Ethical thought experiment for anti-homosex Christians:

Ethical thought experiment for anti-homosex Christians:

Jesus appears in front of you and says "user, you must let me fuck your ass and then suck my dick. Quick, there's no time to explain". What would you do?

If you say "no" then you're denying Christ, going to Hell, etc.

If you say "yes" then you did the good thing, God will forgive you etc. BUT there's at least one possible world where you would have gay sex. Think about it, even if you did it because the Son of God told you to that's fucking gay.

Something something nature of God is unchanging and God will never contradict himself so your thought experiment wouldn't happen (even though he could and because everything God does is good and right, it would be fine)

But tbqh there's no reason to believe jesus was anti homosex

But OPs scenario is essentially the same as God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac then at the last moment giving him a ram to sacrifice instead.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to superintend the writing of Paul who did condemn homosexuality.

Except that in OPs scenario Jesus doesn't change his mind at the last moment I guess

This is what happens when you let subhumans think they know what a "thought experiment" is. They blaspheme and write out stupid fucking shit all in one fell swoop.

i shit and god swallows

in five years you'll be in atheist you unoriginal cunt

>Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to superintend the writing of Paul
How do you know this? And how do you know jesus would stop at the last minute when he's in your boipucci?

He says it in the bible (for your first question)

I would totally suck J.C.'s Holy Cock and offer him my boipucci tho

something doesn't stop being a thought experiment just because it makes your peepee feel funny

Literally show me where jesus says he's sending the holy spirit to inspire Pauls words

John 16:12-14
>I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.

If I really had to I'd fuck Satan instead. Jesus isn't even attractive. And I'm already committing sin so it wouldn't even matter.

>Thought experiment, Jesus contradicts his nature, divine morality, he sins and tells lies

OP is a faggot.

I would teleologically suspend the ethical and plow dat jesus boi-pucci

It is your boipucci being rammed in the thought experiment though

>when there's no reference to paul and a nonspecific stance on who is actually inspired by christ means that what the holy spirit intends is essentially determined by who takes a stance on an issue first is used to support Paul being right
What did he mean by this?

Even better

The point is that when Jesus ascended he transferred his authority, through the Holy Spirit, to the church, and the the church recognized Paul's letters and the rest of the new testament as "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16-17

God I wish that were me

this is beautiful, whos the artist?

Guillaume Geefs

>he didn't read the first post

>reiterating your position and not addressing the argument

Thats not the genie du mal though, he has his hand on his head in the actual sculpture

>liking neoclassical """"art""""

I think because you dont like it it makes you really cool and different, liking stuff is lame:)

You're right, it is L’ange du mal

I wasnt aware of that one but itd def make a better bust than its more famous cousin

That's not gay sex. Try again retard.

Actually I was wrong, apparently the picture here is an earlier sculpture by his brother Joseph, the name L’ange du mal is right though.

"Gay sex" is an oxymoron; sex is definitionally vaginal intercourse between a man and woman with the aim of procreation or mutual support against sin. Anything else is neurotic perversion. Try again.

Also, not literature related. Reported

Anti-homosex is only discussed in the old testament (the torah) attack the synagogue not the church, faggot.

It's the first version of the statue (on the left) which was removed for being too sexualized and replaced with the one on the right. Can't have churchgoers getting distracted by Satan's boipussy.

>a literal description of gay sex isn't gay sex

>sex is definitionally vaginally if you use my specific ideological definitions of sex which has an added clause of mutual support against sin which isn't even held by the church

Wrong it's in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy

left is better but its a wonder the church let it in in the first place

να πάει να γαμηθεί ο μαλάkας

I prefer the right. It's actually way hotter.

>get told to remove your sexy statue
>your Chad older brother creates an even sexier statue which is accepted because it shows less skin
Must feel pretty bad.