One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions?
Page 1 of 2 next>
Apr 10, 2019 17:30:02   #
bahmer
 
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions?
By Dr. Michael Brown - April 10, 2019

To ensure that there is no misunderstanding of any kind, please say these words out loud, slowly and clearly: Michael Brown is not comparing homosexuality to p********a. Michael Brown is not calling homosexuals p*******es. Michael Brown is not comparing a mutually consensual, adult relationship to an abusive, adult-child relationship.

All clear?

What I am comparing is an illogical justification of homosexuality that can just as easily be used to justify p********a.

Please allow me to explain.

In the past, I have demonstrated how advocates of “man-boy love” have used the identical arguments that gay activists have used, specifically:

Trending: Regarding R********ns for S***ery – Be Careful What You Ask For

1) P********a is innate and immutable.

2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.

3) The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.

4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.

5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.

6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually p*******es.

7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.

8) This is all about love and e******y and liberation.

Returning to the first argument, namely, that p********a is innate and immutable, I wrote in 2014:

“In case you’ve missed the latest headlines, we are now being told with increasing certainty that p********a is innate and immutable . . . .”
In keeping with this, there are now academic papers with titles like:

“Potential Implications of Research on Genetic or Heritable Contributions to P********a for the Objectives of Criminal Law.”

And there are discussions on psychology forums asking, “Is P********a Genetic?”

You say:

“But what does this have to do with God, who is mentioned in the title to your article?”
The answer is simple. The first openly gay p**********l candidate, Pete Buttigieg, attributes his homosexuality to the Lord, recently directing these comments to Vice President Mike Pence:

“If you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

In other words, according to Buttigieg:

“God made me gay, and if you don’t like that, your issue is with God.”
According to Buttigieg, when he was younger – 15, 20, or even 25 years-old – if there was a pill he could have taken not to be gay he would have taken it instantly. Now, however, he is thrilled with his life, especially because of his “marriage” to his partner Chasten.

Personally, I don’t doubt that he and Chasten care deeply for each other. And I don’t doubt that, in certain ways, they have enriched each other’s lives. Most importantly, I don’t doubt that, to the core of his being, Buttigieg believes he was born gay and cannot change.

That is not my issue, nor am I his personal judge and jury.

My issue is the claim that:

“If I feel a certain way and I cannot change, then this is how God made me.”
That’s the exact same logic a p*******e can use:

“I never asked for these desires. I tried to change and cannot. This must be the way God made me. If you don’t like it, your issue is with God.”
You say:

“But you’re comparing apples with oranges. First and foremost, Buttigieg and Chasten are consenting adults and their relationship is non-abusive, based on love.”
Then why bring up the “born that way” argument? Why say, “God made me this way?” Why not just say, “My relationship to my partner is just as valid and good as any heterosexual relationship on the planet?”

That’s my whole point.

If we argue that a certain disposition or feeling or attraction or desire must be attributed to God because it is so deep-seated, then we open up a Pandora’s box of confusion.

Many married heterosexual men struggle with adulterous thoughts and desires. Can they say, “But this is how God made me!”? Should their wives just accept that this is how they are wired?

What about those who, to the core of their being, struggle with p***e? Or anger? Or greed? Or jealousy?

What does this prove? It proves that we are a fallen, broken race in need of a Savior.

And what about the claims of a violent gene or a selfish gene or an obesity gene?

Do we therefore celebrate violence, selfishness, or obesity, if, in fact, they are genetic? Or, if we have these alleged genetic tendencies, do we work harder to overcome them?

You protest once again:

“You just don’t get it! All these things you listed, from adulterous thoughts to p***e, anger, greed, violence, and obesity, are all bad. But same-sex love is fine. It’s just traditional society and religion that reject it.”
Of course, I differ with your assessment of homosexual relationships, but once again, you’re missing the point.

If same-sex love is beautiful and something to celebrate, then don’t attribute it the way you were born. Don’t say:

“This must be right because it’s innate and immutable.”
Unfortunately for gay activists, much of their movement was founded on the argument that “I was born this way and can’t change,” making homosexuality the new black.

Now that this argument is being debunked scientifically and anecdotally, the very foundations of gay activism are being shaken, including the argument that “God made me gay.”

But either way, to attribute all of our deepest, most ingrained desires to God is to make a massive mistake, blaming the Creator for the fallen condition of the creation.

The bad news is that, by nature, we have some deep moral problems. The good news is that Jesus can redeem us.

And Mayor Pete, if you have a problem with what I’ve written, your quarrel, sir, is not with me. It’s with God.

