• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will God Bless the Military Beacuse of New Policy?

Will God Bless the Military Because of New Policy?

  • God will Continue to bless our Country but not our Military

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • God will continue to bless BOTH country and military

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • God blesses individuals NOT groups

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • God blesses individuals AND groups seperatly

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • God doesnt work like this at all!

    Votes: 10 27.0%
  • I dont believe in God of the Chirstian Bible

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Im an Athiest

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • Other / I dont know

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • The person that said this to you Noodle is a idiot

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • The person that said this to you Noodle is a wise person

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
Everyone is God's creation, but not everyone is a child of God. God loves everyone, but not everyone has been adopted as children into his family. Only those who have repented of sin and believe in Jesus are Biblically Children of God.

I was raised to believe that everyone was a child of God - you didn't have ot believe it or be righteous for that to be true. :shrug:

But I'm not going to debate it - I don't believe in the whole religious-god thing anymore.
 
Show me Biblically where God says that He makes people gay and forces them into homosexuality.

It's obvious you don't think people are born gay. That's where we differ.
Just curious, with the hell gays get put through by so many bigots, do you think they actually "choose" to be gay?
I have no doubt God loves his gay children as much as he loves his straight ones.
 

I've barely picked up a bible since my teen years. I heard a preacher saying some crap about blacks being inferior or something like that and that it said so in the bible. Any God of mine would never think that way. He made all kinds of people as far as I'm concerned and they are all his children.
 
To The Giant Noodle (I really don't want to quote that again)

Ezekiel 16:49 clearly states that it was not homosexuality or any sexual deviance that led to Sodom's destruction. It was the people of Sodom turning from God (which is also stated in the passages prior to the actual story of Sodom, when God is speaking with Abraham. He never mentions sexual activities at all. Ezekiel says that it was "inhospitality and essentially greed".

Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Plus, it was common in those times for people to believe that having sex with a supernatural being (angels) would give the person some of that being's powers. Which would explain why all the men in the town, young and old came to rape the angels, not just some of them. They couldn't have all been homosexual (bisexual maybe, but I doubt it) because there were children in the town. It was about the power.
 


ACtually youre wrong because it was part of how they turned away from God. It states multiple times in the Bible in NT and OT that God HAAAAATES homosexual acts.
Personally I dont give a **** because I feel the whole thing is man made and not inspired or blessed by any god.
 
OHHHHHHHH by the way the person who said this was my Pastor speaking during a Bible study. I used to be a Born-Again until I realized how foolish it all was. In any case I still go to services because most of my friends are there.
 
Show me Biblically where God says that He makes people gay and forces them into homosexuality.

God made everything correct? According to Genesis...yes. Of course it doesn't specifically say anything about gays or homosexuals. But then it also doesn't say that God created the Oak tree specifically either.

 
I really wish you hadn't started this thread. All it is going to do is stir up a lot of controversy and anger.

To answer the OP, I'd just have to say that I don't know. I don't claim to speak for God. He will bless a nation(or its military) as He wills according to His purposes. Individuals are a different matter, according to my beliefs.




I doubt that God has ever blessed an active soldier.

That's quite a radical statement. Would you care to expand on your thoughts on that matter?
 
Hah! I love this - I just might get one to draw scripture from in debates.

Amazon.com: The Bible in Original Languages is Not anti Gay: an essential guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians (9781452881232): Dr A. Nyland: Books
Amazon.com: Study New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bi, And Transgender: With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning And Context (9780980443011): Dr A. Nyland: Books

 
Well it would be cool if ya DID! I would like to seehow they can wiggle their way around direct biblical statements that arent taken out of context.

They re-translated from the original texts. . .as do many conflicting versions of the Bible.

that's what happens when a religion uses a book that's extremely old - there's a lot of room for interpretation . . . interpreting texts of any type - for any purpose - is tricky business. It's not like a code where all you have to do is unscramble it.
 


