Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 06-05-2018, 02:05 PM   #6571
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Boxcar

Do you agree with the baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple that the Supreme court agreed with? The baker said it was against his Christian beliefs. I know Jesus would have probably baked the gay couple an extra cake to show his love is not defined by sexual preferences and is much greater than our pettiness.
Light is offline  
Old 06-05-2018, 02:30 PM   #6572
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
Boxcar

Do you agree with the baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple that the Supreme court agreed with? The baker said it was against his Christian beliefs. I know Jesus would have probably baked the gay couple an extra cake to show his love is not defined by sexual preferences and is much greater than our pettiness.
Of course, I agree with the decision and, no, The Carpentar would not have baked him a cake because Jesus never considered sin to be petty.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-05-2018, 03:40 PM   #6573
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
But Jesus said to love your neighbors as yourself and to love your enemies. He never said don't bake cakes for gays.
Light is offline  
Old 06-05-2018, 04:31 PM   #6574
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
Boxcar

Do you agree with the baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple that the Supreme court agreed with? The baker said it was against his Christian beliefs. I know Jesus would have probably baked the gay couple an extra cake to show his love is not defined by sexual preferences and is much greater than our pettiness.
Light, you're an enigma.

A mix of Sartre's and Kierkegaard's atheistic and Christian existentialism respectively, with a dash of John Lennon.

To understand, even if not agree, with Christians who believe that Christ would communicate the truth which sets one free regarding same-sex attracted individuals, you need to familiarize yourself with the terms "essence" and "final causes", both rejected by the ancestors of the early Moderns with a philosophical hand wave.

The form (essence) of the human body gives evidence of the ends, the goal (final cause) for which it exists. The complementary nature of the sexes makes metaphorically possible the "participation in the divine nature" (1 Pt 2:4) through the one flesh union of husband and wife, whose love is potentially life giving (imaging the Trinity). Acting on same-sex attraction is a counter-sign of this, and is a privation of heterosexuality.

I have same-sex attracted individuals closely connected to me, to whom I have related the same, though it's a far more extensive discussion, of course.

Would Jesus be compassionate, or merely sentimental?
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Old 06-05-2018, 05:40 PM   #6575
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
But Jesus said to love your neighbors as yourself and to love your enemies. He never said don't bake cakes for gays.
Nor did Jesus ever teach that we shouldn't bake cakes for, or in some other way celebrate the lifestyle of, pedophiles. Your mental myopia is prohibiting you from seeing the vast beauty of God's green, lush forest (i.e. His Word).

Jesus also didn't teach that love tolerates, condones, supports or approves of sin or sinful lifestyles. Godly love can never do these things. Godly love cannot rejoice in unrighteousness but only in the truth (1Cor 13:6). How much less Jesus then...since he's the King of Righteousness (Heb 7:2)?

Did Jesus, who was always filled with the Holy Spirit and all His nine fruits (the first and foremost being Love (cf. Gal 5:22-23) ) tolerate, condone, support or approve the sins of the money changers on the two occasions he drove them out of the temple with a scourge of cords, or when he told the Pharisees that their [spiritual] father was the devil, or when he pronounced the eight woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees, or when he pronounced additional woes upon hearers of his second Sermon on the Mount? Or did Jesus give a wink and a nod at the lifestyle of the adulteress when he told her to stop sinning (Jn 8:11)? Or did he forget about or overlook the sins of the cripple he healed when he told him afterward to also stop sinning so that nothing worse would befall him (Jn5:14)?

The Christian baker truly understood the holiness of God and how God could never in any way, shape or form tolerate, condone, support or approve of sin or sinful lifestyles, nor does God want his adopted children to do so. The Christian baker acted out of his conscience and refused to send any signal at all to the homosexuals that he approved of their lifestyle. The baker also understood, I'm sure, that sexually immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Rev 21:15.).

And for your info, Jesus gave strong affirmation to the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman that is first recorded for us in Genesis. Listen carefully to what Jesus told the Pharisees when they asked him about divorce -- divorce, mind you.

