DescentBB

George H W Bush, who I always viewed as a decent man, and a good President/politician(albeit with the restrictions that go with that job), sometimes serves as one of my primary sources of hope that the GOP can relocate it's soul and focus:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09 ... &gt1=43001

he didn't do it to be political, nor to win support(mine or anyone elses).....he did it because he was their friend, and visa versa. That, my friends, is evidence of what Thorne called a strong moral foundation. Good on ya, Mr. President!!

It's nothing of the kind. I may grant you that it could be a display of good character, but it would have to be in the face of a dismal lack of moral foundation. I think it's pretty bold of you to credit me in support of something I am against. Also, Bush the senior was not necessarily opposed to homosexuality. While in the White House he courted the support of various homosexual groups.

Good character I say, because a person of good character does not oppose something without a deeply-held, personal reason for doing so, no matter what anyone else thinks. Morally this is a mess.

Yeah man, two people being in love is all sorts of immoral.

touche


and Thorne's response shows where he defines 'morality', and it somehow always comes back to judging others.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Morally this is a mess.

Depends on who's judging.

Attending a friend’s wedding and serving as a witness, has very little to do with morality or character, it’s a show of respect for a friend, because that’s what friends do.

Also the mistake should never be made that someone supports gay marriage because they did what Bush did. Most people will support their friends (not their actions) even if they killed someone, goes for family as well.

And not that it matters either way if Bush supports gay marriage or not, point still remains.

I disagree, Spidey, in this sense: A person of President Bush's stature knows going into the event that it will be reported, likely worldwide. And, to serve as a witness DOES, by definition, mean you are affirming the marriage. Yes, as you say, he did what friends do, but, sadly and far too often, a lot of folks let judgement of others lives and lifestyles determine or color their friendship. To rise past that shows character, and character, by my definition, is a direct measure of true morality.

It is so terribly confused to laud or support deviant behavior. In my book, friendship is not the highest ideal. To love and support a person ranks very high. Friendship involves faithfulness, understanding, love, honesty, and sacrifice. But there's only so far you can go to support a person who is doing something damaging to themselves or to others before you bear some responsibility for their actions. It's confused to place friendship above standards of right and wrong. A good friendship involves holding each other to what's right, and that in itself is supportive. I think you can give friends a certain respect for walking their own path in life, and in regard to certain things you may not see eye to eye. For me the Bible--the word of God is the standard. When the Bible condemns something as abominable, and receiving the judgement of God, it is foolhardy and dangerous to tolerate or condone it. You are deceived, as are the people involved in it. You don't even know the true nature of sexually deviant behavior. Top Gun equates deviant behavior with normal behavior, and slick agrees. Why? Because it's popular to do so, and it sounds right to you according to the shallow reasoning you have brought to bear on it? I have seen the true nature of sexually deviant behavior, and it is destructive AND contagious.

Thorne is totally preoccupied with sex.

These two ladies are going to burn in HELL for ETERNITY! Also, if that thought doesn't bother you, you are a truly evil person.

Thorne: please tell us how your definition of "deviant behaviour" is "doing something damaging to themselves or to others" without resorting to the bible.

Hell, I put this challenge to not just Thorne, but to everyone else who believes the same way.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:For me the Bible--the word of God is the standard. When the Bible condemns something as abominable, and receiving the judgement of God, it is foolhardy and dangerous to tolerate or condone it. You are deceived, as are the people involved in it. You don't even know the true nature of sexually deviant behavior. Top Gun equates deviant behavior with normal behavior, and slick agrees. Why? Because it's popular to do so, and it sounds right to you according to the shallow reasoning you have brought to bear on it? I have seen the true nature of sexually deviant behavior, and it is destructive AND contagious.

Yeah man you totally know what's truly "deviant," because some guy wrote as much about 3500 years ago. The fun thing about this country is that we're not a theocracy, so as far as the legal system is concerned, what is or isn't in the Bible doesn't mean jack ★■◆●.

Seriously, people like you give the rest of Christianity a really bad name.

it is foolhardy and dangerous to tolerate or condone it

Dangerous? When was the last time someone got hurt for disobeying the bible?

I have seen the true nature of sexually deviant behavior, and it is destructive AND contagious.

Who has it destroyed? Who has it contaminated?

Gotta call you on this one thorne.

Have you ever looked at a woman and lusted after her?

since I already know the answer I'll tell you that you are no better then someone that practices homosexuality. No sin is greater than any other.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It is so terribly confused to laud or support deviant behavior.

It is so terribly empty and sad to declare the behavior of others 'deviant'.

