god clearly dislikes homosexuality and has a strong preference for gang rape, getting plastered and father-daughter incest as demonstrated by the story of lot

The only shocking thing about your evangelism is that you somehow manage to remain un-defenestrated.

While I like a lot of Brother Jed's preaching, he is not my idol.

Yes.

I've always liked that quote. I'm also a fan of Mencken. I didn't know that was his quote, though. Did you know that even though he was not a Christian, that he had some quite favourable things to say about the Bible? I'll try to find the quote.

fyp

Zero.

If a person is truly saved, they can't "lose" there faith. To lose something implies they don't know where it is. If one "loses their faith" because of something stupid I say, or Brother Jed says, or John MacArthur says, then that person never had a saving faith in the first place; they were "stony ground" confessors of Christ, but couldn't even endure an impolite open-air preacher. If one is truly trusting in Christ alone, then they can't "lose" their faith.

Glad you're reading your Bible.

Is it your understanding/interpretation that God thought that there was nothing morally objectionable about the events described in Genesis 19:31-36?

Like this one perhaps?

Or this one?

Maybe this?

Or perhaps this resonated with you?

I can certainly see why you'd be a fan.

That aside, you probably mean this book review?

That was the quote I was looking for.

It is well known that Mencken was outspoken in his dislike for Christianity.

Even Christopher Hitchens had high praise for the literary quality of the King James Bible.

i'm merely pointing out you're using a book with sketchy historiography and which espouses offering your daughters up for gang rape is god's work as a guideline for determining your viewpoint on homosexuality

the bible is extremely contradictory, but that's very likely why it's so successful because regardless of your personal position, you'll be able to find passages that would seemingly agree with the notion you already had, you can essentially come up with anything you like and find passages in the bible that would confirm your belief

i posit you're merely going through confirmation bias and happily ignore everything else in the bible that doesn't go to your liking and just focus on certain aspects

just be a man and say you don't like gay people, you wouldn't exactly be in a small club

I'm partial to a bit of Harry Potter myself, but I'd still think anyone who believed it was a real account of real things that happened in reality was batshit insane.

Why?

Have you actually read Genesis 19:31-36? Your statement above suggests that you haven't.

No it isn't.

Always fun to read psychobabble. Thanks for sharing.

Psychological reductionism is the last refuge for a person without an argument. - Dennis Prager (paraphrasing)

I do not dislike homosexuals.

edit: "be a man" is sexist.

Because I am a compos mentis adult with an IQ over 50.

50-ish seems about right.

Lake of Fire-ish burn right there.

I'd be a professional golfer if my average golf score was as low as my IQ.

I have to admit, I've probably been unnecessarily hard on the Bible. It can be a very absorbing book, especially certain editions. In fact, there were times in prison where I literally don't know if I could have got by without the trusty Bible by my side. You see, they didn't always give us enough toilet paper to account for curry night.

Lake of Fire-ish self-burn right there.

1. Smock is a self-described Pelagian, so he presumably disagrees with you about it being possible for a Christian to lose their salvation.

2. If you go the Calvin predestination route, it's not clear why shock evangelism, or any version of evangelism, is preferable to another.

3. Here is how Paul talks about how Christians should behave towards those who are weak in faith.

No, in that thread you were told that "sodomite" is offensive, and that if you don't mean to be offensive, then you shouldn't use it, not that it can't be used to denote homosexuals. Now you too prideful to admit that you went back on your word and so make up lies about "later" discovering that actually "sodomite" can be used to refer to homosexuals to justify your trolling people here by using it. This ignores the reason brought up in the original discussion, which you seemed to assent to, which was about how "sodomite" is now considered an offensive and homophobic term.

Even worse, now you are trying to justify breaking your word by suggesting that your trolling and offending liberals here is a form of Christian evangelism. It is a Christian witness of sorts, but not one you should want.

Thank you for engaging me on this issue. Post #50 in this thread was my "last word" on this particular subtopic, so it will have to stand on its own merits (or lack thereof) without further defense from me.

Brother Jed has several views that I disagree with. I am not an advocate of Open Theism, for example, which he is an advocate of.

I would probably describe myself as a Calminian (a delightful term coined by the late Dr. Walter Martin).

Wise words. But the open air preacher is witnessing to the lost.