Mark 10:2-10
2 And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 And they said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
NASB

There were four options from which God could have chosen when he created man in terms of the kind of sexual relationships in which he expected man to engage . He could have created:

a.) Steve and Adam
b.) Eve and Bev
c. ) Steve, Adam, Eve, Bev or even more.
d.) Adam and Eve

With the first two choices, same sex sex would have received approval from God.

With "c", anything-goes-sex would have have received approval from God.

But with "d", only adult, heterosexual, monogamous relationships are approved by God. Adam and Eve were God's prototype for the entire human race (in more ways than one, I might add). Note carefully how Jesus echoed the OT creation account. "For this cause", i.e. FOR THIS REASON...the two (i.e. man and woman) shall become one flesh. So...the God of Love approves, condones, tolerates and supports one kind of sexual relationship with all those made in his image and likeness. And the male and female must be of age...because they both must be mature enough to leave their father and mother. So...God doesn't approve, condone, support or tolerate child sex.

So, while this sin-filled world of ours (or even more specifically our very own culture in this country) wants to "separate" what God has approved of by expanding on it through through miscellaneous and sundry immoral sex acts including but not limited to lesbianism, sodomy, pedophilia, beastiality, etc., none of these can be tolerated, condoned, approved or supported by God.
In fact, God gives hardened sinners over to a depraved mind to commit these very kinds of perverse sexual acts, according to Paul in Romans 1. God actually punishes people in the here and now by giving them over to this kind of depravity -- and once He does this, there is no turning back for them -- ever! They will never repent of their sins because they're not able to turn to God. They will never have the desire to repent of their sins.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-05-2018, 06:30 PM   #6576
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Nor did Jesus ever teach that we shouldn't bake cakes for, or in some other way celebrate the lifestyle of, pedophiles.
Your equating gays with pedophiles is quite stupid. One has consensual partners and the other doesn't. It's like comparing heterosexuals to rapists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Jesus also didn't teach that love tolerates, condones, supports or approves of sin or sinful lifestyles.
Quote me where Jesus disapproves of gays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Did Jesus, who was always filled with the Holy Spirit and all His nine fruits (the first and foremost being Love (cf. Gal 5:22-23) ) tolerate, condone, support or approve the sins of the money changers on the two occasions he drove them out of the temple with a scourge of cords, or when he told the Pharisees that their [spiritual] father was the devil, or when he pronounced the eight woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees, or when he pronounced additional woes upon hearers of his second Sermon on the Mount? Or did Jesus give a wink and a nod at the lifestyle of the adulteress when he told her to stop sinning (Jn 8:11)? Or did he forget about or overlook the sins of the cripple he healed when he told him afterward to also stop sinning so that nothing worse would befall him (Jn5:14)?
Nothing in that paragraph has anything to do with gay people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Mark 10:2-10
2 And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 And they said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
NASB
You are extrapolating that what Jesus means is that he is against a gay lifestyle.

On the contrary Jesus said:

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

"Eunuchs" was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus speaks no words of condemnation to gays or eunuchs as they were refereed to back then and totally accepts them "born eunuch" from God.
Light is offline  
Old 06-05-2018, 07:26 PM   #6577
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
Your equating gays with pedophiles is quite stupid. One has consensual partners and the other doesn't. It's like comparing heterosexuals to rapists.



Quote me where Jesus disapproves of gays.



Nothing in that paragraph has anything to do with gay people.




You are extrapolating that what Jesus means is that he is against a gay lifestyle.

On the contrary Jesus said:

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

"Eunuchs" was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus speaks no words of condemnation to gays or eunuchs as they were refereed to back then and totally accepts them "born eunuch" from God.
I didn't compare anything. You made a dumb argument from silence on what Jesus didn't say about homosexuals, so all I did I gave you another example to highlight the absurdity of your remark. Jesus didn't say anything specifically about pedophiles either, so shouldn't we conclude that pedophilia might be as cool as sodomites?