Reply
Apr 10, 2019 18:11:03   #
cSc61 Loc: Austin
 
Interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

Reply
Apr 10, 2019 18:27:07   #
Carol Kelly
 
bahmer wrote:
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions?
By Dr. Michael Brown - April 10, 2019

To ensure that there is no misunderstanding of any kind, please say these words out loud, slowly and clearly: Michael Brown is not comparing homosexuality to p********a. Michael Brown is not calling homosexuals p*******es. Michael Brown is not comparing a mutually consensual, adult relationship to an abusive, adult-child relationship.

All clear?

What I am comparing is an illogical justification of homosexuality that can just as easily be used to justify p********a.

Please allow me to explain.

In the past, I have demonstrated how advocates of “man-boy love” have used the identical arguments that gay activists have used, specifically:

Trending: Regarding R********ns for S***ery – Be Careful What You Ask For

1) P********a is innate and immutable.

2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.

3) The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.

4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.

5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.

6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually p*******es.

7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.

8) This is all about love and e******y and liberation.

Returning to the first argument, namely, that p********a is innate and immutable, I wrote in 2014:

“In case you’ve missed the latest headlines, we are now being told with increasing certainty that p********a is innate and immutable . . . .”
In keeping with this, there are now academic papers with titles like:

“Potential Implications of Research on Genetic or Heritable Contributions to P********a for the Objectives of Criminal Law.”

And there are discussions on psychology forums asking, “Is P********a Genetic?”

You say:

“But what does this have to do with God, who is mentioned in the title to your article?”
The answer is simple. The first openly gay p**********l candidate, Pete Buttigieg, attributes his homosexuality to the Lord, recently directing these comments to Vice President Mike Pence:

“If you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

In other words, according to Buttigieg:

“God made me gay, and if you don’t like that, your issue is with God.”
According to Buttigieg, when he was younger – 15, 20, or even 25 years-old – if there was a pill he could have taken not to be gay he would have taken it instantly. Now, however, he is thrilled with his life, especially because of his “marriage” to his partner Chasten.

Personally, I don’t doubt that he and Chasten care deeply for each other. And I don’t doubt that, in certain ways, they have enriched each other’s lives. Most importantly, I don’t doubt that, to the core of his being, Buttigieg believes he was born gay and cannot change.

That is not my issue, nor am I his personal judge and jury.

My issue is the claim that:

“If I feel a certain way and I cannot change, then this is how God made me.”
That’s the exact same logic a p*******e can use:

“I never asked for these desires. I tried to change and cannot. This must be the way God made me. If you don’t like it, your issue is with God.”
You say:

“But you’re comparing apples with oranges. First and foremost, Buttigieg and Chasten are consenting adults and their relationship is non-abusive, based on love.”
Then why bring up the “born that way” argument? Why say, “God made me this way?” Why not just say, “My relationship to my partner is just as valid and good as any heterosexual relationship on the planet?”

That’s my whole point.

If we argue that a certain disposition or feeling or attraction or desire must be attributed to God because it is so deep-seated, then we open up a Pandora’s box of confusion.

Many married heterosexual men struggle with adulterous thoughts and desires. Can they say, “But this is how God made me!”? Should their wives just accept that this is how they are wired?

What about those who, to the core of their being, struggle with p***e? Or anger? Or greed? Or jealousy?

What does this prove? It proves that we are a fallen, broken race in need of a Savior.

And what about the claims of a violent gene or a selfish gene or an obesity gene?

Do we therefore celebrate violence, selfishness, or obesity, if, in fact, they are genetic? Or, if we have these alleged genetic tendencies, do we work harder to overcome them?

You protest once again:

“You just don’t get it! All these things you listed, from adulterous thoughts to p***e, anger, greed, violence, and obesity, are all bad. But same-sex love is fine. It’s just traditional society and religion that reject it.”
Of course, I differ with your assessment of homosexual relationships, but once again, you’re missing the point.

If same-sex love is beautiful and something to celebrate, then don’t attribute it the way you were born. Don’t say:

“This must be right because it’s innate and immutable.”
Unfortunately for gay activists, much of their movement was founded on the argument that “I was born this way and can’t change,” making homosexuality the new black.

Now that this argument is being debunked scientifically and anecdotally, the very foundations of gay activism are being shaken, including the argument that “God made me gay.”

But either way, to attribute all of our deepest, most ingrained desires to God is to make a massive mistake, blaming the Creator for the fallen condition of the creation.

The bad news is that, by nature, we have some deep moral problems. The good news is that Jesus can redeem us.

