Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
beanieboy, you wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God of the OT: Eye for an Eye
Jesus: Turn the other cheek.
Was Jesus "Nicer than God"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Jesus was not nicer than God. See how simple that was to give a clear yes or no answer? See how I did not falsely accuse you of trying to "trap" me? Now if we can just get those cowards over at CWS to also give clear yes or no answers.
Here is why Jesus was not nicer than God: The "eye for an eye" command was given to the judges as a rule of thumb for deciding on the proper punishment to give to convicted criminals. A judge was not allowed to show mercy. "Turn the other cheek" on the other hand was not directed at judges but rather it was directed at victims. Different audiences, therefore no contradiction, therefore Jesus was not nicer than God. No problem. No trick question.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I openly admit that the yes/no statement was used to demonstrate that it is easy to force someone into a yes/no statement, and in not giving an explanation, suggest that they are saying something they are not. It's a trap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not giving an explanation?" Please quote me from CWS where I stated I would not allow explanations. Any poster could simply answer the way I answered your question above: Yes, because . . . or NO, because . . . What's so hard about that?
A trap is when there is a false statement implied within the question. For example, if I asked you, "beanieboy, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes, or no?" The false statement implied within that question is that you have a wife. Another false statement implied within that question is that if you did have a wife, that it is a known fact that you used to beat her. Since both assumptions are false the question is a trap.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here are the choices that you want to give people.
Yes - implying that they advocate killing homosexuals today,. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. I specifically asked Works4PublicAcceptance, "were the 'strict rules FOR WITHIN their people' that God gave them regarding the death penalty for homosexuality moral or immoral rules?" And, "were God's homosexual death-penalty laws that 'only applied to the people in the nation with the said laws' moral or immoral?"
Try again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and then try and get some support to kill all the gay people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absurd since I'm not even in support of killing all gay people, just the ones who are convicted in court of voluntarily participating in a homosexual act AFTER those acts become recriminalized. That would be very few people.
Besides, my question mentioned absolutely nothing about a proposed 21 century bibliocracy.
Try again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No - implying that they don't follow the law of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. It would imply they think God was immoral for issuing that command.
Try again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, it doesn't say "homosexual." It says, "If a man lay with another man..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and has duck feathers, guess what? It's a duck.
Likewise, if a "man lay with another man" guess what? We've just described a homosexual.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A homosexual isn't necessarily having sex.
A heterosexual can have sex with a man.
Sometimes, heterosexual men have sex with man when they don't have other options, such as prison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they have another options. It's called celebacy. (I know the concept of celebacy sounds like something from another planet to a homosexual beanieboy. I remember one homo talking about AIDS once on some national TV documentary and he summed up the issue with, "Well, what are we supposed to do, just not have sex?!?" Yes. You are supposed to just not have sex. Simple. Fags would literally rather die than to live without sodomy. They are sick, vile perverts.) Now where was I? Oh yeah - Those so-called "heterosexual men" have temporarily converted to homosexuality in prison. They might be bisexuals but they are not heterosexuals, at least not during the time in prison when they supposedly "don't have other options."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And contextually, in those times, one of the ways that men humiliated their enemies was to rape them. If you have watched Midnight Cowboy, you have seen the scene where half the guys rape his girlfriend, and the other half rape him. Do you REALLY think half of the guys were gay? Or were they heterosexual and trying to humiliate him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch this beanieboy. Here comes another crystal clear "Yes" or "No" answer to another one of your questions. My answer is YES, I do think half the guys were gay. There is NO WAY a heterosexual male would humiliate another male by humiliating himself by participating in male on male sodomy. You have just watched hollywoods view of normal males. Hollywood is packed with homos. You can't expect their worldview to be anything less than insane. And that's exactly what homosexual desires are; they are literally insane thoughts.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I could equally offer up a trap.
You know the story where the prophet is walking up the mountain, and the children mock him, and say, "go on up, baldy."
The prophet prays to God, and two bears maul the 45 children.
