Opinion of the Christian side hug

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's the hug best suited for today's always on the move, gotta keep going, lifestyle.

This, hence HH.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You can disguise bigotry as adhering to the Lord; it is still bigotry, nonetheless.  Your interpretation is what I believe- according to my faith- a distorted one

Dude, do you REALLY think ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, really believes homosexuality is compatible with the bible?  You can act like you believe all you want, but deep down inside you know the bible is point blank against it.

...wow.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You can disguise bigotry as adhering to the Lord; it is still bigotry, nonetheless.  Your interpretation is what I believe- according to my faith- a distorted one

Dude, do you REALLY think ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, really believes homosexuality is compatible with the bible?  You can act like you believe all you want, but deep down inside you know the bible is point blank against it.

...wow.

why are you shocked?  how is this news?   do you think you've discarded and ignored those portions of scirpture without having a motive to do so?

any time someone has to ignore a section of scripture to uphold their doctrine, demonstates their doctrine is contradictory to scripture.

What I'm shocked by isn't your profound insight.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex acts are your fascination, not mine.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex acts are your fascination, not mine.

well, I not so fascinated with it to the point that I deceive myself about it, like you do...example, here is a quote from you recently:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=152142.msg3267832;topicseen#msg3267832

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now, obviously, anyone who claims homosexuals are a new fad is truly self-deceived, which is why I asked:

are you, again, going to argue that homosexuals didn't exist during biblical times but came to earth during the Tunguska blast of 1908?

No, they didn't come to Earth during the Tunguska blast. They came to Earth in the middle-to-late part of the Victorian period when that particular complex of desires was conceived in an identitarian sense that didn't rely exclusively on how particular sex acts were viewed. 'The homosexual' is socially constructed ostensibly around sex but because of the level of sophistication that goes into the current Western identitarian model it's actually considerably less carnal than the starker sacramental characters (to borrow a term from Mark D. Jordan) that we find in earlier constructions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Out of curiosity, have you ever wondered why TJ and I are able to talk in a friendly and collegial manner about these sorts of issues?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The thing is that TJ's position on this specific aspect of this specific issue is in some ways harsher because he expects people to suborn desires but doesn't seem to expect they won't have them, whereas jmfcst's is on its face more merciful but has the drawback of being almost completely divorced from reality and giving false hope (in the context of a worldview in which what's being discussed is any kind of 'hope' at all).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The thing is that TJ's position on this specific aspect of this specific issue is in some ways harsher because he expects people to suborn desires but doesn't seem to expect they won't have them, whereas jmfcst's is on its face more merciful but has the drawback of being almost completely divorced from reality and giving false hope (in the context of a worldview in which what's being discussed is any kind of 'hope' at all).

So, you don't believe Christ has the power to free people from sin instantaneously, as if Christ isn't powerful enough to break sins grip?!

John 8:36 "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

If you, being a Christian, deny Christ's power to free people from the control of sin, then you're obviously one of those referred to in the following passage:

2Tim 3:4 "They are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 they have a form of godliness but deny its power. Have nothing to do with them."

Do not misunderstand me – I am NOT talking about having someone recite a prayer and declaring them free of sin.  Rather I am referring to a genuine encounter with Jesus Christ.

I'm not denying Christ's power to do that at all. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the level on which I'm accusing you of mischaracterizing this, and also that on which TJ is trying to disabuse you of some of your chimerical theological assumptions.

Screw pleasure. It's boring as hell.