Sandi In El #fundie premierchristianity.com

Sandi in EL: consensual, or rape - it was still homosexual sex.
The first offer was sex - and Lot offered his daughters to satiate the men. The second offer was force, even being blinded by the angels, the homosexual lust pushed the men on for homosexual sex.
They could have had women, they wanted men - and their lust caused them to be blinded.
God did not allow one out of S&G but Lot and his family. Not one homosexual was considered righteous enough to be brought out of S&G.
It was homosexuality
Learn your Bible, Gug
btw - where is your scripture where the Lord endorses the sin of homosexuality? Thanks

Guglielmo Marinaro : Yes, and the incident of attempted homosexual rape in Sodom (Genesis 19) does not make all homosexual sex wrong, just as the incident of consummated heterosexual rape in Gibeah (Judges 19) does not make all heterosexual sex wrong.
There was no offer of sex, as the text itself plainly shows. That is just your invention, which you are trying dishonestly to add to the narrative. The men of Sodom demanded that Lot bring out his guests to be gang-raped. Lot rightly refused, but then despicably offered them his daughters to rape instead. Yes, they turned down the women, because it was the visitors that they wished to abuse and humiliate, and they resented Lot, an immigrant, passing judgment on them. They then told Lot that they would treat him even worse, thus confirming that rape had been their intention from the start.
The concept of a city in which every single man was homosexual is beyond any sane, intelligent person’s threshold of credulity.
Learn your Bible, Sandi. You can invent things to your heart’s content, but please stop deceitfully claiming that they’re in the Bible. Thanks.

Sandi in EL: Yes it does make all homosexual sex wrong and Christ confirmed that with Leviticus.
There was an offer of sex and Lot offered his daughters to protect the me.
N, we've been here before, "to know" is the term used with Adam and Eve and Eve was not raped.
You don't offer sex to those you wish to abuse and humiliate.
Lot passed judgment because of their evil - homosexuality
You don't want to believe Christ, that's fine. Don't call yourself a follower of Christ then.
You are the one denying Biblical truths, Gug . Learn your Bible

Guglielmo Marinaro: No, it does not make all homosexual sex wrong any more than the story of the heterosexual gang rape at Gibeah makes all heterosexual sex wrong. The unknown authors of Leviticus make no mention whatever of Sodom in their clumsily worded condemnation of sex between men.
No, you don’t offer sex to those whom you wish to abuse and humiliate, and the men of Sodom didn’t offer sex to the visiting angels. That is purely an invention of yours, as the text conclusively shows. They just demanded that Lot bring out his guests to be gang-raped.
Yes, we have been here before, and you are repeating the same faulty argument as before. The Hebrew verb, yada‘, “to know” when used as a sexual euphemism, refers to sexual congress. It does not imply that the sex is consensual; it may or may not be. The context in which it is used in the Sodom story makes it plain that it refers there to attempted rape, and the very same verb is used of the rape of the Levite’s concubine at Gibeah (Judges 19:25). But you know this perfectly well already, because I have previously pointed it out to you at least twice. By continuing to repeat that crooked argument you are proving your deliberate dishonesty.
Sandi, since you have made plain your determination to keep reiterating – in the teeth of the clear evidence of the text itself – your untruthful claim that your fabrication is part of the Sodom narrative, I won’t waste time on any further discussions with you. There is little point in debating with someone as intellectually dishonest as you are.

Sandi in EL: cut the editorial, and show me scripture when Christ defends the sin


Sandi in EL: still no scripture Gug? You cannot show where Christ endorses homosexuality?
I've shown you where you are wrong on this before. Look back (edit)

Chellebaby #fundie premierchristianity.com

Niel Matrix: So you told them about Santa, "because you didn't want them to grow up believing something that wasn't real"
But you tell them that a man walked on water, was killed and then rose from the dead to become god?
Oh the irony!

Chellebaby: I agree to an extent.I don't understand why born again believers would lie to their children about Santa which we all know does not exist. It would then make it difficult to explain to a child about God as a lot of believing in God is through Faith and Trust of his existence.
This is why you do believe as you want a sign. You want God to jump up and down with flashing lights and say here I am. That is not going to happen. But if you were to exercise a bit of faith even tiniest bit to the notion God does exist and pay attention to the little "coincidences" that will happen in your life. You will see God does I indeed exist.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin: It sounds to me as if Declan is a supporter of the IRA and approves of the Good Friday Agreement which, in many ways, gave the terrorists what they asked for. If violence is so close to the surface that it could be reignited by the " re-emergence of any physical infrastructure on the border"then it isn't actually worth having. What we need is the elimination of these evil men who kill the innocent.
The reason we had to leave the EU, indeed should never have joined, is that it is a corrupt, anti-democratic organisation that fails it's citizens when they are poor and vulnerable. To support such an organisation, which we were doing by our taxes, was a moral failure, to leave may enable others to leave and so bring down this monstrous organisation.

Shalini: Astounding.
When this government have tripled homelessness, doubled child poverty and caused the deaths of disabled and vulnerable people on benefits, diverted money away from the poor to the pockets of the rich?
They are planning to reduce workers rights currently protected by the EU.
I begin to think Martin that you must be one of the well heeled yourself, you never have an ounce of pity for theose in need and obviously are rich enough not to work , as you are constantly on these threads.
Explain why you have so much time on your hands.
Do you know the history of the British in Ireland?
They were colonialists there as elsewhere, with the same miserable criminal actions.

Martin: More socialist propaganda.

Raptor & Chellberry #fundie premierchristianity.com

Raptor: Don’t expect a cogent Bible-based answer any time soon Chelle! *Wink face emoji*

Chellberry: Well if he was to give one it would HAVE to line up with our belief as to why Jesus had to die. His blood had to be shed. It couldn't be any other way. If you take on board the requirements of the OT and the sacrificing of the animal blood for God's forgiveness , all pictures of Jesus sacrifice.
We know Jesus had to die so his blood could be offered as payments for our sins so we could enter heaven through believing on him.
To defeat death is a pathetic answer to a serious question.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Tom Walker: "What we observe is not Evolution, even in a small scale"
Yes, it is. I understand it and the body of evidence well enough to tell you it is. You don't. Out of more than 100 million scientifically educated folks with advanced degrees, a few thousand think you are right and the rest mostly ignore you as being insane.
When the world's experts tell you it is, and you deny it thinking that you know better than they do, that is a) almost certainly wrong and b) incredibly arrogant. Delusional by definition (delusions of grandeur).
You followed this up by telling me that you do accept evidence. No, you don't. I bet you hardly know the evidence and I further bet that you exclusively rely on religious sources or authors (including some scientifically degreed ones) for your scientific information. When you think that you can decide what evidence is good and which is not, you have broken the line between reality and delusion.
YOU do not get to decide which data is good. Data is just data and it does not respond to opinion.
The evidence I rely on is understood by me from the first experiment to the last, with years of study at the college level. I do not re-interpret it to make it fit what I think, I model what I think based on the data. When the data is updated my "beliefs" are updated whereas yours are not. That should be a clear sign of a problem - but it is one that I bet you can't see.
You likely think all Catholics and the Pope aren't Christian (they are and they out number you by a lot) and that the Bible is a great source of real world information (it isn't.) You might think the Bible is inerrant (which is insanity writ large). Such a framework is delusional when compared to real world material. Look up "cognitive dissonance" and think about this: If proof was a rock and it was set on the table in front of you - and you agreed it was real data and correct - would you be able to leave your belief system and adapt? Probably not. You could not leave a crafted world view behind, nor could you risk family, friends, peers and community over it. Look up Kurt Wise. Church and anti-evolution religious sites say in advance that their minds cannot be changed, which is stupidity on a plate.
Scientifically minded people do not operate that way. They change what they know in keeping with best current data. Prove me wrong and I will THANK YOU for it and update my world view.
That I can do that and you cannot should be a loud siren of warning

Martin: Tom
So demonstrate Evolution. Start with the LUCA and create the variety of life we see.
There is not one iota of evidence to support Evolution, you are whistling in the dark.
BTW, the reason I can say the Pope isn't a Christian is because the Bible says salvation is by grace through faith alone and the Pope rejects that.