And Mayor Pete, if you have a problem with what I’ve written, your quarrel, sir, is not with me. It’s with God.
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions? ... (show quote)


God had nothing to do with it...the devil did it.

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2019 18:30:14   #
bahmer
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
God had nothing to do with it...the devil did it.


Amen and Amen

Reply
Apr 10, 2019 18:48:30   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
We are born into sin! We glory to our creator can choose not to! Period!!

Reply
Apr 10, 2019 19:30:43   #
karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!
 
cSc61 wrote:
Interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

No It Isn't
It Was The Biggest Pile Of
Excuse, Justification, Deflecting, And Self-Validation You'll Read Today

Quote:
In other words, according to Buttigieg:

^ ^ ^ This Validates Nothing ^ ^ ^

Homos Have Been Trying To Tell Us
Homosexuality Doesn't Mean P********a
But With-Out Quoting Out All The Relevant Lines
The OP Makes A Good Case It Is

I'll Save The Article
For The Next Time It Comes Up
I'll See How It Flies With Gay Posters

You've Got To Get Over The 'Born That Way' Propaganda
Dogs Were 'Born That Way', Cats Were 'Born That Way'
Fish Were 'Born That Way'
A Dog Is A Dog, A Cat Is A Cat, A Fish Is A Fish
They Were Born That Way

We Are Not Animals Unable To Control Our Impulses
That Is What The 'Born That Way' Spiel Insinuates
Are Some Really 'Born That Way' ??
I Bet It's Very Few Of The Whole
The Rest Are Brought Into It (G***med)
There's A Bunch Of Statements At The Top Of The OP
Kicking Off The Article That Says It Out-Loud

By All Means Read It Slow And Aloud
Listen For The Sleight Of Phrase
Like A Self-Working Card Trick

Reply
Apr 10, 2019 20:55:05   #
cSc61 Loc: Austin
 
So I guess you disagree then. Well, I still found it interesting.

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2019 21:59:52   #
Iliamna1
 
Here is what James, in chapter 1, has to say. This applies to pederastery, homosexuality, adultery, any sin you care to name.
12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 00:34:06   #
karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!
 
I Was Reading Elsewhere
A Homosexual Christian Was Cheering
The Church Changing To Suit His Lifestyle
He Says The Congregation Has Grown
Because Of All This, That, Etc., etc....

They Said All The Old Fuddie-Duddies
Need To Go > Start Their Own Church <<< !!!

I Pointed Out
We Aren't There To Change The Church
The Church Is There To Change Us

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 05:00:36   #
Betta
 
Exactly! Homosexuality is demonic. People want to blame God to justify what they do. They know that God is good. They claim him yet in their arrogance refuse to repent of the sin they're in, wh**ever that sin is. This is a case of God gave them up to a reprobate mind, burning in their own lust. They will be surprised when they stand before God expecting to waltz through the pearly gates. God will say "I don't know you" and into the lake of fire they will go to burn for eternity with their father satan. Cannot serve God and mammon. God said it.


Carol Kelly wrote:
God had nothing to do with it...the devil did it.

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 05:10:57   #
Texas Truth Loc: Behind Enemy Lines
 
bahmer wrote:
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions?
By Dr. Michael Brown - April 10, 2019

To ensure that there is no misunderstanding of any kind, please say these words out loud, slowly and clearly: Michael Brown is not comparing homosexuality to p********a. Michael Brown is not calling homosexuals p*******es. Michael Brown is not comparing a mutually consensual, adult relationship to an abusive, adult-child relationship.

All clear?

What I am comparing is an illogical justification of homosexuality that can just as easily be used to justify p********a.

Please allow me to explain.

In the past, I have demonstrated how advocates of “man-boy love” have used the identical arguments that gay activists have used, specifically:

Trending: Regarding R********ns for S***ery – Be Careful What You Ask For

1) P********a is innate and immutable.

2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.

3) The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.

4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.

5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.

6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually p*******es.

7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.

8) This is all about love and e******y and liberation.

Returning to the first argument, namely, that p********a is innate and immutable, I wrote in 2014:

“In case you’ve missed the latest headlines, we are now being told with increasing certainty that p********a is innate and immutable . . . .”
In keeping with this, there are now academic papers with titles like:

“Potential Implications of Research on Genetic or Heritable Contributions to P********a for the Objectives of Criminal Law.”

And there are discussions on psychology forums asking, “Is P********a Genetic?”