Eunuchs were not used that way. Jesus is not saying that eunuchs became homosexuals so that they could enter the kingdom. Scripture, everywhere, condemns homosexuality and actually teaches that neither homosexuals or lesbians will enter the kingdom of heaven. If God frowned on divorce, how much more perverted sex acts!?

And if homosexual acts are approved by God, you need to explain why he hardens the hearts of unrepentant sinners and gives them over to depraved minds to commit sexually depraved acts!

Rom 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

NASB

And I gave my argument from what Jesus taught about the creation of Adam and Eve. There is no escaping the force of Jesus' words. In the beginning God created one man and one woman, eschewing the other options he could have chosen, and he created them for one reason: To have sexual union mainly for the purpose of procreation. Not only this -- but because he created them man and woman -- FOR THIS REASON -- they shall leave their father and mother and the two (man and woman) will become one flesh.

Other strong arguments could also be made to support divine revelation. We could start with natural law in Natural Revelation. Natural Law very strongly supports divine revelation. And then we could move on to Typology and how Eve is a type of Church who is married to her Husband (Christ), etc.

But since you very rarely accept divine revelation, except selectively whenever you think it supports your unrighteous views, then I will not waste my time with you on this subject any longer. The only "love" you have in you is the kind that rejoices in and supports, condones, approves of or tolerates unrighteousness and falsehoods which runs contrary to what Paul taught in 1Cor 13.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-05-2018, 11:48 PM   #6578
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Jesus is not a homophobe.
Light is offline  
Old 06-06-2018, 01:27 AM   #6579
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk View Post
Light, you're an enigma.

A mix of Sartre's and Kierkegaard's atheistic and Christian existentialism respectively, with a dash of John Lennon.

To understand, even if not agree, with Christians who believe that Christ would communicate the truth which sets one free regarding same-sex attracted individuals, you need to familiarize yourself with the terms "essence" and "final causes", both rejected by the ancestors of the early Moderns with a philosophical hand wave.

The form (essence) of the human body gives evidence of the ends, the goal (final cause) for which it exists. The complementary nature of the sexes makes metaphorically possible the "participation in the divine nature" (1 Pt 2:4) through the one flesh union of husband and wife, whose love is potentially life giving (imaging the Trinity). Acting on same-sex attraction is a counter-sign of this, and is a privation of heterosexuality.

I have same-sex attracted individuals closely connected to me, to whom I have related the same, though it's a far more extensive discussion, of course.

Would Jesus be compassionate, or merely sentimental?
I think this question would be better aimed at Boxcar...since he is the one who has the more intimate relationship with Jesus.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline  
Old 06-06-2018, 06:31 AM   #6580
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
Jesus is not a homophobe.
Neither is his father. But nonetheless perverse sex practices are an abomination to God. Under the Law of Moses in the Old Covenant, it is written:

Lev 18:22-23
22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
NASB

And since God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, his holy hatred for all sin carries over to this New Covenant era.

1 Cor 6:9-10
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
NASB

And didn't Jesus also teach this:

Matt 5:20
20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
NASB

All the unrepentant, unrighteous sinners of this world will be spending a lot of time with those scribes and Pharisees -- but it won't be in the Kingdom.

I know you think all sinners will be in heaven with God, holding hands with one another, making merry in their heart, singing "Let the Good Times Roll", but that wishful thinking doesn't square with divine revelation.