Chelleberry #fundie premierchristianity.com

David it really does. Let me ask you something, if we were to stand before someone who knew absolutely nothing about God or this wicked earth we live on and you came with your Bible and the attitude of it is full of errors and you can only believe the words of Jesus without a decent argument for why the whole Bible is wrong except those words and I was to stand before them advising this is the only manual God gave us to learn about him and it was true and accurate, who do you think they are going to believe?
I put to you those who say it is full of errors and dismiss massive chunks of the Bible are the ones more likely to be manipulating scriptures to suit their lifestyles. You all say about our literal reading of the Bible is something to be ashamed of but I am not. I know the books such as psalms and proverbs are poetry therefore I don't pray for children to have their heads hit off a rock but I do believe in an all powerful God who was able to create everything we see, to create enough water to have a world wide flood, to create a fish large enough to swallow Jonah and keep him alive, to create all that happened to job, to part the red sea and to bring about the plagues of Egypt.
I find it quite sad you don't believe in such a God.

Chelleberry #fundie premierchristianity.com

Chellebaby: If God is love and not wrath then why would God's wrath need to be satisfied by Jesus?
Also I take you dismiss the several verses that mention things like the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom? I guess if you don't fear the Lord then you will show a lack of wisdom David.

DavidS: Once you have been saved by Christ you don't need to fear God.
You ask a good question. Perhaps Jesus sacrifice wasn't an act of penal substitution.
I read this article this morning - thought I would share it with you.


Chellebaby: So there does have to be fear before you get saved! That's an excellent point David and one that I agree with.

DavidS: No there doesn't need to be fear. Did you read the article I shared with you? It is possible the word 'fear' is a bad translation (along with all the other bad English translations).
God is love, he wants you to love him, not fear him.

Chellebaby: I know God is love and I do love him. I don't think it is an error in translation but I misunderstanding by people of what the term means. I understand it is a reverence of God. It is a good fear because at the end of the day, my life is God's to do what He desires.

DavidS: There are errors in translation, some of which have come about by mistake, some were deliberate, for example when the KJV was being translated the translators added bits that weren't in the original text, left bits out that were and altered some bits (including parts that King James thought challenged his position and authority). I think this is something we just have to accept.
Your life may be God's to do what he desires, but God doesn't desire to manipulate you or use you as his puppet. He does want us to use our God-give free will, to follow him, but he does allow us to make our own choices, he doesn't force himself on anyone.
I don't believe the word 'fear' here (if we accept that is the right word) means 'to be afraid of'.

Chellebaby: So then why did he have to die on the cross? You theory makes no sense and is as per usual way off the mark. If it is not to pay for our sins then why does the Bible mention over and over again about HIS blood being offered as payment or is that parts of the Bible you don't believe in?

DavidS: Jesus death wasn't the act of a vengeful God but a supreme demonstration of his eternal, great love for us.

Chellebaby: There are other ways he could have shown love, so why did he have to die David?

DavidS: He died to defeat death so that we may have eternal life.

Doesn't answer the question does it David? Why did his death defeat death so we can have eternal life? What was he defeating?

DavidS: He was defeating death.

Chellebaby: So you don't really have an answer then? Just going to repeat the same sentence over and over which does not answer the question.

DavidS: I've given you an answer, sorry if you can't see that.

Chellebaby: Haha no you haven't. I'm sorry if you can't see that you haven't.

DavidS: Look again.

Chellebaby: Don't need to. I know you haven't answered so if you have nothing further to add then I will shake the dust off my feet and will be done with you.

DavidS: Bless you Chelle.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

JoKing: I don't subscribe to your caricature of theistic evolution.
Taking the account of the Fall as a true, allegorical, interpretation of the event, gives us the Fall, human sin and sinfulness, and the role of a Saviour. No problem.
You see, you cannot think my thoughts for me.

Martin: You can't have something that is true and allegorical at the same time. And no, you haven't solved the problem.

JoKing: You can. I have, along with many others, better educated than you and I, and humbler too..

Martin: No you can't, either the Fall is a real historical event or there is no reason for sin and judgement. Your theology fails.

JoKing: Historical, but not literal, expressed in allegorical language.

Martin: Rubbish. You're simply trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that Genesis records the events.

Raptor #fundie premierchristianity.com

Why do atheistic evolutionists conclude that Christianity is false? Basically, they rely on the following argument.

The Atheistic Evolutionist Argument
1) If evolution is true, there was no first, historical Adam.
2) If there was no first, historical Adam, there was no Fall.
3) If there was no Fall, the sinful condition of humanity is not an inescapable condition.
4) If the sinful condition is not an inescapable condition, moral and religious categories like ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’ are irrelevant or unnecessary, as evolution will take whatever course it takes by chance].
5) If salvation is irrelevant or unnecessary, there is no need for a Saviour.
6) The heart or fundamental claim of Christianity is that it is necessary for Jesus to come as the Saviour of the human race
Conclusion: If evolution is true [i.e. there was no historical Adam], then based on (5) and (6), Christianity is false.

The Theistic Evolutionist’s Blocking Strategy

The theistic evolutionist may try to block the atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion by arguing that even though we cannot solve the mystery of the origin of evil (however defined in evolutionary language), nevertheless, it is an undeniable empirical observation that ALL humans are born in ‘sin’. The need for a Saviour remains.
Unfortunately, for the theistic evolutionist – If God used the evolutionary process to create what appears to be a ‘sinful’ world, the absence of a Fall would suggest that God himself is solely responsible for the sinful condition of this world.

This disturbing conclusion should sober up many ‘progressive’ Christians who adopt theistic evolution along with the denial of a historical Fall of Adam, as any doubt about the goodness of God is fatal to the truth claim of Christianity.
For this reason, evangelical Christians insist on the doctrine of the historical and historic Fall of Adam as it preserves the insight that sin is an act of human free will, with the consequence of death to the human race. Sin is both universal (the sinful condition of humanity) and personal (it is my sin). The Fall is the reason why it is necessary for
a sinless, Second Adam to save the world through His death and resurrection.

Chellebaby #fundie premierchristianity.com

Premier is liberal. They follow the recent modern movement of you have to throw away the scriptures so as to be seen to be fashionable.

Yes they like most of those on here are helping people to continue on the path down to Hell. That's why I am not surprised when certain posts are removed especially those containing scriptures. They have a liberal agenda that is for sure.

Gerhard #fundie premierchristianity.com

Perfect Love: don't be so patronising, please. I am well aware of the difference between love and sex and, more importantly, loving sex. Surely, it is up to the individual to calculate any risks they choose to take in life, not up to you - and that counts for all risks, not just in regard to sexuality. Would you condemn smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol in the same way? Personally, I think cigarette smoking is disgusting, as well as a major health risk but as long as it doesn't pollute my air space or that of vulnerable people, I have to affirm another's right to smoke - they know the risks to themselves. Likewise with alcohol and other drugs - if using them impacts negatively on others (and it often does) then it is wrong - some might label it a sin. The common denominator here is consent. I should imagine that there's a whole host of risky stuff that some heterosexuals do in the bedroom which their bodies were not actually designed for. Where does that figure on your list of abominations??
The arrogance of conservative Christians is that they believe that only THEY know the difference between right and wrong. Let me correct them: it is printed on our hearts when we accept Jesus. It is just not OK to say that the Bible contradicts what Jesus has printed on our hearts. To do so is clearly viewing the Bible through a human lens and not the lens of Jesus.

Gerhard: Guess you need a PhD to understand the simplest of instructions. If you do not understand the the abuse of the female body is equally detestable but need explicit instructions to figure that one out, then tell me why the bible does not tell you to breathe in and to breathe out but you do so. Clearly you must have been told :-)
I do not know what tatoo you got on your heart, but your understanding of Jesus appears rather limited He clearly taught people to respect creation. He told us to sin no more and to love one another like he loved us. That would exclude to dishonour each other by performing unnatural acts.
Romans 1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.
Guess you need more explicit wording
see more

Perfect Love: did you respond to my intelligent and articulate post in any way?? That would be a resounding "no"! Pathetic!

Gerhard: "did you respond to my intelligent and articulate post in any way?"
I replied to your last comment. Which post do you think of?

Perfect Love: no, you didn't. You never even referred to the comments I made. I'm blocking you as you are a loose cannon.

Gerhard: Good luck sticking your head in the sand. Guess that is libertarian Christianity for you :-) I'd wish you would engage in logically coherent argumentation instead.
You asked if abominations were acceptable if committed by heterosexual couples and you should have seen the clear "no" in my reply.
Abominations do not become acceptable when two parties agree to them with each other, irrespective of theri sexual orientation

Rock It #fundie premierchristianity.com

Homosexuality has advanced by lies, suppression of truth and intimidation.

