament has many "contracts" with man. These are known as covenants. Some are permanent, but others are listed as temporary. It's the Old Covenant in the Old Testament that was fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Covenant consists of the civil/ceremonial laws of the Jews. However, civil/ceremonial laws are very different from the moral laws in the Old Testament.

Examples of the civil or ceremonial laws might include this: Things like sacrificing lambs on Passover, it means they can't be eating pork or shellfish. Most of these civil or ceremonial laws are in the book of Exodus and Leviticus.

It is the moral laws, such as the 10 commandments and all other moral laws throughout the Old Testament that are still very, very, very intact to this day. These moral laws include murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

So, The reason why homosexuality in the Bible is still a sin is because the moral laws are still intact from the Old Testament. In addition to just the Old Testament, Jesus and Peter also preached against sexual immorality as a whole. Notice the root word of immoral is moral. That clearly means that nothing I said is being taken out of context to support a messed-up "narrative".

The sinfulness of homosexuality is not "picking and choosing", it is simple understanding of the Christian doctrine. Given the diversity of Christian denominations, there is a reason that they almost all agree on these simple Biblical truths.

Now I'm done with you guys. While you want to believe what you are all saying, your statements are simply not true. I am interested to see what you guys will do when faced with the truth, but I imagine it will be like earlier. Name-calling, deflection, etc. I will no longer respond whatsoever. I will focus on my grow log
Click to expand...
He has risen!
 
Chunky Stool

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
My reading of that tome showed me at least two outright internal contradictions. For that reason alone (discounting the others) I don't accept literalist "teaching".

Another difficulty is the drift of meaning as the collected volume suffered serial translations. (Which mistranslation is the true word, if you rent that it was God's comms in the first place?) So I rather doubt the original text specifies what our young proselyte seeks to impress upon us poor unbelievers.

Ultimately, I question the spiritual integrity of someone who chooses to spray Jesus on a pot website. Trolling for God is a concept that I cannot make work in my head.
Click to expand...
If being gay was such an abomination, why does god keep making people that way?
Though scripturally incorrect (yeah I made that word up), at least god is consistent when it comes to manufacturing. o_O
 
Big_Lou

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Read closely, so you will all see why not ALL Christians don't just "pick and choose". While SOME do, I am not one:

The Old Testament has many "contracts" with man. These are known as covenants. Some are permanent, but others are listed as temporary. It's the Old Covenant in the Old Testament that was fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Covenant consists of the civil/ceremonial laws of the Jews. However, civil/ceremonial laws are very different from the moral laws in the Old Testament.

Examples of the civil or ceremonial laws might include this: Things like sacrificing lambs on Passover, it means they can't be eating pork or shellfish. Most of these civil or ceremonial laws are in the book of Exodus and Leviticus.

It is the moral laws, such as the 10 commandments and all other moral laws throughout the Old Testament that are still very, very, very intact to this day. These moral laws include murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

So, The reason why homosexuality in the Bible is still a sin is because the moral laws are still intact from the Old Testament. In addition to just the Old Testament, Jesus and Peter also preached against sexual immorality as a whole. Notice the root word of immoral is moral. That clearly means that nothing I said is being taken out of context to support a messed-up "narrative".

The sinfulness of homosexuality is not "picking and choosing", it is simple understanding of the Christian doctrine. Given the diversity of Christian denominations, there is a reason that they almost all agree on these simple Biblical truths.

Now I'm done with you guys. While you want to believe what you are all saying, your statements are simply not true. I am interested to see what you guys will do when faced with the truth, but I imagine it will be like earlier. Name-calling, deflection, etc. I will no longer respond whatsoever. I will focus on my grow log
Click to expand...
srh88 said:
He has risen!
Click to expand...
IMG_2483.GIF
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Ann Coulter Says She Will Pull Out of Speech at Berkeley

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html?_r=0

Ms. Coulter was confronted with the dangerous prospect of setting foot unguarded on a campus that erupted in violence in February after another conservative speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, planned to appear. The school canceled his event.

The campus conservative groups originally sponsoring the event have quite reasonably said they don't support her appearance this Thursday for the same reasons that Berkeley administrators gave. They supported the change in venue and change in date that Coulter refused. I'm beginning to like these groups. While still conservative, they at least can process a few conflicting thoughts and come up with a reasonable decision.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Read closely, so you will all see why not ALL Christians don't just "pick and choose". While SOME do, I am not one:

The Old Testament has many "contracts" with man. These are known as covenants. Some are permanent, but others are listed as temporary. It's the Old Covenant in the Old Testament that was fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Covenant consists of the civil/ceremonial laws of the Jews. However, civil/ceremonial laws are very different from the moral laws in the Old Testament.

Examples of the civil or ceremonial laws might include this: Things like sacrificing lambs on Passover, it means they can't be eating pork or shellfish. Most of these civil or ceremonial laws are in the book of Exodus and Leviticus.

