Homesexuality
- Thread starter Lady
- Start date
Wow, Lady ... that was ... uh, yeah.
On that note, why arrest anyone for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit a crime? If the crime doesn't occur, what is the problem with attempting it? To the other, the laws of man hardly apply to the laws of God, but on that same note, the logic you've offered presents problems with other traditional Biblical interpretations. As such, I'm wondering if you have any commentary on Genesis 22, in which God "put Abraham to the test" (22.1, NAB). You are, I take it, familiar with the story?
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.
Now, I'm all well and fine with that, it's just that most Biblical advocates I know like to reinforce notions of the Bible's consistency and legitimacy, not undermine them.
To each their own, indeed.
Of course, this situation, too, is as God wills. For, as you have noted, God is considered the Supreme being and therefore authority.
From the Bible:
•_The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen. 2.16-17)
• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)
•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)
As you can see, Lady, you are incorrect when you write that they did eat of the tree of life.
However, God, being Alpha and Omega, being Supreme Being and creator of life, foresaw this outcome, chose to execute the plan, anyway, and yet still holds people morally responsible. If God cannot fix the situation, well ... strike a point for Immutable Will and sack god's unbound authority.
Accepting, for argument's sake, that this really is the best God could do, why, then, does God lie to people? It would appear that there are fairly narrow limits to God's authority, and while I haven't a problem with that, I must admit that the boundaries fall well inside the projected scope of God's power even according to the Bible.
As a general question, rhetorical per se, that does not apply solely to you, What is it with people and duress? Is this really the "freedom" we seek?
Or, to put it simply: "You are free to do what I say or be punished if you do not."
At least you're free.
Get in the van, baby. Get in the stinkin' van.
If there's anything that upsets me about the Catholic scandal outside the fact that children are being abused, it's that this focus on men abusing boys continues a long tradition of overlooking churches of all sects covering up for child abuse within the flock.
One thing you must still learn, Lady, in order to deal with sexual deviance maturely, you must first deal with sexuality in a mature fashion.
Perhaps you could explain how that makes a difference.
Are the animals going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Oh, shite! Maybe God should have created them to be capable of recognizing the self inasmuch as they might then be able to recognize the idea of a personal savior.
Imagine that ... a dog smart enough to read. Or a penguin, for that matter.
A question to you directly, Lady, but a rhetorical one for reflection: What about homosexuality is so important to a person as to cause them to shatter faith platforms or logical processes in the broader aspects of their lives in order to achieve this step along a narrow path?
In other words, it seems to me that many or most homophobes tend to be so determined to spread their condemnation of homosexuality that they're willing to rewrite their own logical platforms within that specific issue, creating massive contrasts between the expressed paradigm and the expressed results within that paradigm.
For instance, in our discussion, I've seen you wriggling to evade data that indicates that homosexual contact occurs in nature; I've seen you assert that duress equals free will; I've seen you base an assertion on an incorrect reading of the Bible ... it's time to ask you a very specific question, and this one can be taken as rhetorical or as direct; it's up to you: Are you really a Christian, or are you just an atheist provocateur? In the case of the former, I can only urge you to take more time with the scriptures of your faith until you can demonstrate a more fundamental knowledge of the ideas upon which you stake your principles. In the case of the latter, I must ask you to cease this sick dalliance with pseudo-Christianity; as a public exhibition, it seems a malicious parody of undereducated superstition.
Just because it's easier to pretend that people who think like you are right and people who don't are wrong does not make it so. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand people, since your explorations of their obligations to God according to the Bible has run so sour.
Perhaps in that sense the Christians just don't understand: so long as they meddle in other people's lives, they're going to hear these responses. As much as Christians would often like to silence the infidels, it simply doesn't work that way. My recommendation to you: if you don't want homosexuals saying God made them that way, then help the homosexuals get the angry, hateful Christians out of their lives, and out of the public eye.
And, in that sense, you would be doing your faith and your God a huge favor.
Period.
(A) This is different from heterosexuality how?