You say:

“But what does this have to do with God, who is mentioned in the title to your article?”
The answer is simple. The first openly gay p**********l candidate, Pete Buttigieg, attributes his homosexuality to the Lord, recently directing these comments to Vice President Mike Pence:

“If you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

In other words, according to Buttigieg:

“God made me gay, and if you don’t like that, your issue is with God.”
According to Buttigieg, when he was younger – 15, 20, or even 25 years-old – if there was a pill he could have taken not to be gay he would have taken it instantly. Now, however, he is thrilled with his life, especially because of his “marriage” to his partner Chasten.

Personally, I don’t doubt that he and Chasten care deeply for each other. And I don’t doubt that, in certain ways, they have enriched each other’s lives. Most importantly, I don’t doubt that, to the core of his being, Buttigieg believes he was born gay and cannot change.

That is not my issue, nor am I his personal judge and jury.

My issue is the claim that:

“If I feel a certain way and I cannot change, then this is how God made me.”
That’s the exact same logic a p*******e can use:

“I never asked for these desires. I tried to change and cannot. This must be the way God made me. If you don’t like it, your issue is with God.”
You say:

“But you’re comparing apples with oranges. First and foremost, Buttigieg and Chasten are consenting adults and their relationship is non-abusive, based on love.”
Then why bring up the “born that way” argument? Why say, “God made me this way?” Why not just say, “My relationship to my partner is just as valid and good as any heterosexual relationship on the planet?”

That’s my whole point.

If we argue that a certain disposition or feeling or attraction or desire must be attributed to God because it is so deep-seated, then we open up a Pandora’s box of confusion.

Many married heterosexual men struggle with adulterous thoughts and desires. Can they say, “But this is how God made me!”? Should their wives just accept that this is how they are wired?

What about those who, to the core of their being, struggle with p***e? Or anger? Or greed? Or jealousy?

What does this prove? It proves that we are a fallen, broken race in need of a Savior.

And what about the claims of a violent gene or a selfish gene or an obesity gene?

Do we therefore celebrate violence, selfishness, or obesity, if, in fact, they are genetic? Or, if we have these alleged genetic tendencies, do we work harder to overcome them?

You protest once again:

“You just don’t get it! All these things you listed, from adulterous thoughts to p***e, anger, greed, violence, and obesity, are all bad. But same-sex love is fine. It’s just traditional society and religion that reject it.”
Of course, I differ with your assessment of homosexual relationships, but once again, you’re missing the point.

If same-sex love is beautiful and something to celebrate, then don’t attribute it the way you were born. Don’t say:

“This must be right because it’s innate and immutable.”
Unfortunately for gay activists, much of their movement was founded on the argument that “I was born this way and can’t change,” making homosexuality the new black.

Now that this argument is being debunked scientifically and anecdotally, the very foundations of gay activism are being shaken, including the argument that “God made me gay.”

But either way, to attribute all of our deepest, most ingrained desires to God is to make a massive mistake, blaming the Creator for the fallen condition of the creation.

The bad news is that, by nature, we have some deep moral problems. The good news is that Jesus can redeem us.

And Mayor Pete, if you have a problem with what I’ve written, your quarrel, sir, is not with me. It’s with God.
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions? ... (show quote)


The answer is no. He has a big ear for Satan.

Reply
 
 
Apr 11, 2019 09:25:19   #
vietnmvetr65
 
NO, God is not responsible for a persons actions, Each individual person is responsible for their own actions, whether the persons actions are Good or Bad.

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 13:18:14   #
Fit2BTied Loc: Texas
 
bahmer wrote:
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions?
By Dr. Michael Brown - April 10, 2019

To ensure that there is no misunderstanding of any kind, please say these words out loud, slowly and clearly: Michael Brown is not comparing homosexuality to p********a. Michael Brown is not calling homosexuals p*******es. Michael Brown is not comparing a mutually consensual, adult relationship to an abusive, adult-child relationship.

All clear?

What I am comparing is an illogical justification of homosexuality that can just as easily be used to justify p********a.

Please allow me to explain.

In the past, I have demonstrated how advocates of “man-boy love” have used the identical arguments that gay activists have used, specifically:

Trending: Regarding R********ns for S***ery – Be Careful What You Ask For

1) P********a is innate and immutable.

2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.

3) The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.

4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.

5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.

6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually p*******es.

7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.

8) This is all about love and e******y and liberation.

Returning to the first argument, namely, that p********a is innate and immutable, I wrote in 2014:

“In case you’ve missed the latest headlines, we are now being told with increasing certainty that p********a is innate and immutable . . . .”
In keeping with this, there are now academic papers with titles like:

“Potential Implications of Research on Genetic or Heritable Contributions to P********a for the Objectives of Criminal Law.”