Produce for me one text in scripture that tells us that Jesus was tolerant of sin or condoned sin or any way, shape or form approved of any sin. If sin isn't an issue with Jesus or his Father, then why did Jesus go to the cross? The central purpose behind the Cross is that Jesus the Righteous One died for the ungodly/unrighteous so that those who repent of their sins and believe on him would have their sins atoned for and be forgiven for all eternity.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-06-2018, 09:30 AM   #6581
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
I think this question would be better aimed at Boxcar...since he is the one who has the more intimate relationship with Jesus.
Although from all indications, Boxcar's reconciliation to God takes place in the courtroom. I am grateful to all those who have shown me that it truly occurs in the family room.
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Old 06-06-2018, 09:51 AM   #6582
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk View Post
Although from all indications, Boxcar's reconciliation to God takes place in the courtroom. I am grateful to all those who have shown me that it truly occurs in the family room.
The "family room" isn't the foundation of Christ's throne; righteousness and justice are (Ps 89:14). These are attributes I think most of us would expect and hope to find when standing before a judge in a courtroom. Speaking for myself and since judgment on the last day will begin with the household of God (1Pet 4:17), when I stand before the Judge of all the Earth, my great hope is that He will judge me in righteousness so that I will not receive the justice I deserve.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-06-2018, 12:05 PM   #6583
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
The "family room" isn't the foundation of Christ's throne; righteousness and justice are (Ps 89:14). These are attributes I think most of us would expect and hope to find when standing before a judge in a courtroom. Speaking for myself and since judgment on the last day will begin with the household of God (1Pet 4:17), when I stand before the Judge of all the Earth, my great hope is that He will judge me in righteousness so that I will not receive the justice I deserve.
It's refreshing to see you mention "hope".

That "righteousness" in Ps 89, through the merits of Christ (Rom 3:22) is infused in man, enabling man to be a partaker of divine nature ( 2 Pt 1:4, Gal 4:5, Rom 8:14-17)...filial adoption..."family room"---Over and above "merely" imputed to man, i.e., "courtroom".
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Old 06-06-2018, 12:22 PM   #6584
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk View Post
It's refreshing to see you mention "hope".

That "righteousness" in Ps 89, through the merits of Christ (Rom 3:22) is infused in man, enabling man to be a partaker of divine nature ( 2 Pt 1:4, Gal 4:5, Rom 8:14-17)...filial adoption..."family room"---Over and above "merely" imputed to man, i.e., "courtroom".
"Man" as in all men on the planet?

"Infusion" is not taught in scripture with respect to the Last Adam's righteousness or for that matter with Adam's original sin. Imputation is the proper word. By God's sovereign grace, a legal transaction takes place when one's personal sins and Adam's original sin are laid on (imputed to) Christ, and Christ's righteousness, in turn, is imputed to the sinner. It's legal in nature because all men are lawbreakers and no mortal man is inherently righteous.

Being partakers of the divine nature is limited to born again Christians who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is how Christians are made to partake in the divine nature.

And no one is has any "filial" relationship with God in space and time until, again, by His sovereign grace He chooses to cause one to be born again (1Pet 1:3). At that point in time, one is brought into God's family, i.e. adopted.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-06-2018, 12:54 PM   #6585
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
"Man" as in all men on the planet?

"Infusion" is not taught in scripture with respect to the Last Adam's righteousness or for that matter with Adam's original sin. Imputation is the proper word. By God's sovereign grace, a legal transaction takes place when one's personal sins and Adam's original sin are laid on (imputed to) Christ, and Christ's righteousness, in turn, is imputed to the sinner. It's legal in nature because all men are lawbreakers and no mortal man is inherently righteous.

Being partakers of the divine nature is limited to born again Christians who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is how Christians are made to partake in the divine nature.

And no one is has any "filial" relationship with God in space and time until, again, by His sovereign grace He chooses to cause one to be born again (1Pet 1:3). At that point in time, one is brought into God's family, i.e. adopted.
"Man"...You're nitpicking.

"'Infusion' is not taught in scripture..And no one is has any "filial" relationship with God in space and time."...

You must have the Thomas Jefferson edition...Gal 3:25-4:7..."Now that faith has come...you are all sons of God ...and if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise...God sent forth his Son...so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir."

But perhaps the devotees of imputed grace learned their legal fiction from Paul.

The Reformers stressed God's sovereignty to the minimization or exclusion of all else. Taking one aspect of theology, and using it to argue against the rest, is the definition of heresy.
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Closed Thread




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.