In my book, friendship is not the highest ideal.

clearly.....

You don't even know the true nature of sexually deviant behavior. Top Gun equates deviant behavior with normal behavior, and slick agrees.

atypical is not deviant, a minority position is not deviant. Homosexuality is not deviant. It's that simple, no matter what your 'God' supposedly says.

Why? Because it's popular to do so, and it sounds right to you according to the shallow reasoning you have brought to bear on it? I have seen the true nature of sexually deviant behavior, and it is destructive AND contagious.

explain, please? I'll go get the popcorn, because a description of what you've seen should be fascinating.

a·typ·i·cal

āˈtipikəl/

adjective

1.not representative of a type, group, or class.

"a sample of people who are rather atypical of the target audience"

synonyms:unusual, untypical, uncommon, unconventional, unorthodox, irregular, abnormal,anomalous, aberrant, unrepresentative; 

de·vi·ant

ˈdēvēənt/

adjective

1. Departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.



it is both deviant and atypical behavior neither of which is a positive. A choice to condemn that behavior is a different issue

If lusting after a woman is a sin, then god designed humans to sin, because that has nothing to do with free will, that my friend is built in.

I always thought it was coveting someone else’s wife that was a sin.

CUDA wrote:I'll tell you that you are no better then someone that practices homosexuality.

I know that. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

CUDA wrote:No sin is greater than any other.

I'll save a lengthy response and just point out that you're talking about the law of God ("sin") and I'm talking about where the rubber meets the road, and the effects and nuances (hurts to use that word now)--the realities--of behavior's which God has declared to be abominable. I see little elaboration in the scriptures on these points, except that these things are often associated with death, judgement, and damnation. Those things aren't bad are they?

Dictionary.com wrote:a·bom·i·na·tion
[uh-bom-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2.
intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3.
a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.

What is with all this trollish behavior of late Slick?

Spidey wrote:If lusting after a woman is a sin, then god designed humans to sin, because that has nothing to do with free will, that my friend is built in.

I always thought it was coveting someone else’s wife that was a sin.

That depends on your definition of sin. You might get away with that in some globally organized Churches, but the Bible states that "all unrighteousness is sin". It also says that anything that is not from faith is sin. There is a difference between being attracted to a women, and thinking about fornicating with a woman. One is natural, one is actually an act of will.

Spidey wrote:If lusting after a woman is a sin, then god designed humans to sin, because that has nothing to do with free will, that my friend is built in.

I always thought it was coveting someone else’s wife that was a sin.

Matthew 5:28
New International Version
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

essentially they are the same thing

Spidey wrote:If lusting after a woman is a sin, then god designed humans to sin..

a distinct possibility....

Heretic wrote:What is with all this trollish behavior of late Slick?

not the least intent to 'troll'......I just thought this story was a good example of how a person from a generation in which homosexuality was barely discussed, let alone openly acknowledged, can both grow as a person and stay true to his core morality(a definition of which I differ greatly from some others, insofar as mine includes standing up for one's friends).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CUDA wrote:No sin is greater than any other.

I'll save a lengthy response and just point out that you're talking about the law of God ("sin") and I'm talking about where the rubber meets the road, and the effects and nuances (hurts to use that word now)--the realities--of behavior's which God has declared to be abominable. I see little elaboration in the scriptures on these points, except that these things are often associated with death, judgement, and damnation. Those things aren't bad are they?

and how do you expect anyone to listen to you or to accept the love of Christ, when you continually club them over the head with God's word, the object is to save them not to condemn them.

Romans 8

8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

it is not our place to condemn those that are not in Christ. it is our Job to get them to know him and let the Spirit change them.

John 8:11 "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:If lusting after a woman is a sin, then god designed humans to sin..

a distinct possibility....

it wasn't until Adam made the choice to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that this became an issue

I needed a tongue-in-cheek smiley there, CUDA......

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:If lusting after a woman is a sin, then god designed humans to sin..

a distinct possibility....

it wasn't until Adam made the choice to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that this became an issue

Actually Cuda, this whole discussion reminds me of Keith Green's song - Satan's Boast

Where the modern western world is concerned, I think he was spot on.

I would suggest we don't get hung up on the language....or try to hide behind it.
Deviant is usually used as a pejorative.
Deviation....as in a deviation from the norm, is a way to describe homosexuality as a departure from the usual. Clinically correct but due to other uses it is a loaded term.
Since it occurs so consistently throughout history at the same ratio that deviation isn't really the best way to describe it. It's occurrence is expected, thus normal.