Not truth.

Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes

American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

n a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. <>uAlthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

Byrd said the APA’s documents both new and old “have strong activist overtones,” but the newer document “is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.”

Dr. Collins discussed whether homosexuality was genetic. He concluded that, “sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”/4

Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist wrote, “Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things.”/5

“People need to understand that the ‘gay gene’ theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years. Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they’re much less likely to resist the gay agenda.”

Chellebaby #fundie premierchristianity.com

My Pastor made an interesting comment this morning in church...
He was saying about how the government is trying to take the Bible completely out of schools. There is next to know teachings about God in schools. Now this is the same government who has declared that only evolution is to be taught in schools. Now why does that not raise red flags to those who claim to believe in God? If this godless government is stipulating that is the truth and the only thing to be taught why on earth would a Christian automatically go against the Bible and say evolution is true?! It is very troubling!

Sharon Price & others #fundie premierchristianity.com

(=Regarding Christians who believe in Evolution=)

Sharon Price: There are plenty of scientists who believe in a young earth. Unfortunately, our secular society discredits and ostracises them. It is important for a Christian to know if the Bible is the Truth... if it is not 100% true, where does truth begin? Also, as Jesus spoke of Genesis as truth, for the Christian not to believe in literal Genesis, means they can’t trust Jesus. Either He is God personified, or he’s a charlatan. Yes, there are prophetic writings, but they are very clearly prophetic, and that is the only place a day for a thousand years is used. So decide for yourselves, whom you will believe, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Chelleberry: You are completely correct Sharon. To discredit any part of the scriptures is to discredit God. I am so shocked to see so called Christians happy to dismiss scriptures. They don't realise how detrimental it is.

Raptor: You’re quite right Sharon, what is at stake is the entire veracity of scripture from page one onwards, yet some on here who claim to be Christians and therefore should have a great interest in its truthfulness, not only feel that this is a trifling matter which we shouldn’t be discussing, but vigorously defend what is basically a pagan atheistic philosophy dressed up in scientific garb, which the Bible does not in any way support, and furthermore neither does true science.

Sharon Price: Also look up on YouTube, “Dam Bursting” to see the evolutionary theories on the Grand Canyon taking millions of years to form, being destroyed. “New Island Birth” to demonstrate how the land forms don’t take millions of years to form. Mt St Helens eruption to discredit the radio carbon dating. They’ve also tested a newly dead seal, and various body parts registered various ridiculous ages. There are literally thousands of real life examples, secular scientists don’t bother to make public, as the only alternative is the absolute truth of the bible. Also, a great reference for any questions is CREATION.COM.

Brian M: Michael Roberts thinks Genesis 1 is poetry. The Bible is its own best interpreter. The Ten Commandments is certainly not poetry. The fourth commandment explained in Exodus 20:8-11 only makes sense if the days of the week including the Sabbath and the days of Genesis1 mean the same thing. So Genesis 1 is also not poetry.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Since salvation is by an act of God, the raising to life those dead in sin, then it is not a requirement that sinners are persuaded of the truth of the gospel by the arguments we present.

Equally, the Resurrection could be described as a stumbling block, for how can a dead man rise from the dead? Are you therefore going to omit the resurrection because it is a stumbling block to belief?

Evolution is not 'the best fit for the facts', for it fits none of the facts of science. We do not see any malleability of life at the highest level, all we see is minor changes. There has been an experiment under way since February 1988 to measure Evolution in the E. coli bacteria. Although they claim to have to have seen Evolution in reality there has been none. The E. coli remain E. coli.

We are called to proclaim the whole council of God, not just those things that seem reasonable to our hearers.

Chellebaby & Raptor #fundie premierchristianity.com

shalini: its the same principle raptor.
The trouble with yyour fully qualified creation scientists is that most scientists and scientific institutions wont touch them with a barge pole because they are lousy scientists.
If what they said was true some of it would be supported by science. Plus many of them are supported by very dubious american right wing organisations.

Raptor: So what else is "like evolution"? Why would an all-powerful God need anything like evolution? He has told us very clearly but you don't believe Him and would obviously prefer almost any other speculative explanation except the biblical one.

shalini: Why would an all powerful God need to create us at all? Mystery, mystery.
You seem to want to box God in. Label him. Do not touch.

Chellebaby: You actually just asked why would an all powerful God need to create us all?! Have you ever read your Bible? Why would God leave things to chance? I do believe the Bible the Bible says we are all fearfully wonderfully made.

shalini: Don't worry your head about it.

Chellebaby: I don't as I know the truth and know I have a place in Heaven. I do however fear for you and where you will end up. Have you shown enough love lately to earn your place?!
Can I ask is there a measuring stick so you can see if you have shown enough love to get into Heaven? What happens when you show hate ? Do you have to reset your counter?
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Titus 3:4-6 King James Version (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Ephesians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Gerhard #fundie premierchristianity.com

funny that there are always some nutters that think that one must have a phobia or hate homosexuals. Sure all judges are suffering from crimephobia and hate the delinquents they judge as well. But then they must also believe that atheists suffer from religiophobia and hate the religious.

That is not to say that there are not pathological cases who do amongst those who are "brights", e.g. suffering from excess self-perceived intelligence.

https://www.virtueonline.or... gives a compilation of failed tactics to justify homosexuality in case you haven't got enough. Peace be upon those who deny their free will in order to attempt to blame God for their unwillingness to control their sinful desires like perfect love below. Surely she fully agrees with Adam to blame God for giving him Eve, still clueless about the teachings of Genesis and the concept of sin, but then logical thinking is a scarce commodity. :-)

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

JD: So, lets get this straight:
A deity created a male proto-human out of clay. Then it took a male to female genetic clone of it so the two could breed. Thus whole human race was born.
As creation myths go I've always found that one to be one of the silliest. Oddly though, this creation myth suggests that the human body is malleable and that gender is not static and is in fact fluid.
Curiously though there's the second creation myth that says god made humanity in its image; male and female. Which suggests that the god of the bible is both genders thus making it intersex and/ or transgender. Both myths support the reality that 1 in every 1200-2000 are born intersex.
Gender and gender orientation was never set in stone.

Martin: What a load of twaddle. Where does the Bible speak of a genetic clone? it says that God made Adam out of the dust and Eve out of adam's rib. No requirement for a clone, the God who made a man out of dust can equally make a woman from a rib. Nor is there any suggestion that gender can be fluid.
There is no 'second creation myth', not that there is a myth. but of course God made Man in His image and God is a spirit. Thus the image of God has nothing to do with sex. If you bothered to do your research you'd have known that.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Try this:

You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
(Matthew 5:27-28 [ESV])

The problem comes when you deny that temptation that is allowed to grow in the heart, for such is what is called 'orientation' is, and rule your life. To identify with a sin, as those who describe themselves as homosexual do, is to say that it is their master. Those who describe themselves as LGBT have already given way to sin.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Perfect Love casts out fear: We will never agree on this. Suffice to say, I find nothing attractive in a God who condemns non-hetero people to a living hell whilst on this earth and then to eternal torment when they die. It absolutely does NOT fit with the Jesus who came among us, who is Love Incarnate. I pray that, one day soon, you will convicted by this love and amazing grace, rather than your current obsession with demonising a) Christians with a journey different to your own and b) those born of a non-hetero sexuality. Let's just leave this here. I withdraw from dialogue with you.