I personally dont think it would change muliple references directed at gay acts. Sounds like the author is trying to fit a sqare peg in a round hole. :roll:
 
I personally dont think it would change muliple references directed at gay acts. Sounds like the author is trying to fit a sqare peg in a round hole. :roll:

Yet that's at the core of many philosophical and theological debates: linguistics.
 
I personally dont think it would change muliple references directed at gay acts. Sounds like the author is trying to fit a sqare peg in a round hole. :roll:

It is more like the thinking of the times were different. As far as we know, they didn't have a word for any sexuality. Sociology didn't exist back then. They didn't think such things were really necessary to explain. It is quite possible that they were talking about either sex between a man and boy, or ritual male prostitution, or even someone who sleeps with both men and women. It really isn't as cut and dry as we may think. And it could very well mean man/man sexual relations, but it is really not easy to know this, since those original words are no longer used and really weren't translated directly from someone who lived in the time when those terms were being used to clear up what exactly is being talked about.

Heck, until the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness even by mental health professionals. Why? What exactly was wrong with being homosexual that made it necessary to make it a mental illness? Many people, even now, hold this stance because they feel that it somehow helps to justify their own bigotry against consenting adults of the same sex being involved in intimate relationships when there is no actual conflict with them living a normal healthy life nor a conflict of violating consent laws.
 

One of the biggest reasons why I think the bible..in any of its current forms is crap.
 
In my humble opinion, the sentience of any 'divine' monotheistic entity (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) would be so utterly foreign to our minds that nothing we could ever conceive of could mimic, predict or understand its reasoning. It'd be like explaining to penguins the nuances of atomic particles. Naturally, I find this poll absurd.
 
Last edited:

Jolly good post old chap.
 

Actually - many historians date most of the Bible to be within the first few centuries BC.
That would date along side the pyramids and other such things - and Greek history when they were a large empire. The Greeks, as we all know, were very insightful and many of their ideas and beliefs still heavily influence our societies, today - such as Aristotles teachings and so on.

Of course - other stories of the Bible come from other areas such as Assyria and coincide with more ancient events that came form Hammurabi's time-period. . . Hammurabi, as we all now, instilled values he set forward in his 'Code of Hammurabi' - which is extremely detailed i in some ways quite insightful.

All in all - though the stories and events are diverse in their time-period - people back then in some places spent an excessive amount of time trying to understand human nature - and to control and contain it.

This is how I think the Bible itself came around - from an attempt to control and govern mankind. Obviously they figured out something about human-psychology - because people still follow the Bible as Constantine decided it would be written.
 

Which part of "Thou shalt not kill" is confusing for you? Soldiers should repent heavily for the lives that they have taken in battle. God doesn't bless active warriors, but should accept those that know that they have sinned.
 

The old testament, perhaps. The new testament dates to around 100AD or much later. The earliest copies in existence date from around 300 AD.
 
This question is ridiculous on many levels, theologically speaking. First, it is based upon the presumption that America had some sort of favored nation status in God's eyes, akin to Israel, and has now lost it because of teh gheys. There is zero theological basis for this belief. God doesn't have a favorite team. He has relationships with individuals.

Secondly, it presumes that God withholds love from humans based upon their hetero/homosexuality. That is also patently false...

"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Some evangelicals are just ridiculously stupid when they come up with this sort of nonsense. It's as if they haven't even read the bible.
 
Last edited:
The old testament, perhaps. The new testament dates to around 100AD or much later. The earliest copies in existence date from around 300 AD.

Yes - there's a large span of time and a significant number of books to consider. Yet the New Testament was compiled from a variety of books that were collected, (as was the Old Testament) - and many were actually rejected from the Bible.

Which is interesting - the rejected books are rarely read and revered - eventhough they, too, are claimed to be 'the word of God' and so on.
 
The key word here is "facetious".
The whole thing is silly beyond belief.
No vote, of course.
 

They, like so many others, only read and live by the portions that they agree with and find tasteful.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…