It sounds as if you have certainty that homosexuality is a decision that many or all can make. Have you, or Have you not ever had to make a decision whether or not you would engage homosexual behavior? After all, if it's just another one of the many lustful sins of human nature, then you as a human would have surely had those very lustful desires, no? If your answer to either question is no, then you can surely conclude you simply don't have an understanding of it.
He may have signed the law out of ignorance, or he may indeed have extensive knowledge regarding the inner workings of the fudge packing business- we simply don't know- Or do we?
You have led people to believe, although i haven't seen it written plainly by you, that you are a Christian. And now you are telling me that I can't know anything for sure from the word of God alone, but that I must experience it in the flesh to know it. The word says homosexuality is a sin. The word says that bad company corrupts good character. The word says in Romans that they chose to believe a lie instead of God, and thus God gave them up to these unnatural lusts. It doesn't say that they had the unnatural lusts and then so chose to not believe God. The causality is all in one direction there. All i've said so far on the subject will have to suffice for today. I'm not spending all day on this.
My apologies for such a stupid question. I clearly misunderstood your statement. I now see what you were implying: you were referring to the propaganda in which I was asking about which the Russians have banned. Do you not have any specific examples of this propaganda? I only ask out of ignorance. What should I google, "What exactly is the homo propaganda that the Russians have outlawed"?
You flatter me, but I doubt I've led anyone to believe I'm Christian. I can also say with certainty that not one other in here has led me to believe that they are Christian. I have not told you that. IF you have never had to make a decision as to whether or not you would engage in "deviant homo behavior", then you do not know whether or not it is a decision that others make. Even if you have never had to make such a decision, you still do not know whether or not it is a decision made by others. Would you mind quoting the scripture? You might think twice before hanging around in here then. If you believe Paul to be the word of God, then God clearly is telling you that it wasn't homosexuality that they chose to engage in, but that it was a lie they chose to believe in. Here it is in order of the context: 1. They (the sinners) made a decision to turn their backs to God and believe in a lie. 2. Then God gave them over to their lustful desires. IOW It was God that allowed them to deviate. Let's take a closer look at the passages in Romans 1 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâwho is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. There is little doubt Paul is referring to homosexuality, But Could he possibly be also describing bestiality? Maybe the ladies are having sex with cucumbers and gourds.. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. He says that men who were at one point "naturally" heterosexual, suddenly became homosexual. He simply doesn't mention Men that may have already been "naturally" homosexual. So it is possible according to your word that God allowed some men to have "natural" sexual relations with each other, while others were having "un-natural" (or deviant) sexual relations with one another. He also mentions that men committed shameful acts with other men. What he doesn't mention is that some men may have already been having un-shameful acts with each other; meaning it's possible that with some men, homosexuality may have been the natural relations in which God wanted them to have. Paul (or God) then goes on to say that these men and women became filled with all kinds of wickedness, including rumors and gossip and slander. Weren't you, just the other day, pissing all over the Dr. Martin Luther King's good name, reciting some rumors you had heard about him have extra marital rough sex with prostitutes? Perhaps you stopped reading Romans once you got the ammo you needed to shoot down gay marriage, so now may be a good time for you to brush up on the following chapter, Romans 2 2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that Godâs judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape Godâs judgment? I think much of what Paul is trying to say, is true, and he probably only said it after much consideration. Might you consider opening up a "closed mind" and realize you have been speaking from ignorance, as others have suggested?
LMAO ! Read the first paragraph and thought the guy was ironic, but apparently not !?! What would be cool is that parents who make the effort to pay for private education for their kids , didn't need to pay on top of that taxes to finance the public schools they so much distrust...
Well, I don't believe in the "bring the nation together" bit, especially in countries with strong wealth redistribution, I would find much saner for the wealthy areas to secede.
I'd go for that. They can secede and start growing their own food, carrying their own water, fixing their own homes. They'll do just fine with all their money, in splendid isolation.