And there are discussions on psychology forums asking, “Is P********a Genetic?”

You say:

“But what does this have to do with God, who is mentioned in the title to your article?”
The answer is simple. The first openly gay p**********l candidate, Pete Buttigieg, attributes his homosexuality to the Lord, recently directing these comments to Vice President Mike Pence:

“If you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

In other words, according to Buttigieg:

“God made me gay, and if you don’t like that, your issue is with God.”
According to Buttigieg, when he was younger – 15, 20, or even 25 years-old – if there was a pill he could have taken not to be gay he would have taken it instantly. Now, however, he is thrilled with his life, especially because of his “marriage” to his partner Chasten.

Personally, I don’t doubt that he and Chasten care deeply for each other. And I don’t doubt that, in certain ways, they have enriched each other’s lives. Most importantly, I don’t doubt that, to the core of his being, Buttigieg believes he was born gay and cannot change.

That is not my issue, nor am I his personal judge and jury.

My issue is the claim that:

“If I feel a certain way and I cannot change, then this is how God made me.”
That’s the exact same logic a p*******e can use:

“I never asked for these desires. I tried to change and cannot. This must be the way God made me. If you don’t like it, your issue is with God.”
You say:

“But you’re comparing apples with oranges. First and foremost, Buttigieg and Chasten are consenting adults and their relationship is non-abusive, based on love.”
Then why bring up the “born that way” argument? Why say, “God made me this way?” Why not just say, “My relationship to my partner is just as valid and good as any heterosexual relationship on the planet?”

That’s my whole point.

If we argue that a certain disposition or feeling or attraction or desire must be attributed to God because it is so deep-seated, then we open up a Pandora’s box of confusion.

Many married heterosexual men struggle with adulterous thoughts and desires. Can they say, “But this is how God made me!”? Should their wives just accept that this is how they are wired?

What about those who, to the core of their being, struggle with p***e? Or anger? Or greed? Or jealousy?

What does this prove? It proves that we are a fallen, broken race in need of a Savior.

And what about the claims of a violent gene or a selfish gene or an obesity gene?

Do we therefore celebrate violence, selfishness, or obesity, if, in fact, they are genetic? Or, if we have these alleged genetic tendencies, do we work harder to overcome them?

You protest once again:

“You just don’t get it! All these things you listed, from adulterous thoughts to p***e, anger, greed, violence, and obesity, are all bad. But same-sex love is fine. It’s just traditional society and religion that reject it.”
Of course, I differ with your assessment of homosexual relationships, but once again, you’re missing the point.

If same-sex love is beautiful and something to celebrate, then don’t attribute it the way you were born. Don’t say:

“This must be right because it’s innate and immutable.”
Unfortunately for gay activists, much of their movement was founded on the argument that “I was born this way and can’t change,” making homosexuality the new black.

Now that this argument is being debunked scientifically and anecdotally, the very foundations of gay activism are being shaken, including the argument that “God made me gay.”

But either way, to attribute all of our deepest, most ingrained desires to God is to make a massive mistake, blaming the Creator for the fallen condition of the creation.

The bad news is that, by nature, we have some deep moral problems. The good news is that Jesus can redeem us.

And Mayor Pete, if you have a problem with what I’ve written, your quarrel, sir, is not with me. It’s with God.
Is God Responsible for a P*******e’s Attractions? ... (show quote)
Many good points here. Man will never accept his flawed nature - that's one of his flaws. He'll always attempt to excuse his bad behavior. Like the Nature vs Nurture argument. The t***h of the matter is EVERYONE has impure thoughts. We are also given free will. For some, this is a recipe for disaster, while for others it is merely a continuous challenge to do what is right, in spite of our inner sin nature. Sometimes we fail. But once an act has been done, the important thing is what one does next.

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 14:34:52   #
Reality
 
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
We are born into sin! We glory to our creator can choose not to! Period!!


So you agree with the article then?

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 14:36:54   #
Reality
 
Betta wrote:
Exactly! Homosexuality is demonic. People want to blame God to justify what they do. They know that God is good. They claim him yet in their arrogance refuse to repent of the sin they're in, wh**ever that sin is. This is a case of God gave them up to a reprobate mind, burning in their own lust. They will be surprised when they stand before God expecting to waltz through the pearly gates. God will say "I don't know you" and into the lake of fire they will go to burn for eternity with their father satan. Cannot serve God and mammon. God said it.
Exactly! Homosexuality is demonic. People want to ... (show quote)


Didn’t God create everything? The Devil didn’t create anything!

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.