I have done no such thing, this is a thread about interactions with ones children... not about belief or non belief in god.  you don't even read what you are responding to.

No friend,  I answered your questions and then you claimed victimhood. You claim I "assumed" you were repulsed by what you found repulsive.  Wrong.  I didn't "assume" anything. Everyone is repulsed by what they find repulsive.  The word has a definition, you know.  

You claim I "assumed" you never helped anyone in need.  What nonsense.  The point was not that you never help anyone...  the point was, instead of talking about what you CANNOT do - die for and pay for someone else's sins - do something for someone far less than that, that you can actually do -  BUT FIND UTTERLY REPULSIVE.

Because, Jesus laying down His life and taking it up again was no challenge to Jesus.  It didn't tax His ability to do that.  But what He DID DO was something that was utterly repulsive to Him.  He took the sins of all sinners upon Himself.  He did that because of love.

You say I "assumed" you don't find your sins repulsive.  Who are you trying to fool?  I don't know what sins you have committed , but you committed them precisely because you found them attractive or thought to gain some benefit.  Again, do you think you are fooling anyone here?  Now I am not saying that you haven't done SOME things that you are ashamed of - I have no idea - but you were certainly willing at the time you did them.  A major part of this thread is this daughter and her homosexual lifestyle.  Do you think she has sex with another woman because she finds it repulsive?  Again, for the last time, who are you trying to fool?

You were the one making the assumptions, and you were the one who became defensive.

You seem to know a lot of leftists.

I don't know how a being without time experiences an event.  Nor, to my knowledge, does anyone else.  This is why I was asking you how you could proclaim it with such certainty.

It's therefore not a knee-jerk objection.  It's a reasonable and fair question.

As to your definition of humility, it is no different to mine in the context of this discussion....so the definition is not really in dispute.  

You did however proclaim that the act was one of humility, and all I have done is ask you how you know this?

From what you are saying, you don't "know" this to be the case but have read it in Romans 5.  I have read it as well but do not proclaim to "know" it is a fact. A presumption based a second hand account of the event for sure, and one that you strongly believe, I am sure. But you cannot Know it.

The point is people keep proclaiming that "God said" or "Jesus said" when in reality they cannot possibly know this.   They can believe he said it which is entirely different and completely acceptable but when people start claiming to know something and preaching to others on that basis, they should not be surprised if people call them out and question their motives.  

Share your beliefs by all means, and may people enjoy them accordingly, but do not lie and claim to "know" what God said when you were not there to hear it.

This goes to the original point of this thread.  Someone claiming the bible says homosexuality is bad is one thing .  It's a book.

However people who claim that God said it simply cannot know that because unless they heard it first hand they cannot know what he said.

Therefore disowning your daughter because a book says she sinned is a pretty extreme thing to do.  

Disowning your daughter because someone who lived 2000 years or more ago says that he heard God say she sinned is also a pretty extreme thing to do.

Disowning your daughter because she is gay, broadcasting her business across the airwaves, and still proclaiming you are a Christian?   That's right up there with the Westborough Baptist Church.

As a Christian yourself, are you sure that is a position you wish to defend?

Since you refuse to answer the question, I'll answer it for you.

Nothing.

Jesus never said anything about it. Not a word.

I do find it very telling that you refuse to answer that question though.

Now that is funny, because by YOUR stated position you have no idea what Jesus said or didn't say.

On the other hand, I have the Bible and it is clear that homosexuality is a sin.

  this is funny stuff....you're running your yap about stuff you know nothing about.

What did he say about sin?

Every word is God breathed.  You can google that and read for a bit you want to learn the answer to your question.  

Either you believe it or not.  You aren't forced to believe anything...but don't act like it doesn't say what it says.  That's just childish and immature.

Dude.  You've been asked a number of reasonable questions by different people and each time you have made assumptions about them and made proclamations you refuse to justify.  You therefore render your position in the disussion as rather pointless.  

It's apparent that the problem does not lie with everybody else if the common denominator is you, but perhaps you may need to reconsider your approach.

Might I suggest you take a break and maybe come back again some time.  I'm sure you have some interesting stuff to say, but your defensive stance is getting in the way of an honest discussion and don't you no favours.

Here we go again.  Total mischaracterization for the sake of an agenda.

Again, if we're using Old Testament law to decide what is sin and what isn't, then we need to include a lot of other things to judge people about too.

My earlier point is that Christian or not, I think it's possible that there have been poor translations and it's also possible MEN screwed stuff up. You deny that possibility, that's fine.

Do you really not think it's significant that Jesus never said a word about the thing YOU are all making such a huge deal about?

