Morality...........

Here homosexuality is lumped together with adultery and other violations of the moral law.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

And here it calls homosexuality a degrading passion, unnatural, from a depraved mind and not proper.

Romans 1:26-28 “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

And if you read the entire context of this passage, you see it is the end result of a people who have rejected God so it should be obvious that homosexuality is always considered a violation of God’s moral law.

 

could you give me your definition of virtue?

 

Just a question... If you swing as a couple is it considered adultery? Not saying we're into it but we have friends who are into it. And No they are not nice enough looking and we are not freaky enough to do it. So, would my swinging friends go to hell for adultery?

Bow chicka bow wow...

 

Exactly, and that is why I expect to end up fighting against a theocracy after the NWO.

 

The question is not whether we are fighting against a theocracy but who's theocracy we will be fighting. In the case of the NWO, this global cartel has set itself up as god over us and to fight against that theocracy, you will actually be fighting for God's Theocracy whether you realize it or not.

 

You don't go to hell for adultery, you go to hell if you reject the Gospel before you die.

 

The Bible is unique in that it is the most historical and evidential account of God's word and work throughout history, Mohammad claimed that he was recovering or continuing the religion of the previous prophets of the Jews and Christians, so Islam should be considered a Christian heretical cult since the Koran obviously contradicts previous revelation, the same way Joseph Smith’s book of Mormon does. Modern Judaism rejected the Messiah that was prophesied of when He came and even their rejection of Him was prophesied of, so they are just like their forefathers that constantly rejected the prophets He sent to them.

In regard to the question of which Bible we should use, the Catholics at one time had adopted what is now considered the protestant Bible but later added the Apocrypha. And most Protestants didn’t always like the King James Version, at our founding; the Geneva Bible was much more popular. Most protestant denominations since the reformation subscribed to the concept that the Bible was infallible in the originals and that we had enough copies of the originals that the differences were so minor that it didn’t affect any essential Christian doctrine and that translations should be open to revision based on the copies of the originals in the original languages, this is why concordances are considered useful.

I will grant that Protestants now-a-days are all over the board in their differences and beliefs but it wasn’t always that way. I attribute a lot of this to the general population allowing itself to be dumbed down through the public school system. If you read the Marxists that took control over our school system, you will find that this was exactly what they wanted to do and so if you take into consideration that this was the undisclosed goal of our school system, you have to admit that they have had tremendous success. I attribute the insistence that some Protestants have that only the King James Version should be used to this dumbing down affect. When I studied the subject, I found their arguments full of logical fallacies and an obvious departure from the historical Protestant position.

 

I will fight against ANY theocracy, as soon as they tell me I must live under their religious rules, it's on.

I do not care if they are Muslim, Satanist or Christian.

I refuse to be what the Muslims call dhimmi, no matter what the theocracy wants to label it.

 

If you are for human freedom and liberty, you'll be fighting for God's Theocracy whether you realize it or not.

 

ANY theocracy is the antithesis of human freedom and liberty.

The last time the world saw anything like a Christian theocracy, they were burning people at the stake. When the Jews were under the direction of Yaweh, before their experiment with Judges and a terrestrial monarchy, genocide was the order of the day. Then the Roman Empire fell under the rule of Christendom. Yeah, that was an example of human freedom and liberty. And the most perfect Catholic Majesties of both France and Spain were big on human freedom as well.

In any theocracy, or even a religiously driven autocracy, "God told me to do it" is an acceptable justification for further oppression. You can't have reasonable government when those doing the governing are listening to disembodied voices. I don't care if they think it is God talking to them, or if it is their dead aunt Clara. If they are hearing voices, they should be in a padded room, not a seat of governance.

 

Whether the theocracy be human, or supernatural, theocracies tend not to favour human freedom and liberty: they most favour subservience and submission to theocratic demands.

 

Perhaps you should ask your local high school's History and Moral Philosophy teacher for better understanding of the topic.

 

That may be something of a challenge, given that secular history rather than biblical theistic history is taught in my local highschool, and that although moral philosophy is not taught there, religious community leaders have been fighting tooth and nail to stymie the introduction of philosophical ethics classes in State schools.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/christians-vent-anger-after-opposition-abandons-promise-on-ethics-classes-20110203-1afjh.html

http://www.primaryethics.com.au/history.html

http://parents4ethics.org/2012/03/1...g-support-for-continuation-of-ethics-classes/

I guess I could attend the local school's special religious education classes to get a better idea of the theistic take on divine command theory.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/divine.html

It should be noted that the concepts of democracy and republic are pagan in origin, not Christian, and that heaven is ruled by an absolute monarch...from what can be gleaned in the Bible, there is no participatory democracy in heaven....divine command rules!

 

This was an allusion to a favorite novel.

 

Which one? I'd be interested in examining it.

 

Starship Troopers

 

While this has generally been the case throughout history, the problem is not with God but with evil men using it as a means to lord it over the people.

If you are familiar with that passage where the mother of James and John came to Jesus to ask that He let one sit on His right hand and another on His left, symbolizing that they would be given the most powerful positions in His kingdom. In this passage, He essentially rebukes them and says if you want to be the greatest in His kingdom, you will be the servant of all, so I think you are confusing God’s Theocracy with all the counterfeits that man imposes on people. And Paul mentions in one of his letters to the Corinthians that he didn’t want to be a burden to them so he refused to take payment for preaching the Gospel to them. Paul was a tentmaker and he basically led by example and earned his living as he taught.

Also, have you read my post where I stated this?

“So basically the focus of this argument on morality needs to first have each side clearly define what they are referring to when they use the term morality. Is morality absolute or subjective to each individual or society at any given point in time, in other words, varies from person to person or culture to culture and a point that I think we can all agree, they are abstract laws, laws of thought and not something that you can put under a microscope and analyze with any of the senses. As a Christian, I take the side that if an absolute moral law giver does not exist, demanding that there are absolute moral laws does not make sense. Can lowercase morals exist, meaning that it’s something that causes a pain stimulus that you empathize with or is not conducive to society etc, etc, yes, but we as human beings don’t seem to want to reduce the definition of morality down to strictly scientific descriptions of moral concepts. And if absolute moral laws do not exist, what basis do you have to lodge a moral complain as if they do exist?”

My question for you is, do absolute moral laws exist? And if not, why should Christians have to live up to the moral standards that you have set up for yourself?