Was God loving to send the bears?
Yes - then you love a petty, child killing God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. My answer is YES, God was loving to send the bears for the following reason. Israel was a theocracy. The Israelites were to understand the theocentric basis of wisdom: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10)
God had previously warned them in Leviticus 26:13-17, "I am Jehovah your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, from being their bondmen. And I have broken the bonds of your yoke, and made you go upright. But if you will not listen to Me, and will not do all these commandments, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul hates My judgments, so that you will not do all My commandments, so that you break My covenant; I will also do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, consumption, and burning fever, consuming the eyes and causing sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set My face against you, and you shall be slain before your enemies. They that hate you shall reign over you. And you shall flee when none pursues you."
The issue that God needed to instill in Israel was the fear of God. When Israel refused to fear God, He raised up others who would terrify them. Rebellious Israelites would thereby learn to fear God's human agents of wrath, so that they might better learn to fear God. The point is this: God is worth fearing more than military invaders. If the stipulations of the Creator were widely ignored, then military invaders will become increasingly difficult to ignore. In this regard, the rebellious Israelite was as foolish as a child. A father spanks a child when the child runs into a busy street. The real threat to the child is the street's traffic, but the child is fearless before this external threat. He must learn to fear his father in order to learn the greater fearfulness of the street. He fears the lesser threat more than the greater threat. Similiarly, the rebellious Israelite lost his fear of God - the far greater threat - and needed to be reminded to fear God by a lesser external threat. God's wrath was more of a threat than a military defeat. The lesser threat was imposed by God in order to remind Israel of the greater threat.
Another sanction involved the children: Leviticus 26:21,22 says, "And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate." God sent beasts against those children who mocked the prophet Elisha. There was one law for both adults and children just as there should be today.
I'm still waiting for a question that is a "trap."
I'm also still waiting for you to explain how my question to the Christians at CWS who worship the false god of Public Acceptance was a trap.
I'm also still waiting for you to ask me a question that I refuse to answer with a clear YES or NO.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God of the OT: Eye for an Eye
Jesus: Turn the other cheek.
Was Jesus "Nicer than God"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Jesus was not nicer than God. See how simple that was to give a clear yes or no answer? See how I did not falsely accuse you of trying to "trap" me? Now if we can just get those cowards over at CWS to also give clear yes or no answers.
Here is why Jesus was not nicer than God: The "eye for an eye" command was given to the judges as a rule of thumb for deciding on the proper punishment to give to convicted criminals. A judge was not allowed to show mercy. "Turn the other cheek" on the other hand was not directed at judges but rather it was directed at victims. Different audiences, therefore no contradiction, therefore Jesus was not nicer than God. No problem. No trick question.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I openly admit that the yes/no statement was used to demonstrate that it is easy to force someone into a yes/no statement, and in not giving an explanation, suggest that they are saying something they are not. It's a trap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not giving an explanation?" Please quote me from CWS where I stated I would not allow explanations. Any poster could simply answer the way I answered your question above: Yes, because . . . or NO, because . . . What's so hard about that?
A trap is when there is a false statement implied within the question. For example, if I asked you, "beanieboy, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes, or no?" The false statement implied within that question is that you have a wife. Another false statement implied within that question is that if you did have a wife, that it is a known fact that you used to beat her. Since both assumptions are false the question is a trap.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here are the choices that you want to give people.
Yes - implying that they advocate killing homosexuals today,. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. I specifically asked Works4PublicAcceptance, "were the 'strict rules FOR WITHIN their people' that God gave them regarding the death penalty for homosexuality moral or immoral rules?" And, "were God's homosexual death-penalty laws that 'only applied to the people in the nation with the said laws' moral or immoral?"
Try again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and then try and get some support to kill all the gay people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absurd since I'm not even in support of killing all gay people, just the ones who are convicted in court of voluntarily participating in a homosexual act AFTER those acts become recriminalized. That would be very few people.
Besides, my question mentioned absolutely nothing about a proposed 21 century bibliocracy.
