If I am posting drivel based on my lack of reality why are you responding to my post. Seems a bit odd, or your feathers are getting ruffled.
The drivel only serves to perpetuate institutional violence. As such, to remain silent while it goes on is to be complicit in it. I refuse to be complicit in it.
and Jesus said "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Those that were in earshot of his voice. His primary purpose here was to atone for the sins of the world and to die and be resurrected that that all men might be resurrected. He came to proclaim the word of God and in doing so one might get closer to God and reap the happiness that it brings. What you talk about here is just incidental to his mission. It was to demonstrate who he was. It was not his sole reason for being. My word, you need to brush up on your interpretations of the words of God.
Since the texts are inherently multivalent, I'd have to say that this cheap attempt at
ad hominem and provocation is wasted. Here's the quoted text from Isaiah:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Let's take a look at what Jesus has been anointed to do: proclaim good news to the poor (downtrodden).
Let's take a look at what Jesus was sent to do: 1) proclaim freedom for prisoners, 2) sight for the blind, 3) free the oppressed. Your problem is that you have a particular, fundamental and stylized notion of what constitutes "salvation." Typical for a 21st-century Christian who appears to be confused about the very nature of the body of Christ. In the time when the texts were written, the language was decidedly less theologically loaded and far more common and practical. For the writer, salvation was the common, physical act of setting people free from their oppression. It's the same thing that's happening with homosexuals today: they're being set free from the system that's oppressing them.
"The brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
This simply doesn't address my post.
Tell me, am I talking here to an adult or a child as these juvinele remarks are in keeping with a child, as are your opinions.
More
ad hominem fecal matter to which we need pay no attention. Can't even spell "juvenile" correctly. A
jejune attempt at best, and usually the first indicator that you have no reasonable argument left and are feeling frustrated.
Most women were treated as gold dust, precious and with great value. I did not say that they were gold. That is your words placed in my mouth.
OK. So, IOW, you simply
treat (your word -- not mine) women as possessions. Your Freudian slip is showing.
Citation required, otherwise it is anecdotal, your subjective opinion.
My wife longed to stay at home to be a mother and wife and I was happy for here to realize her wish.
Not every woman is your wife. Many, many more (ref. feminist movement) want to work, be independent, and treated equally and as human beings -- not possessions.
Again, you will have to show me where I said that all women are treated so well that they have a chain long enough to reach the stove from the bed. I do not recall saying that.
Your perspective is that women who don't work, whose only task is to raise children, are happy, because they're "in their place." The reference to the chain is hyperbole, designed to illustrate how ridiculous that perspective really is within mainstream society. But I think you already know what I meant.
The are men who have their own minds and act according to their own will. They are not God, therefore, you cast aspersions on the wrong person.
Exactly. All of this oppression of homosexuals has nothing whatsoever to do with God. It's got everything to do with human beings, acting according to their own will. In this case, those human beings are the majority, have the social power and, hence, the entitlement to force others into boxes of their choosing.
Your delevery of the English language leave a lot to be desired. I have no clue as to what you are trying to say.
The problem isn't with my writing; it's with your comprehension. Heck, you can't even seem to be able to spell "delivery" correctly, and you're being critical of my writing?
I am here to debate whereas you are here to agitate
You are here to provoke. I am here to defend and refute.
I have said many many times that it is anal sex that I object to and not the love of two people. Why do you not quote that instead of trying to ensnare me with your petty insignificance's. Maybe you need to portray me in a bad light because your argument is weak? Hey, but let me make it crystal clear for you know. I believe that the scriptures on sexual perversions relates to two men lying together, like with a woman, and partaking in anal sex. The scripture condemn that as an abomination and I support those scriptures 100%. The scriptures mention nothing about two men loving each other, therefore, I reserve my judgement on the homosexual lifestyle. If you go through my 2000 odd posts you will see that theme throughout, now, stop your attempts to discredit me and debate the opinions that I have. If you find the subject to upsetting, then may I suggest that you leave the debate.
Hmm... how quickly you forget (or else cover up your litter box with sand...). After a cursory examination of just a few pages of this thread, I refer you to your posts numbered, 722, 726, 731, 746, 749, 751, 760. I'm sure there are more examples. In each of these you
do object to homosexuality and homosexual marriage (which is an expression of the love of two people), and not just to anal sex. I'm trying to portray you in an honest light -- to illustrate just how weak your position really is. Mission accomplished, I should think.
You seem to want me to go away awfully badly. This is the third time you've suggested that course of action. I wonder why you would wish such a thing, if you're "here to debate" and "don't become upset?" Surely, after having called me "dishonest," "ignorant," "sounding stupid," "no serious knowledge of Christianity" (post #746), "insulting" (post #747), "trouble making zealot with a spiteful tongue" (post #748), "lying," "gay" (post #750), "delusional," "desperate" (post #751) "blind," "agitator" (post #773), Oh! And the
coup de grace: "knowledge of scripture falls short of that of an ordained minister" (post #833), I should think you'd want to keep me around so that you could set me straight and save my miserable, dishonest, ignorant, stupid, dumb, insulting, trouble-making, zealous, spiteful, lying, gay, delusional, desperate, blind, agitating, unordained soul. But maybe, in your magnanimous Christian love for all people (as Jesus taught), you just don't care enough about me to do so?
You dismiss it so quickly because it spells out the truth.
I dismiss it because statistics prove nothing and can easily be twisted.
I agree, so lets stop fooling ourselves that a minority group of mis-fits are acting in the same way as the rest of us. They are not so they do not comply with the norm. The are abnormal in their behaviour.
Homosexuals are not "misfits." They do act in the same way as the "rest" of us: they love, they have desires, they want to be loved. They
do comply with the "norm" inasmuch as we allow them to do so. They are not "abnormal" in their behavior. As you so aptly put above: "Citation required, otherwise it is anecdotal, your subjective opinion." Cite one credible source that says homosexuals are "misfits" and act "abnormally."
"All" was not said, therefore, the implication is all yours and is conspicuously wrong, as though you were attacking me rather than my opinion. I was talking in general, as reflected in the context of my words.
You forgot the part about context. You were talking "in general." But "in general," fathers do not love their children unconditionally. Just in 12 counties in Missouri last year, there were over 9000 cases of child abuse. And those are just the ones we know about -- the ones that actually get reported and followed up on. There are many more counties in Missouri, 49 other states in the country, and many other countries on earth.
Where on earth is the connection between what you have written and what I have written. How am I supposed to respond to such incoherent rhetoric?
You said life is much worse now. The (short) list I posted were commonplace in the past, and not commonplace now, thereby showing that life is
not "much worse" now.