Martin: You find nothing attractive in God, full stop. There are no 'non hetero' people, nor for that matter are there any 'hetero' people, just sexual sinners rebelling against their maker.
Love does not overlook sin, indeed, sin is the antitheses of love and homosexuality is sin. A homosexual can never be a Christian.
No one is born with a 'non hetero' sexuality, indeed, sexuality does not exist.

sandinwindsor #fundie premierchristianity.com

Perfect Love casts out fear: well, you choose to worship some writings and I choose to worship God. So be it. I thought we were reaching some sense of accord but, no. I am absolutely staggered that you dismiss God's Holy Spirit so readily. Jesus specifically said, before He ascended back to the Father, that He was leaving His Holy Spirit to intercede for us. Why would you assume, when I pray to God, that I am communing with some fake evil spirit but when YOU pray, you are communing with the real thing? You assume that "my" Holy Spirit is a fake because He interprets in a way that you don't agree with or that doesn't accord with your interpretation of scripture. Please give me some credit for being genuinely on a journey to commune more closely with God.

sandinwindsor: As I asked you, how do you know you are following God's Holy Spirit, if it disagrees with scripture. Christ intercedes for us. The Holy Spirit's job is to teach us and He will not contradict scripture

Perfect Love casts out fear : God's Holy Spirit interprets scripture correctly and currently. If scripture is as obvious and as infallible as you claim, then why did God need to leave us with the Holy Spirit at all? Clearly, it was because we need a current voice in our lives, not just a set of ancient manuscripts that we often interpret incorrectly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, we are 2000 years down the line and STILL don't have a definitive translation of the Bible that we can all agree is authentic and correct. Why, then, be so arrogant to assume it can be read literally and adhered to slavishly when we actually have THE HOLY SPIRIT of God on hand 24/7?

sandinwindsor: but, as I keep telling you, if your "holy spirit" tells you different from scripture, it is not the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, scripture interprets scripture.
The voice in our lives comes from the Lord, and will not contradict scripture
Between the Dead Sea Scrolls and scripture today, there were 6 items that were seen ambiguously - and not on homosexuality
If your difficulty is in understanding scripture: www.biblehub.com They will give you twenty-five interpretations of the verse - not always different - and that is how one interprets scripture, not aside from, but with scripture.
it can be read authoritatively and literally because Christ used it and stated, :Scripture cannot be broken - displaying the authority and validity of scripture.
If your "holy spirit" is teaching you differently than scripture - it is a lie from the pit of Hell
Now, please tell me scripturally how God is not going to allow someone to go to Hell?

Perfect Love casts out fear: Just staggering that you seem to place so little value on the Holy Spirit yet so, so much on a book! But, hey, nothing I have said appears to resound with you. Your view of the trinity is really warped. In essence, you are saying I am possessed of an evil spirit which mimics the Holy Spirit and when I pray to God, it is the evil spirit which answers and not God. Not very nice of you at all. To state that, if someone cries out to God in prayer, they cannot rely on it actually being God that answers is beyond wicked. You have reduced Almighty God to a god. On that basis, our dialogue is at an end.

sandinwindsor: If your "holy spirit" tells you differently than scripture, yes, I would say you are playing with demons. Demons will disguise themselves as angels of light. - learn some scripture.
John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. " He will teach all that Christ taught - hence, He will not be granting new scripture.
Christ said, "It is finished".

Sandwindsor #fundie premierchristianity.com

(=Regarding Sodom=)

TS (unami): Hetero men who RAPE other men as a show of force and dominance does not mean they are gay! Read some history about how conquering armies did this to humiliate and subjugate their defeated foes. Not even close to a gay relationship -- especially since it was done by HETERO men.

Samdwindsor: They wanted to have sex with them before forcing their homosexuality on the menl

TS (Unami): No no no.
The men outside Lot's door were ALL THE MEN OF THE CITY as the scripture says. ALL OF THE MEN.
This was attempted RAPE as a form of dominance and humiliation by HETEROsexual men toward the visitors!

Sandwindsor: You have had Ezekiel explained to you several times TS. The angels did not bring any homosexuals out of Sodom and Gomorrah. Read the scripture and you will see the obvious reference to homosexuality.

TS (inami): You have had Ezekiel explained to you multiple times, and yet you continue to block the Truth. The sins of Sodom listed do not even mention being gay as a one of them.
You forget that it was HETEROsexual men who were trying to RAPE the visitors as a sign of dominance and humiliation, a despicable practice done by ALL THE MEN OF THE CITY as the scripture says.
You seriously need to read the Bible!

Sandwindsor: Learn your Bible TS. S&G's sins are sexual. This has been explained to you several times.

AustinRocks #fundie premierchristianity.com

Christians should not condone homosexuality any more than they should condone adultery. The fact that a particular sin brings you great pleasure doesn't mean it's not a sin. Christianity is about getting rid of your sins, not celebrating them. The secular culture may accept excuses like "This feels good" or "This is who I am," but Christianity has a much higher standard. If you love your sin more than you love God, you are no Christian.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin You keep ignoring what Jesus said so you can pretend sexual perversion is OK. Tell me, why, when He had the chance to enable all those homosexuals to have loving, monogamous marriages, did Jesus say nothing about homosexuals and marriage? Not once does either Jesus or the Bible say anything good about homosexuality.

Peter: He didn't say lots of things. This is because he didn't give a list of dos and donts. Rather he taught such a 'list of laws' approach to which you seem wedded is wrong.
Instead he taught moral principles. It took us 1500 years to realise how to apply them to slavery and 1900 on equality for women. So it's no surprise it's taken us this long to apply them to LGBT people. That doesn't make it Jesus fault for not mentioning it.

Martin: Funny that, He had opportunity to say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and not be stoned, but He didn't say a thing. He didn't say that the Old Testament penalty for homosexuality was lifted, yet He did say that if someone slapped us we were not to retaliate. Clearly He wasn't worried about the feelings of the homosexual, if He did think they weren't sinners after all.
Slavery and the equality of women are nothing like the so-called LGBT people. They are addressed in the Bible, homosexuality is only condemned. There is not one place where homosexuality is mentioned with any sort of approval in the Bible.

Peter: There is nowhere where slavery is banned and nowhere where lending with interest is approved. Your reading of the bible leads to inverted morality the polar opposite of Jesus's

Martin: Your problem is that you expect the Bible to be a book of rules.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

(=An Anti Gay vs Pro Gay argument desolves into an Eternal Torment vs Annihilation argument of Hell=)

Martin: Curiously the penalty for all sin is the same:
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
(Ezekiel 18:4 [ESV])
Death is the penalty for any sin.
You reject the fact that homosexuality is simply sexual sin merely to justify yourself.

Guglielmo Marinaro: Ah well, if all those souls are going to die, then they won’t be living on in hell to suffer everlasting torment, will they? So that’s some consolation.
You assert that homosexuality is simply sexual sin merely to justify yourself. I reject the “fact” that homosexuality is simply sexual sin, because it isn’t a fact but simply nonsense.

Martin: Death for the soul of a sinner means an eternity of torment. Keep pretending while you can, one day you'll have to admit you're wrong.

Guglielmo Marinaro: Death does not mean an eternity of torment – except perhaps once again in your Martinian Newspeak lexicon – and an attempt to read such a concept into that verse from Ezekiel is eisegesis par excellence.
You may keep on repeating your ignorant nonsense till kingdom come, and I will continue to recognize it as ignorant nonsense, nothing more. As you have yourself recently observed, it is tedious to have to repeat the same thing over and over again, but – who knows? – God may use it to enlighten you and get you to repudiate your errors.

Martin: Curious then that Jesus speaks of two options, eternal life and eternal punishment:
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
(Matthew 25:46 [ESV])

Guglielmo Marinaro: Quite apart from uncertainty regarding the meaning of the Greek word “aionios”, which has been translated in English Bibles by the word “eternal” or “everlasting”, but which does not necessarily mean “of endless duration” – in the Greek Septuagint it is applied, for example, to things which have long since come to an end, e.g. the Aaronic priesthood (Numbers 25:13) and the gates of the Temple at Jerusalem (Psalm 24:7, 9) – it is interesting that Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal LIFE”, which seems clearly to imply that those who go to “eternal punishment” will NOT live on for ever.
This is confirmed by Jesus’s admonition, “Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28)

Martin: So you're saying that eternal life doesn't last for ever? I think you'd be hard pressed to maintain that.
As for Matthew 10, it is notable that the same word is not used for the act of one who is able to kill the body but not the soul and the one who is able to destroy both body and soul.

Guglielmo Marinaro : No, I am not saying that eternal life does not last for ever, nor am I implying that. But if the belief that it does has no stronger basis than the use of a Greek word which is applied in the Septuagint to a priesthood which no longer exists and to the doors of a temple which was razed to the ground centuries ago, it rests on a pretty precarious foundation.
Something which has been destroyed no longer exists. If anything, “destroy” bears an even stronger connotation of annihilation than “kill”. The verse in Matthew 10 which speaks of the destruction of both soul and body can, like so many biblical texts, be pulled around in Procrustean fashion to bring it into apparent conformity with preformed dogma, but as the New Testament scholar Kim Papaioannou observes, “It appears that the attempt to understand the meaning of ?p???sa? in Matthew 10:28 as something other than ‘destruction’ in its most obvious meaning is based more on theological considerations than linguistic evidence.” He adds that this conclusion is supported by a survey of the usage of the different forms of that verb in the Synoptic Gospels, elsewhere in the New Testament and in the Septuagint.