So you're not going to answer it either...ok...

You claim victimhood when you are nothing of the sort...

Enter into this discussion with another poster when you have no idea what we are talking about...

Mischaracterize what this man did as "disowning his daughter"....

Carry on.  People of the more rational kind notice those things.

I already know the answer to my question obviously. I'm not Bible bashing here, just making some observations about things I've thought about myself.

God breathed...but still penned by men.

I'm not pretending it doesn't say what it says. In fact the opposite seems to be true- many people seem to act like it says something it doesn't.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own position here.

YOU claim we have no idea what Jesus actually did, or did not say....

Then you speak as if you are sure of what He said.... or did not say...

And you are totally oblivious to the contradiction you create....

Between the new format and a new computer I sure am doing some doubletaps.

How would you describe it?

Seems like you are playing games.

On one hand you refer to "Bible" and on the other to "the actual words that Jesus spoke when He walked on the earth"...

As if they contradicted one another.

Wow, you are really making some assumptions here aren't you. Maybe you ought to go reread some of what was said.

I'm speaking about what he said- or at least what was recorded- in the Bible. Which was not a word about homosexuality. What I also said was the only mention about it in the NT was from Paul (IIRC) which I suppose you could consider something like a secondary source.

My point...that you seem to be missing...is that it seems odd to me that for this sin that many of you seem to be willing to discard family members over (not you necessarily, I'm not sure if you mentioned your stance on that) is something Christ, God's Son, never felt was something he should discuss with his followers.

You only think I'm playing games because I'm disagreeing with you.

Where did I say they contradicted? I'm saying the Messiah that you worship never mentioned it. Which is true. Yet many are willing to lose family over it.

It doesn't matter how I would describe it.

But:

When the daughter says she knows her father still loves her, and that she loves him...

When the daughter said that they have been having this discussion for over three years now...

When the daughter said that she recently visited his home (and presumably continued the discussion)...

That isn't "disownment."  She makes no claim that she was disowned.

So those that frame it that way?  Totally mischaracterize it for THEIR own reasons.

All rather irrelevant if daddy decides to cut ties because of a book.

If it's not disownment how would you describe it?

Also, there are those in this thread who have defended the idea of disowning a gay child simply because the bible says homosexuality is bad.  Where do you stand on that position?

Four things
1, His house his rules.
2, She was an adult.
3, I have no idea who any of these fuckers are.
4, Is she hot and are there nudes? Any performance art?

Here we go again.

Funny how you guys who claim that I am "assuming" things are so easily proven wrong.

YOU are the one who claimed that we can't really know what Jesus said or didn't say because the Bible was edited by men.

Then, you undermine your own position when you claim, "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality."

Well, there you go.  Either way your position is unsupportable.  If it doesn't appear in the Bible - doesn't mean Jesus didn't have anything to say about it.  According to your own position.

Get it?

Did Jesus say that a man shouldn't have sex with his mother? or his sister? or his dog?

So that's okay, too, right?

He didn't cut ties.

Well, since you mischaracterize what the father did as "disowning" you might well be mischaracterized what other posters have said.  

I would never disown one of my children.

Ok.   What happened then?

Also, there are those in this thread who have defended the idea of disowning a gay child simply because the bible says homosexuality is bad.  Where do you stand on that position?

It seems you know an awful lot and other people don't know anything, even those that knew Jesus and spent 3.5 years with Him, then willingly accepted death because they wouldn't deny the truth. Seems you think you have a better idea what went on than the eyewitnesses? Yet you want to argue theology about the Bible yet ignore what the Bible says. 

You seem to have not read my posts the last few pages. Go read up. I've already stated my view on Burgess. 

Well, I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I don't know how else to describe my point, I'm not sure MS paint would help.

ETA- without the sarcasm, it could be I'm really not doing a good job explaining my point, because the garbage you're saying has nothing to do with it. I've also admitted that my beliefs on the whole subject aren't real concrete...you keep trying to catch me with a "gotcha" when I've admitted up front that I don't really know what to believe...with this exception: I do believe that Jesus would want us to treat others with love and compassion regardless of what we think about their choices, or their sin. The things that the daughter claims her father said fly in the face of that. The later post describing the father's take seem to soften it a bit, however I still think it's bad form to air their problems in public.

I also think that if people that claim to follow Jesus would actually live by his example, that they would probably treat filthy sinners a bit different...even the gays. Notice I didn't say they should condone their choices. I said treat them with love and compassion, something that is sorely missing in many of these discussions with "men of God" and something that was sorely lacking from my supposed Christian school when I was the filthy sinner.