Albinos are not deviants. You wouldn't call one a deviant. And you probably would look for a better term if you were talking to one about the ratio of albinos in the general population.

If you speak for God, and presume to know he hates homosexuals you might relish in the use of the term...but who would Jesus taunt in such a way? The homosexual? Isn't there a story about Jesus and the tax collector that applies here?

callmeslick wrote:I needed a tongue-in-cheek smiley there, CUDA......

Well if you are going to say that God created Man to sin then I will tell you what God says about the matter

I think about 1/4 of the text of the Gospels applies here......

CUDA, the Lord pissed a lot of people off in a relatively short time while he was on earth. It is possible that in light of that I sort of glazed over the exactly wording of the great commission. (I will review and get back with you)

If God didn't make us sinful at birth, what about psychopaths who murder, or children so bad, they're evil? There is evidence that they were born that way, and thus created by God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15386740

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ssion.html

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life ... 1kifx.html

Sergeant Thorne wrote:CUDA, the Lord pissed a lot of people off in a relatively short time while he was on earth. It is possible that in light of that I sort of glazed over the exactly wording of the great commission. (I will review and get back with you)

ya but who did he piss off???? he pissed of the Pharisee's the Churches legalistic hierarchy. because he challenged their power and they didn't like it. they in turn got Rome involved. even Pilot said he could find no fault with the man

tunnelcat wrote:If God didn't make us sinful at birth, what about psychopaths who murder, or children so bad, they're evil? There is evidence that they were born that way, and thus created by God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15386740

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ssion.html

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life ... 1kifx.html

try to stay up TC. we talked about this about 10 posts ago

I’m pretty sure, well no, I’m positive that “lust” in terms of sin is in context to the other six deadly sins, and must be kept in that context.

Sloth
Greed
Gluttony
Pride
Envy
Wrath
Lust

Therefore simple sexual desire cannot be considered sin.

If you make breathing a sin, then the concept of sin becomes meaningless.

CUDA wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:CUDA, the Lord pissed a lot of people off in a relatively short time while he was on earth. It is possible that in light of that I sort of glazed over the exactly wording of the great commission. (I will review and get back with you)

ya but who did he piss off???? he pissed of the Pharisee's the Churches legalistic hierarchy. because he challenged their power and they didn't like it. they in turn got Rome involved. even Pilot said he could find no fault with the man

So ol' Thorne's doing something wrong because slick isn't clergy? Hehe. That post was actually a joke. I disagree with your taking issue there for the most part and I don't have time to deal with it right now. My thought on that matter is basically I'm in the E&C, on the DBB, and I combat what I believe are some really backwards, albeit popular notions. If you think I'm doing something wrong I don't necessarily have a problem with that--I'll give it some thought. I've never let what kind of acceptance I expect to get determine what I write. Nobody has to accept what I say, but maybe they have to deal with it. Can they deal with it? That really is the point of the forum, IMO.

Spidey wrote:I’m pretty sure, well no, I’m positive that “lust” in terms of sin is in context to the other six deadly sins, and must be kept in that context.

Sloth
Greed
Gluttony
Pride
Envy
Wrath
Lust

Therefore simple sexual desire cannot be considered sin.

If you make breathing a sin, then the concept of sin becomes meaningless.

a lot of Christian denominations(the one I was raised in, for example) do not hold a separate category of 'deadly sins'. That is, I believe, a Catholic creation, and wholly man-made.

Spidey wrote:Therefore simple sexual desire cannot be considered sin.

AGREED, I have a sexual desire for my wife, that is not a sin

1 Corinthians 7:9

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with lust.

CUDA wrote: ... for it is better to marry than to burn with lust.

tell me there aren't days, as a married man, when that is, at the very least, a suspect call.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote: ... for it is better to marry than to burn with lust.

tell me there aren't days, as a married man, when that is, at the very least, a suspect call.

YEP, and that gets back to my earlier post.

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

and there is not a man on the face of this planet that hasn't done it. that's why I pointed out not to judge the homosexuals for their sexual sins, because we heterosexual's sin in the same manner. we tend to think that Homosexuality is a worse sin because it tends to disgust many of us, but in God's eyes it isn't.

So i say

Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

callmeslick wrote:a lot of Christian denominations(the one I was raised in, for example) do not hold a separate category of 'deadly sins'. That is, I believe, a Catholic creation, and wholly man-made.

True, but what I’m saying is that lust as a sin is normally connected to excesses, rather than normal feelings and desires.

Except for extremists, of course, for they even find things like telling a joke to be something sinful.