Martin: The same word is used of eternal life as to eternal punishment, so if one is not to experience eternal punishment neither will anyone experience eternal life. It matters not what a man who thinks he has invented a whole new understanding of the Bible says

Guglielmo Marinaro: And the very same adjective (a??????) is used of the Aaronic priesthood, which no longer exists, and of the doors of the Temple at Jerusalem, which was razed to the ground centuries ago.

Martin: And the Septuagint was translated hundreds of years before the New Testament was written. Nor is it inspired, the translators were capable of error.
The punishment and life clearly last for the same length of time.

Guglielmo Marinaro: “And the Septuagint was translated hundreds of years before the New Testament was written.”
So what? It is the same Greek adjective, and the Septuagint was good enough for Paul, since it was the version from which he habitually quoted in his epistles.
“Nor is it inspired, the translators were capable of error.”
As were the original biblical writers, and as were all the translators who have produced every translation of the Bible ever made, from the Vulgate to the NIV.
“The punishment and life clearly last for the same length of time.”
Clearly to you perhaps, but clearly not clearly to everyone else.

Martin: You didn't realise languages change over time?
The original biblical writers were caused by God to write as they did, their writing is without error for it is breathed out by God.
When the same word is used of two things in the same sentence it is clear to everyone that the same meaning is given to the two instances. Everyone except you apparently.

Raptor #fundie premierchristianity.com

You may well have “already covered this” but that’s a far cry from you being correct.

It’s not me who “invented the division of law” because historically that is how the Mosaic Law has always been understood by theologians through the ages, including Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers and the Puritans - they all believed that the Bible contains three types of law; the moral, the civil and the ceremonial - that the civil and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ but the moral law has not been done away with and is still binding to both believers and unbelievers. This notion that Christ replaced the Law with love became fashionable during the 1960s - the era of the ’Lurve Generation’ but it is erroneous.

Eating pork is not a moral issue, but lying, stealing, homosexuality, besti@lity etc. most certainly are, and much as you would like to blur the distinction between the various facets of the law as a cloak for immorality, you are deceiving yourself.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin: On the contrary, homosexuality breaks Jesus' command not to lead others into sin. Adultery destroys the joining of the man and woman in marriage.

Peter: Jesus said all morality towards others is founded on agape love. Unfaithfulness breaks that. Either he was right or he wasn't.

Martin : 'Agape love' means you don't entice others into sin, which is what homosexuality is. You clearly hate homosexuals.

Martin & Jacqueline Hunter #fundie premierchristianity.com

Peter: Forcing lifelong celibacy on people because of a conservative religious way of reading the bible is not a supportive or Christ-like approach.

Martin: The Bible is absolutely clear, sex is for a man and woman in marriage only. That isn’t a conservative religious way of reading the Bible, it is the only way.

Jacqueline Hunter: Brilliant response. Philip Tartaglia (who is a senior clergyman in Scotland) wrote in a newspaper this month that marriage is solely for men and woman and that is God's plan. I'm now slightly wary of posting on this subject on this forum tho because I was threatened by a homosexual on this forum last week.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

JoKing: Martin,
I have never done anything to promote sexual immorality. I have led a heterosexual life, entirely within marriage. You are confused, and abusive. Making false accusations really is wickedness, according to Jesus. I do not decry the Old Testament. I apportion to it a lesser authority than you do, by submitting it to the authority of Jesus, my Lord. Honouring Jesus is not wickedness. I question the infallibility of the Old Testament, because Scripture makes no claim for it. The word "infallible" does not occur in any text. That is not wickedness; it is honouring the text, without adding to it, as you do. Your attachment to human invention above Scripture, seems close to wickedness.

Martin: Seems to me that you are promoting homosexuality here.
The authority of Jesus gives the same authority to the Old Testament as the New, you are not honouring Jesus.
Does that which comes from the mouth of God Himself have the capability of error?
So where have I added to Revelation?

JoKing: By your "Seems to me that you are promoting homosexuality" based on absolutely no evidence, shows what is quite obvious to all who read you: that you are so obsessive about attacking homosexuals, that your judgment is blinded by any disagreement. Anyone who opposes you. on any issue, you lump together with the "hateful sexual deviants", and pour your bile over all of us.
Well, I rank your rank company less bearable than some homosexuals I have had the privilege of knowing. Your addiction to what seems like a ultra-reformed system of dogma, and the way you express it, is entirely antithetical to the tender mercies of a compassionate God. That causes real concern that you have no real knowledge of Jesus, his character and purposes.
In your fleshly attempts at arguing for the "truth", you betray the cause of Jesus in all you say. You really need to beware of the real risk that your claims of faithful service will be met with "Go away, you worker of iniquity, I never knew you".
To all you people who read this, my apologies to have to speak so directly, but this man is presenting a terrible, harsh, substitute for the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

Martin: Based on the fact that you are busily supporting those who are pushing sexual immorality here. If that isn't promoting homosexuality I don't know what is. I'd be quite happy to debate o.ther matters, and in fact do. It is preferable to having to say the same things over and over to those who will not listen. The doctrines of grace are the tender mercies of a loving God. A God who cares so much for His Creation that He will enter it and suffer abuse at the hands of His Creation in order to redeem His Creation.

JoKing: Martin, your "fact" is a fabrication of your dubious thought-processes. I do not, and have not, supported homosexuals, beyond offering them social acceptance. I oppose the rejection by some of the authority of NT authors. I would do that to anyone regardless of their sexual behaviour. I have repeatedly said this.
You seem utterly unable get your rigid thought-patterns to grasp the difference.
But I do subject the OT to the authority of Jesus. And it seems you reject that stance, but have no argument to back up your opposition to it. I wonder if your stand is as real as you make out. Do have plans to stone adulteresses?

Martin: That you have attacked me for my response to those who are making LGBT supporting claims gives the lie to your first statement.
That you imagine you are qualified to "subject the OT to the authority of Jesus" demonstrates that you do not understand that the OT is as much the words of the Lord Jesus as any words written in red in your Bible.
Clearly you do not understand the nature of the Bible, as your question "Do have plans to stone adulteresses" demonstrates.
You seem to delight in abusing me, when you are claiming to be addressing my abuse. It seems to me that you are entirely dishonest.

JoKing: Martin. It is you who first used uncivil terms to attack me, and you might notice that My responses a\re always more measured. Yet you continue to do so. You say I "attacked you", that I "imagine I am qualified", I "do not understand",(twice), I "delight in abusing" you, I am "entirely dishonest". Quite a catch! None of this is acceptable. I would encourage you to see if you can say what you want to, without such abuse.

Martin: I see nothing 'uncivil' in what I said. My interactions with David and Peter have taken place over a considerably longer period than you have been around. It has been necessary to become more forceful in that period.

JoKing: "Martin. These are the abusive personal comments in your last:
you have attacked me
you imagine you are qualified...
you do not understand (twice)
You seem to delight in abusing me,
you are entirely dishonest"
You could have made your points with phrasing such as:
"You apposed me strongly
You may not be qualified...
I suggest you may have not understood/.misunderstood
???? no suitable phrase comes to mind - perhaps the thought is too abusive
I fear I have to doubt your honesty"
Even like that the personal nature of your comments is aggressive because you are not debating the points, just accusing me of various failings. Peter has expressed a similar opinion of your mode of expression, and he has a longer experience of you, apparently.
With absolutely no interest in being provocative, and with no intention of personal attack, I have no aim beyond finding out how your reconcile - Lev 20 10: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of his neighbour – both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
- with your current position. What do you think? Is it a practice that would be good for our society to adopt? Would you, if you had the power. It is God's inspired word, is it not?
see more

Martin: It is very simple, Leviticus contains three strands of law, the moral, the ceremonial and the civil law. The Christian does not live in the ancient state of Israel, so the civil law has no role. Of such is those laws with a penalty attached for breaking them such as the one for adultery. Equally, the Temple and it's sacrifices are no more, so the ceremonial is done away with by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The only law that remains is the moral law, which the Christian seeks to keep from love of His Saviour.