It is the moral laws, such as the 10 commandments and all other moral laws throughout the Old Testament that are still very, very, very intact to this day. These moral laws include murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

So, The reason why homosexuality in the Bible is still a sin is because the moral laws are still intact from the Old Testament. In addition to just the Old Testament, Jesus and Peter also preached against sexual immorality as a whole. Notice the root word of immoral is moral. That clearly means that nothing I said is being taken out of context to support a messed-up "narrative".

The sinfulness of homosexuality is not "picking and choosing", it is simple understanding of the Christian doctrine. Given the diversity of Christian denominations, there is a reason that they almost all agree on these simple Biblical truths.

Now I'm done with you guys. While you want to believe what you are all saying, your statements are simply not true. I am interested to see what you guys will do when faced with the truth, but I imagine it will be like earlier. Name-calling, deflection, etc. I will no longer respond whatsoever. I will focus on my grow log
Click to expand...
Isn't your kind also opposed to pot? Just saying, you can't get into heaven if you grow. It's in the bible somewhere. Must be because Sessions.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Green Bud Smurfy said:
Read closely, so you will all see why not ALL Christians don't just "pick and choose". While SOME do, I am not one:

The Old Testament has many "contracts" with man. These are known as covenants. Some are permanent, but others are listed as temporary. It's the Old Covenant in the Old Testament that was fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Covenant consists of the civil/ceremonial laws of the Jews. However, civil/ceremonial laws are very different from the moral laws in the Old Testament.

Examples of the civil or ceremonial laws might include this: Things like sacrificing lambs on Passover, it means they can't be eating pork or shellfish. Most of these civil or ceremonial laws are in the book of Exodus and Leviticus.

It is the moral laws, such as the 10 commandments and all other moral laws throughout the Old Testament that are still very, very, very intact to this day. These moral laws include murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

So, The reason why homosexuality in the Bible is still a sin is because the moral laws are still intact from the Old Testament. In addition to just the Old Testament, Jesus and Peter also preached against sexual immorality as a whole. Notice the root word of immoral is moral. That clearly means that nothing I said is being taken out of context to support a messed-up "narrative".

The sinfulness of homosexuality is not "picking and choosing", it is simple understanding of the Christian doctrine. Given the diversity of Christian denominations, there is a reason that they almost all agree on these simple Biblical truths.

Now I'm done with you guys. While you want to believe what you are all saying, your statements are simply not true. I am interested to see what you guys will do when faced with the truth, but I imagine it will be like earlier. Name-calling, deflection, etc. I will no longer respond whatsoever. I will focus on my grow log
Click to expand...
a whole big ol' long meltdown as to why it's not gay when you finger your buddy's ass.
 
HAF2

HAF2

Well-Known Member
I would take sexual immorality being Rape or pedophilia, beastiality, that kind of thing.

Two consenting adults taking part in their own sexuality, strait or gay, isn't immoral to anyone that doesn't have underlying reasons to hate or envy one particular group.

Seems the ones who dislike the homosexual way of life are just upset they can't join in. Because of their "morals", Aka latent homosexuality.
 
Big_Lou

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
HAF2 said:
I would take sexual immorality being Rape or pedophilia, beastiality, that kind of thing.

Two consenting adults taking part in their own sexuality, strait or gay, isn't immoral to anyone that doesn't have underlying reasons to hate or envy one particular group.

Seems the ones who dislike the homosexual way of life are just upset they can't join in. Because of their "morals", Aka latent homosexuality.
Click to expand...
It's why he runs track....RUNNING away from something that he just can't seem to get ahead (snicker) of, eh?
;)

Hey, I've TRIED to help him along....he's just playing hard to get....

bearamptwink_1344448_zps74761e3e.jpg
 
Green_Wolverine

Green_Wolverine

Member
Anne Coulter was the other speaker in a two part series on immigration at Berkeley. She was denied equal access to facilities by the possibility of a Heckler's veto, which is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the first amendment.

Well established case law.

The same pattern has been observed with other conservative speakers at UCBerkeley while such high profile speakers as Bill Mahr, Vicente Fox and others enjoy full access to all the publicly funded facilities.

The lawsuit is already been started. Others to follow against the city of Berkeley and Berkeley PD.
 
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Green_Wolverine said:
Anne Coulter was the other speaker in a two part series on immigration at Berkeley. She was denied equal access to facilities by the possibility of a Heckler's veto, which is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the first amendment.

Well established case law.

The same pattern has been observed with other conservative speakers at UCBerkeley while such high profile speakers as Bill Mahr, Vicente Fox and others enjoy full access to all the publicly funded facilities.

The lawsuit is already been started. Others to follow against the city of Berkeley and Berkeley PD.
Click to expand...
How much money on security should the city spend to make sure Coulter can come troll a bunch of far-left liberals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top