He said exactly what is in the Old Testament about it, and what Paul said about it. Jesus is God in the flesh, and all Scripture is God-breathed, i.e. from the Holy Spirit, who is God. 

Sure, sure.  

YOU SAY "We don't know what Jesus said because the Bible was edited by men", but you know He didn't have anything to say about homosexuality "just because."

Yeah, kinda hard to MS paint that.

Sure sure, still missing my point and putting words in my mouth. Ok. I edited above.

So Paul has one remark about it, which is the inspired word of God...alright... (yet it's not important enough for Jesus to mention? I don't get it) but you lost me on the OT. Are we following those laws or not, because if so I need to add a wall around my roof so I don't go to hell (and I suspect you do too)

Be very specific in how this woman's father mistreated her.

Look what else a book, or lack thereof, can do!

What if she believes that Jesus Christ is her lord and savior?

Does she still burn in hell? Is her eating cooter worse than a preacher looking at Mrs. Jenkins' ass for a split second on Sunday?

Don't we all sin?

I react to what you actually type on the screen.  I have no idea about your underlying feelings and opinions that you leave unstated.

So, when you say we can't know XYZ, but then state that, "since we know XYZ, thus and thus"...

Yeah, I am going to react to that accordingly.

As far as garbage?  Well, garbage in ....

When a person trusts Jesus Christ as Saviour, the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to that believer.  Her sins are covered.  Forgiven.  Gone.

As far as the rest?  Yes, it is worse to actually commit a sin than to be tempted to commit a sin.  In your example, the preacher looks for one "split second" and then, instead of going with it, says to himself, "Nope. Not going there."  On the other hand, the daughter looks and says, "Yep.  Going there."

We all certainly do sin.  No question about that.

I answered...you just did not like the answer.

Yeah, North Korea was founded on science.

I already have been. I cut and pasted 3-4 excerpts. You choose to ignore them. Bringing up her sin on the radio might be the worst of it though.

Do you know what the US was founded on? Christianity.

Except thats not what I said, and you make your own assumptions to further your agenda.

ETA- I also love how you just decide to gloss over the rest of my post. Typical.

You don't get it...Jesus is God....of the OT and NT

No, you not so cleverly avoided the question just like criley.

Of course sweetie. That's why it's our national religion and specifically mentioned many times in the governing document.

Yeah, I've had a few classes on the subject. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to know that actual theologians don't all agree as to the nature of the Trinity exactly So...do YOU get it?

Also, are we using OT law to prove points or not? Answer the question. Because if so, I hope you don't eat bacon and I hope the women in your family follow the rules on menstruation and I hope you have the wall around your roof.

I'm sorry, I missed your view on Mr Burgess.  I'd be grateful if you'd repeat or provide a link.

Actually, I don't know everything.  Far from it.  More importantly I'll happily admit it.   This is why I ask questions and like learning.  

And yes, I'm afraid I do question the veracity of witness statements.   Many years as an investigating  officer has taught me that with the best will in the world witness statements on all sides can be unreliable and contain inaccuracies, conjecture and even an unwitting tendency to make assumptions as the mind naturally seeks to fill in the parts where there is missing information.  

The are some incredibly interesting studies around this I'd be happy to point you to sometime if you are Intereted

That doesn't mean that everything in those witness statements is false, nor that the person relaying the account is deliberately lying. Far from it. But it serves to question the veracity of a statement where anomalies and claims being made can be reasonably challenged, especially when the information is relayed third, fourth or fifth hand through a range of translations, prints and versions of that account over 2 millennia.

On that basis there is nothing wrong with challenging what the bible says or debating the content and context of the witness statements therein. It doesn't undermine the overarching message or picture drawn by the statement if there happen to be a few acknowledged inaccuracies or proven falsehoods. It just mean that those elements can be read with the appropriate caveat as to their veracity.

What I do make every effort not to avoid is claiming something to be fact when I cannot supply evidence to the that effect,  or give the impression that I have first hand knowledge of something when I cannot attest to that claim.  Not that I can ever be infallible in that regard.

This outlines the difference between a belief in something, and actual knowledge of something.

Funny thing.......I always found it somewhat ironic that when giving evidence in court my own first hand witness accounts and evidence in chief for offences committed by the defendant are rightly subjected to incredible scruitny, but before giving my testimony I swear upon a bible which consists of a series of witness statements that have undergone several translations, modernisations, edits and version changes, and which cannot be verified as accurate to the same standard as the evidence I am about to give.

Well you have certainly nailed the ignorant atheist stereotype.

Here let me start the search for answers for you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.