LIBERALFACISTS #fundie premierchristianity.com

I have read Ezekiel thanks,I've also read Jude 1:7,the only possibility for the two texts to be congruent,is if the 'so they committed abominations' ..refers to the sexual immorality we see on display in Genesis 19
where all of the men of Sodom expressed their desire for homosexuality..

"who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Jude 1:7

(as Jude requires an example)to act as a warning to others,we have this in Genesis 19 ,where all the men of Sodom desire to have homosexual sex with Angels they believed to be men.

So although they did commit other sins,they were not the reason given for their destruction.

As you will notice,the sins of not having regard for the poor and needy,being overfed and complacent,although sinful are not punishable by death under Levitical law....homosexuality however is.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

MR: Again, when you write that paper and win a Nobel prize, I'll believe you, cause I'm open to actual evidence, of which you've demonstrated none. Without evidence, you just come off to me as a naive and gullible person repeating discredited propaganda... or a Russian shill, I'm not sure which. Evolutionary science is based on the same principles of research as any other science, and if you so distrust science, I suggest you quit using it. If churches forced people to choose between church and the benefits of science, the church certainly wouldn't last very long! We all know the benefits of science, and especially when someone's life is on the line, people may pray, but they sure as hell hedge their bets and go to the doctor, don't they!? I have a dear Christian friend who "doesn't believe in evolution" getting treatment right now with medicine based on evolutionary science. It's working.

Martin: Isn't it strange how you claim Evolution is science yet you cannot demonstrate it.
Science is what is observed and demonstrated, repeatedly. Evolution doesn't fit that.
And no, your friend is not "getting treatment right now with medicine based on evolutionary science", they are getting treatment based on real, experimental, empirical science.

MR: Which is based on what we know about evolutionary science. It's why we use other animals in medical experiments, particularly animals with which we have a closer common evolutionary ancestor. Based on what we know about the evolution of cells and viruses. You don't have to accept it, I don't care, but scientists do. I trust the scientists who have cured me and my friend more than I do some anonymous science-denying internet dude. When you give up the benefits of science, that's when I'll believe that you take your own arguments seriously.

Martin: One of the fallacies of medicinal experiments is that you can test satisfactorily on different organisms. It leads to errors in the design of medicines. Nether cells nor viruses evolve, although they very within their range.

MR: Says the non-scientist who hasn't provided a shred of evidence for his view. Scientists are well aware of their limitations. Nor does everything need to be recreated in the lab to come to a conclusion. Forensic scientists don't need to recreate a murder in order to solve a crime. I don't have to know what every little gadget in my car does to understand the basics of how a car works. The same for evolution.
Every time I travel to another part of the world, I read up on the geology of the place, the fossils, its ancient past and compare it to what I've learned. It's always consistent. Every time I travel, the evidence supports science. You've not given me one reason to believe your view. Unsupported assertions mean nothing. Until you write the paper that overturns the scientific consensus, I think we can safely ignore your opinion. Just because you have heartburn about evolution doesn't change a thing. All of your "Answers in Genesis-style" talking points have long been debunked. Even religious institutions are understanding that you can't keep asking people to check their brains at the door of the church, and have come around to the evidence of evolution. Fortunately, science and scientists keep on doing their thing without regard to your willful ignorance. Tell me again how scientists are wrong. You can tell me any lie you want. Until you provide actual evidence they're wrong, we can safely dismiss your protestations. I eagerly await your Nobel prize winning paper.

Martin: You have provided no evidence for Evolution, not merely missed out a little. My evidence is the Bible.
That fossils match the strata they're in is no surprise, for the strata are defined by the fossils. Consensus is destructive of science, it was scientific consensus that Galileo had to battle against. The evidence of the rocks and fossils is entirely consistent with the Genesis Flood narrative, scientifically.
No, the evidence and interpretations from Creationist organisations hasn't been debunked. In the main they've been ignored.It isn't a case of not using your brains, rather it's a case of actually using your brains and looking at the evidence. Exactly the same evidence you claim for Evolution supports the Genesis Flood much better.

MR: Science has provided a mountain of evidence for evolution. You've provided none. The Bible isn't evidence any more than the Vedas are evidence for a Hindu version of the universe. Creationists haven't provided any evidence, even gave up providing evidence. If they had evidence, then they'd have convinced scientists. They haven't. They just keep asserting nonsense, like you keep asserting nonsense. I'm to believe some anonymous internet dude over people who dedicate their lives making this world a better place? Wait..., have you written that paper yet? No? Oh, well, then a shout out to Frances H. Arnold, George Smith, and Sir Gregory Winter in today's news for winning the Nobel Prize for their "pioneering work in evolutionary science." Thanks for continuing to provide us with evidence for evolution. Great job!

Martin: You have provided no evidence for Evolution. What you need to do is provide a demonstration of the descent of all life from the LUCA. Anything else is just interpretation. I await your demonstration.
Creationist have provided plenty of evidence, there are papers that examine and refute the claims of Evolution. The reason many scientists will not be convinced is because then they'd have to admit there is a Creator.

Leroy Lewis & Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Johnny25343: With regard to the Bile being a perfect book. Here's the thing. The Bible was inspired, NOT DICTATED. As a result a book even an inspired one written by sinful man is no more perfect and inerrant than the man in the moon. My faith is not in the Bible because I know that it has contradictions. My faith rather is in the person who the book is about. Now He believed in the Scriptures and because of Him I believe the Bible, contradictions and all. Sadly so many people get to the point to where they lose faith because ministers refuse to be intellectually honest about the Bible and its contradictions. My faith is in the one the Bible continuously speaks of.

Leroy Lewis: J , there are no contradictions whatsoever in the Bible. There may very well be certain things written and recorded that you do not understand and you would not be alone in that. But there are no contradictions. God is steadfast in all things. What you don't understand today with the help of The Holy Spirit you will understand tomorrow, He will teach you , Precept upon Precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little there a little. Very often we children do not fully understand what our father's mean when they tell us certain things, and then a few hours or a few days later , the penny drops, so to speak.

Martin: Inspired means that God caused what was written to be written, a better translation is breathed out, as if the very words of God were breathed out onto the page.
You don't know the person the Bible was written about except through the pages of the Bible. BTW, there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Peter: Where does Jesus emphasise that? He said what the Kingdom of God was about repeatedly, including in luke 4 and the beatitudes. It includes social justice at its heart. You just reject what he said.

Martin: The Beatitudes have nothing to do with social justice, they are a description of the Christian.

Peter: I hope you've told Jesus that.

Martin: Peter
He knows, He spoke the words.

Peter: Where did he speak the words you just have? The beatitudes say nothing of the sort! Yet again you simply make up his words when you don't like what he said

Martin: I always knew your reading comprehension was poor:
And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
Blessed are the POOR IN SPIRIT, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
(Matthew 5:2-12 [ESV])
This is about spiritual things, not physical, hence He says 'poor in spirit' and speaks of righteousness. It isn't about those with little money.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin: David
Of course you have doctrine and they're based on your belief in taking away from one group of people to give to another. You force the Bible into that mould and claim to be a Christian.. That is not Christianity, this is socialism.
Salvation is just the same after Jesus' death and resurrection as it was before. Those events made no difference.

DavidS: I don't have a doctrine as such, I just try to follow Jesus example. Jesus manifesto is set out clearly in Luke 4:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
That's clearly a social justice manifesto. I hate to be the one to tell you this but Jesus wasn't a social conservative who would support 'free market' capitalism based on greed and self-interest. He would support a system that puts the needs of the poor and needy before the wants of the wealthy elite.
The context in which Jesus was speaking does make a difference. Things were different before he fulfilled his mission and different afterwards, otherwise there is no point to his sacrifice.

Martin: David
No, that isn't social justice, it is salvation to those poor in spirit, to those enslaved by their sin, to those spiritually blinded and oppressed.

DavidS: It is to all those as well as the physically and financially poor, the outcast, the refugee, the immigrant, the disabled, the vulnerable, the disabled and those on the fringes.

Martin: No it isn't.

DavidS: It is. Sorry that your evil, sadistic god doesn't see it that way, but that is how the true God who is love, sees it.

Martin: David
The God I worship is just and merciful, what you worship is not a god.

DavidS: So you've denounced Calvinism then?

Martin: Why would I renounce biblical doctrine?