Try again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No - implying that they don't follow the law of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. It would imply they think God was immoral for issuing that command.
Try again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, it doesn't say "homosexual." It says, "If a man lay with another man..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and has duck feathers, guess what? It's a duck.
Likewise, if a "man lay with another man" guess what? We've just described a homosexual.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A homosexual isn't necessarily having sex.
A heterosexual can have sex with a man.
Sometimes, heterosexual men have sex with man when they don't have other options, such as prison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they have another options. It's called celebacy. (I know the concept of celebacy sounds like something from another planet to a homosexual beanieboy. I remember one homo talking about AIDS once on some national TV documentary and he summed up the issue with, "Well, what are we supposed to do, just not have sex?!?" Yes. You are supposed to just not have sex. Simple. Fags would literally rather die than to live without sodomy. They are sick, vile perverts.) Now where was I? Oh yeah - Those so-called "heterosexual men" have temporarily converted to homosexuality in prison. They might be bisexuals but they are not heterosexuals, at least not during the time in prison when they supposedly "don't have other options."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And contextually, in those times, one of the ways that men humiliated their enemies was to rape them. If you have watched Midnight Cowboy, you have seen the scene where half the guys rape his girlfriend, and the other half rape him. Do you REALLY think half of the guys were gay? Or were they heterosexual and trying to humiliate him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch this beanieboy. Here comes another crystal clear "Yes" or "No" answer to another one of your questions. My answer is YES, I do think half the guys were gay. There is NO WAY a heterosexual male would humiliate another male by humiliating himself by participating in male on male sodomy. You have just watched hollywoods view of normal males. Hollywood is packed with homos. You can't expect their worldview to be anything less than insane. And that's exactly what homosexual desires are; they are literally insane thoughts.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I could equally offer up a trap.
You know the story where the prophet is walking up the mountain, and the children mock him, and say, "go on up, baldy."
The prophet prays to God, and two bears maul the 45 children.
Was God loving to send the bears?
Yes - then you love a petty, child killing God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. My answer is YES, God was loving to send the bears for the following reason. Israel was a theocracy. The Israelites were to understand the theocentric basis of wisdom: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10)
God had previously warned them in Leviticus 26:13-17, "I am Jehovah your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, from being their bondmen. And I have broken the bonds of your yoke, and made you go upright. But if you will not listen to Me, and will not do all these commandments, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul hates My judgments, so that you will not do all My commandments, so that you break My covenant; I will also do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, consumption, and burning fever, consuming the eyes and causing sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set My face against you, and you shall be slain before your enemies. They that hate you shall reign over you. And you shall flee when none pursues you."
The issue that God needed to instill in Israel was the fear of God. When Israel refused to fear God, He raised up others who would terrify them. Rebellious Israelites would thereby learn to fear God's human agents of wrath, so that they might better learn to fear God. The point is this: God is worth fearing more than military invaders. If the stipulations of the Creator were widely ignored, then military invaders will become increasingly difficult to ignore. In this regard, the rebellious Israelite was as foolish as a child. A father spanks a child when the child runs into a busy street. The real threat to the child is the street's traffic, but the child is fearless before this external threat. He must learn to fear his father in order to learn the greater fearfulness of the street. He fears the lesser threat more than the greater threat. Similiarly, the rebellious Israelite lost his fear of God - the far greater threat - and needed to be reminded to fear God by a lesser external threat. God's wrath was more of a threat than a military defeat. The lesser threat was imposed by God in order to remind Israel of the greater threat.
Another sanction involved the children: Leviticus 26:21,22 says, "And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate." God sent beasts against those children who mocked the prophet Elisha. There was one law for both adults and children just as there should be today.
I'm still waiting for a question that is a "trap."
I'm also still waiting for you to explain how my question to the Christians at CWS who worship the false god of Public Acceptance was a trap.
I'm also still waiting for you to ask me a question that I refuse to answer with a clear YES or NO.