DavidS: Calvinism isn't Biblical.
You said "The God I worship is just and merciful" - the Calvinist God is neither just or merciful, he is a sadistic monster.

Martin: Is a judge a sadistic monster because he judges fairly and applies the law so that the criminal pays the penalty?
You understand neither Calvinism nor the Bible.

DavidS: I understand both. A god who creates billions of lives just to send them to hell is a sadistic monster with no love.

Martin: David
They go to Hell because they choose to, for their sin. Don't blame God for that. As always, you have no understanding of Christianity.

DavidS: According to Calvinism they go to hell because of predestination and because God doesn't want to save them.
I understand Christianity very well, it's about love, mercy and grace. Not judgement and punishment.

Martin: David
They go to Hell because of their sin. Judgement and punishment are at the heart of Christianity. You can't have mercy without them.

DavidS: Mercy triumphs over judgment.
"They go to Hell because of their sin" - that isn't Calvinism. Calvinism says they go to Hell because they're not part of God's hand-picked 'elect', which makes God a sadistic monster.

Martin: David
Yes that is Calvinism. You are an ignorant fool who will not be taught.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin: Since Jesus said that God alone is good, it follows that the Samaritan is not good.
Calvinistic dogma is right there beside Jesus.

Peter: You now don't even pretend to address any of the points I made do you?

Martin: Peter
I addressed every one. You, however, do not understand the parable, its point was to answer the question "who is my neighbour". As I pointed out, Jesus never calls the Samaritan good.

Peter: Jesus said someone who wasn't a believer could do good. He held his behaviour up as an example to believers. A non believer put into practice the command to love your neighbour. Nothing to do with his faith or his being predestined to believe or do good. You are claiming that's in line with Calvinist theology? Right.

Martin: Irrelevant. That men do 'good deeds' is no problem, they just aren't good and their motives are wrong.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin: Peter
Can you show me where the Bible says that an unbeliever is capable of doing good?

Peter: Stop being ridiculous. Is having more faith than anyone in Israel for example not doing good? Jesus regularly went out of his way to praise the works of those the religious conservatives labelled unbelievers on the basis of the bible. What do you think the parable of the Good Samaritan was about? The clue is in the title!

Martin: Peter
Faith is the gift of God, and where does Jesus say they are unbelievers?
And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. (Luke 18:19 [ESV])
You will, of course, note that nowhere does Jesus call the Samaritan good.

Peter: "Nowhere does he call the Samaritan good".
That's what your theology leads to. The polar opposite of the point of the parable.
You couldn't make it up.

Martin: No, it's not the polar opposite of the point of the parable. Jesus never calls the Samaritan good, he says he was a neighbour. Be honest and admit it.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Herald Newman: I don't think we need rigid definitions of "love" and "harm" in order to understand that love is generally beneficial, and harm is not.
Let's imagine two societies:
In society A, all of the members hate one another, and do not care what happens to any other member of that society. Each member lives by the philosophy "I got mine, and I'll fight you for yours." If a member runs out of food, they should have planned better, and probably starve. When a member is attacked by animals, nobody comes to their aid.
In society B, the members all are concerned about other members of the society, and actively try to protect them from the dangers of the world. Members who have no food are given some of the excess with the expectation of repaying the kindness. When a member of society is attacked by animals another member will try to help and protect them.
Now tell me. Which society do you think is more likely to survive and flourish? Which society would you rather live in? I'm going to bet that most of you would rather live in society B.
So now comes the question. Why does love and morality need an outside source?? We're an evolved social species, and our evolution has made us so that we generally want to cooperate with each other. The survival of our species depends on us caring about certain members of the tribe, and wanting to protect them. Doing so has allowed us to survive.
I still shake my head that people, let alone Christians, insist that morality needs some "outside source" is order to make sense. It doesn't! Maybe it's because we're so far removed from the days when surviving through the night meant you had to put your life into the hands of other members of the tribe.

Martin: So where is your evidence for Evolution? It's a fairy story for grown ups, nothing more.
You're morality, as you describe it, is based on selfishness, not love. You ask what is best for me, for my group.
What is missing from your understanding of life is your acceptance of what you know, that God exists. Life is only good when it is based on the respect and love for our Creator. From that we naturally have respect and love for each other. From love for God comes a desire for justice and the protection of the weak. Our society is degenerating, care for each other is evaporating, the powerful look after themselves and do not care for the weak. Love is wanting the best for a person, not seeking the survival of the species.

Harold Newman: "So where is your evidence for Evolution? It's a fairy story for grown ups, nothing more." Go take a science class, or try the Wikipedia article on "evidence of common descent" Your ignorance of evolution does not justify the belief that it's a "fairy story for grown ups."
"What is missing from your understanding of life is your acceptance of what you know, that God exists" Are you going to quote Romans 1:20 at me too?
"Life is only good when it is based on the respect and love for our Creator." Says who ???

Martin: Science will show you that here is no evidence for Evolution, only claims and assertions.
That you know your folly does not require me to provide quotes. God is quite clear, apart from God, nothing is good.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin: No, you have a problem with what the Bible says. The Bible destroys our belief in our own morality, simply because we aren't moral. Our acts, outside of Christ, are always sinful.

Johnny25343: Nope my issue is that when Evangelicals attempt to use Scripture to say what you want it to say some of you are masterful at it. I congratulate you

Martin: You don't think I've had to change my opinion to accommodate what Scripture says?

Ts (unami): The motive to feed hungry people is sinful? The motive to heal their physical wounds is sinful?

Martin: If their motive isn't the glory of God it is sinful.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Martin: Pretty good evidence that Christian Aid is not Christian in any sense of the word.

Patrick Gillan: Just so you know people who do not refer to themselves as Christians do extraordinary things for other people

Martin: But their motives, the Bible tells us, are always sinful.

John Anthony: Goodness Martin, you are certainly heart and soul of the conversation aren't you ?

Martin: You have a problem with what the Bible says ?

Peter: Start here. It describes your theology to a T. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/why-calvinism-makes-me-want-to-gouge-my-eyes-out/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PRX&utm_content=formerlyfundie

Martin: In other words, you reject what the Bible says, as does the Atheist who wrote that pathetic blog. His only argument is "I don't like it". Tough, God hasn't asked you to like it, He's told you to accept it. When you've finished stamping your feet at God consider that he has your life in His hands.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

(=On John MacArthur=)

He's a calvinist.

Well actually he's a Baptist, so he isn't strictly a Calvinist. He's what is normally called Reformed, which means that He holds to the Biblical statement of the gospel that says that God chooses to save some out of those destined for Hell for His own glory. If that raises alarm bells with you it is because you don't hold to a Biblical gospel.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Peter: As ever you think bluster, abuse and rhetoric is a response to clear teaching quoted from Jesus. It really isn't.

Martin: It's time consuming posting a point by point rebuttal of pathetictheos documents. Suffice to say, they are an anti-Christian organisation.

Peter: I'm sure it is.

Martin: Glad you agree.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Peter: This says it all: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2018/09/over-7000-pastors-admit-they-dont-follow-jesus/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PRX&utm_content=keithgiles

Martin: Yes, it prove Patheos is nothing to do with Christianity. Clearly Keith Giles knows nothing of the gospel or Jesus Christ.

TS (unami): Can you ever say something positive?

Martin: I'm positive it prove Patheos is nothing to do with Christianity.

TS (Unami): *sigh*
No, you're just being negative again.
Sadly typical.
See, Martin -- YOU don't decide who is a Christian, OK?
That distinction belongs to JESUS CHRIST -- not you.


Martin: I say the same things because they need to be said.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

Peter: Given many of the same people that refuse to serve us cakes have voted in a serial adulterer as president we aren't treated equally.
But both those activities go against Jesus principles for all morality and the comparison with the second one is beyond contempt.

Martin: You can hardly complain about adultery when you promote sexual immorality. And the alternative they had was a woman who not only connived at her husband's serial adultery and also undermined those young women he took advantage of. Not only that but she also campaigns to kill babies. Trump certainly appears the more moral of the two.

Peter: What part of Jesus teaching that all morality is based on love God and agape love of neighbour are you finding so difficult to grasp? To say trump evidences this and merits support on that basis - ongoing support from white conservative evangelicals - is risible.

Martin: Trump certainly provides evidence that he cares for the poor in the USA, whose jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants, and helpless infants aborted for no other reason than the convenience of the 'mothers'.
And what does Clinton do to show her love for God and her neighbour?

Peter: You do realise the election is over? The support for trump from white evangelical religious conservatives is ongoing and nothing to do with clinton.
When you disgracefully try to scapegoat "illegal immigrants" for economic problems you are closer to home. So much for giving two hoots what the bible, staunch defender of immigrants, has to say.

Martin: And the whining from the left is never ceasing. That people reject your politics is because it doesn't work and it isn't compatible with Christianity. Why shouldn't Christians seek to influence the president?
It's a fact that illegal immigrants do take work away from the poorer strata of society. Curiously the left seem to have given up on the working man these days.

Johnnie Moore #fundie premierchristianity.com

Hardly a day goes by without a huge amount of negative media coverage surrounding President Trump. Yet many evangelicals are continuing to back the President. The informal spokesperson for those evangelicals who advise the Trump administration, Rev Johnnie Moore explains why

On my regular visits to Europe, I am often asked about the support of American evangelicals for President Donald Trump. I certainly understand the curiosity given Mr Trump's well-documented reputation prior to his presidency, his unfiltered stream-of-consciousness approach to social media, and his unconventional foreign policy - to put it mildly.

Yet, many American evangelicals are so close to the administration that the President and First Lady invited them to the equivalent of a state dinner last week “celebrating evangelical leadership.” At a certain point during the evening an open microphone prompted nearly two dozen of the dinner’s 100 guests to thank the administration.

Here are some of the reasons why evangelicals said they are grateful for the policies of the Trump administration, even when they are sometimes offended by the President's sensibilities:

1. He prioritises religious freedom
The Obama administration held court over the most significant threats to America's sacrosanct first amendment as have been witnessed in modern, American history. The most egregious example was when the administration attempted to require religious Catholics, including nuns, to provide contraception against their sincerely held religious beliefs.

When the Trump administration began their term, there were more than 50 active lawsuits against the Department of Justice for similar incidences. The Trump administration prioritised religious freedom in domestic and foreign policy by immediately auditing the entire federal government to identify incidences where administration policies violated the first amendment, and they corrected them, including by settling dozens of the active, aforementioned courts cases.

On the international front, the administration began reorienting humanitarian programs to assist persecuted religious minorities which had been overlooked in countries like Iraq by United Nations’ programs, and just a few months ago the State Department hosted a global symposium on international religious freedom that brought together senior government officials from more than 70 countries.

An entire book could be written on the way the Trump administration supports religious freedom, but one of the more recent examples is their use of severe sanctions against Turkey in response to their ongoing and unjust imprisonment of an American pastor, Andrew Brunson.

2. He protects the unborn
Without question, the Trump administration is more obviously pro-life than any previous administration since abortion became legal in the United States, and at a time when public opinion has moved rapidly against abortion, even among Democrats despite the party leaderships’ near-total unwillingness to accommodate pro-life Democrats.

The head of the Susan B. Anthony List, a noted pro-life organisation, didn't initially support candidate Trump but has since come to deem him "the most Pro-life president in American history" because of numerous policies he has introduced.

During the 2016 campaign, many evangelicals were deeply moved by hearing Trump's own story as to why he changed his opinion on abortion and one of the most profound moments of the election was in the final presidential debate when Secretary Clinton startlingly voiced her ongoing support for late-term abortion, despite the grotesque practice being banned by both the US Congress and the United States Supreme Court. Trump has fulfilled his promise to greatly strengthen pro-life policies.

3. He's addressing judicial over-reach
In many ways, the 2016 election was an election not made by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump but by the sudden death of the reliably conservative Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, putting the long conservative balance of the court in jeopardy.

President Trump's successful appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court as Scalia's replacement represented the fulfillment of his single most important promise to the evangelicals who put him in office.

This week, his second nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, will begin his confirmation process and he is equally regarded as a trusted conservative, whose confirmation could guarantee a conservative Supreme Court for at least a generation. This is another fulfilled promise.

4. He's advancing criminal justice reform
While not an issue he campaigned in support of, President Trump has become a surprising advocate for criminal justice reform in the United States, a policy concern long advocated for by evangelicals whose passion for prisoners finds its roots in the New Testament itself.

The President’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, came into the White House with his own unrelenting passion for prison reform and has found in the evangelical community a natural and effective ally.

Because of it all, the United States’ Congress is on the verge of passing the first significant reform to America’s widely criticised prison system in over 30 years. The President’s evolution on the issue is largely considered the result of his evangelical advisors as has been the case with the President’s evolution on certain immigration issues, such as providing his support for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children.

5. He's addressing the opioid epidemic
The abuse of opioids in the United States is the nation's most significant drug problem, directly or indirectly affecting millions of Americans. The administration has forcefully taken on this addiction crisis, even when it meant taking substantial measures against large American companies despite opposition from the President's own party.

Evangelical pastors, who walk through addiction with members of their congregations, have been on the frontline of this developing crisis for years. The Trump administration has acted with the full force of the federal government, and it has already saved many lives.

6. He's strengthening the family
The administration's widely supported tax cuts, which were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, under the direction of the President, included the doubling of the standard tax credit given to parents for their children, and the administration is now well on its way to finally introducing to American life a meaningful program to support "paid family leave."

The United States is far behind Europe in these types of social programs, but the Trump administration appears to have found an approach that would be considered fiscally responsible by Republicans even while meeting a long-term policy priority of Democrats.

7. The economy is thriving
The administration's economic policies - from deregulation to workforce development - have resulted in nearly 3 million Americans being taken off of government assisted food programs, over 5 trillion dollars being added the United States' economy, and the lowest ever unemployment numbers among African Americans, Hispanic Americans, young people, and women.

The overall unemployment number is at its lowest since 1969. In 2017, Americans were also more generous than ever before donating at least $410 billion to charity, the highest number on record.

Taking our seat at the table
Those are some of the reasons why President Trump enjoys the highest approval rating any Republican president has ever received from the Republican Party.

Obviously, these highlights only represent part of an always-imperfect picture, but we mustn't deceive ourselves into thinking there aren't logical reasons to support this unconventional president.

Earlier this year, when liberal American Bishop Michael Curry decided to parlay the gift of newfound fame into a candlelit march on the White House just two days after he was entrusted with preaching at the Royal Wedding, I was asked by CNN what I thought of the opinions of Christians like Curry who so ardently oppose the Trump administration.

Here was my answer, "many of them are my friends, too, and we happen to mainly agree on the challenges facing our country and our world. We just sometimes disagree on the solutions."

One might disagree with the merits of the administration’s policies or the by-product of their approach, but one must acknowledge that many reasonable people support the administration’s policies on the basis of facts, not ideology.

As for evangelicals, I’ve personally seen the constructive work of many in our community precisely because we’ve taken our seat at the table, very often serving as the reasonable center building bridges between polarised extremes.

Rev. Johnnie Moore is an author, religious freedom advocate and the founder of The KAIROS Company, one of the world’s leading, boutique public relations consultancies. Moore is often referred to as the informal spokesperson for those evangelicals who advise the Trump administration.

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

(=On "How Justin Welby helped win the war on Wonga"=)

Martin: Justin Welby seems very keen on this sort of thing, he doesn't seem nearly as keen as preaching the gospel and holiness. Indeed he seems to accept sin in his fellow clerics with equanimity. Unless that sin is paedophilia of course.
Incidentally I'm still awaiting an answer as to why Premiers directors list their business credentials and not their spiritual ones. And where is their statement of faith?

Peter: As this article makes clear this issue is far more in line with the gospel and indeed "the bible" than many of the issues you post about on here.

Martin: You have no idea what the gospel is. It certainly isn't about Wonga. The gospel is the free gift that God offers, not what we do.

Peter: There are at least as many verses about lending with interest (let alone high interest) as there are about homosexuality, an issue you have considered important enough to opine about repeatedly on here.

Martin: I hadn't noticed any usurers coming on here and claiming it was their nature and denying the Bible had anything critical to say about them.

Peter: Really? No one works in banking who posts on here? I think you'd find them commenting if you used the language against them that you routinely use against gay people.
How is one issue mentioned in the bible not worth the archbishop talking about or premier reporting despite it being prevalent and another worth hours of rhetoric from you?

Martin: So point me to a banker claiming special rights and demanding the baking of a cake on here.