(B) Let me know next time you're in Seattle. I'll happily take you out clubbing. And then you can see a number of things, such as (1) gay people going home with "whomever", (2) straight people going home with "whomever", (3) gay people going home with their stable partner, (4) straight people going home with their stable partner, (5) people of both orientations going home to look at porno and masturbate.
I guarantee you, it will take all of five minutes to show that entire range of people.
Perhaps in the near future I'll put together a how-to guide on surviving the mountain of allegedly-sorcerous material out there. Don't worry, aside from the friends you choose, the biggest danger is boring yourself to death somewhere in the middle of Barrett or Mathers.
thanx,
Tiassa
Oh, that makes it right.
On that note, why arrest anyone for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit a crime? If the crime doesn't occur, what is the problem with attempting it? To the other, the laws of man hardly apply to the laws of God, but on that same note, the logic you've offered presents problems with other traditional Biblical interpretations. As such, I'm wondering if you have any commentary on Genesis 22, in which God "put Abraham to the test" (22.1, NAB). You are, I take it, familiar with the story?
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.
It seems, Lady, that by your logic, Abraham did not make any sacrifice unto the Lord. Yet the Lord finds that in Abraham's intent to carry through with the sacrifice that the act of sacrifice has been fulfilled. By what token is homosexuality so important to God that he should bless someone for offering a "smaller sin"? After all, if intent fulfills the act (a notion reinforced by Jesus' ministry; sins of the flesh can occur in the mind) then we see that applying a consistent (as opposed to arbitrary or opportunistic) perspective to the Bible, in order to accommodate your stance, we must call various critical elements of the Biblical message into question.
Now, I'm all well and fine with that, it's just that most Biblical advocates I know like to reinforce notions of the Bible's consistency and legitimacy, not undermine them.
To each their own, indeed.
And, such as the Biblical God is considered to be the Supreme Being (and therefore authority), and also the creator of life, it would seem that people are as God creates them.
Ah, well, that just clears everything up, then.
Of course, this situation, too, is as God wills. For, as you have noted, God is considered the Supreme being and therefore authority.
Incorrect. How is it that I come to know the Bible better than its advocates?
From the Bible:
•_The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen. 2.16-17)
• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)
•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)
As you can see, Lady, you are incorrect when you write that they did eat of the tree of life.
Perhaps it's time to rethink that understanding, since it is based in an incorrect assertion of Biblical contents.
There are many things worth dying for. The world itself and the perpetuity of the human species are quite high on that list.
However, God, being Alpha and Omega, being Supreme Being and creator of life, foresaw this outcome, chose to execute the plan, anyway, and yet still holds people morally responsible. If God cannot fix the situation, well ... strike a point for Immutable Will and sack god's unbound authority.
Now this does strike me as odd.
Accepting, for argument's sake, that this really is the best God could do, why, then, does God lie to people? It would appear that there are fairly narrow limits to God's authority, and while I haven't a problem with that, I must admit that the boundaries fall well inside the projected scope of God's power even according to the Bible.
And when someone stalks you in a parking lot and puts a knife to your throat and f--ks you senseless at the stake of your life, remember that you can't charge him with rape because you chose that it should happen.
As a general question, rhetorical per se, that does not apply solely to you, What is it with people and duress? Is this really the "freedom" we seek?
Or, to put it simply: "You are free to do what I say or be punished if you do not."
At least you're free.
Get in the van, baby. Get in the stinkin' van.
Well, personally, I think the whole Christian establishment could stand a rethinking of its sexual mores. I mean, really--if you take generations of men and ask them to deal with people's marital and sexual problems and ask them to devote that much attention to sexuality while prohibiting them contact most essential to the human condition, things will happen. Duh.
If there's anything that upsets me about the Catholic scandal outside the fact that children are being abused, it's that this focus on men abusing boys continues a long tradition of overlooking churches of all sects covering up for child abuse within the flock.
One thing you must still learn, Lady, in order to deal with sexual deviance maturely, you must first deal with sexuality in a mature fashion.
And once upon a time, I was taught that God created the world as told over the course of a few pages at the front of the Bible. In time, I learned more accurate descriptions of function in the Universe.
Um ... that makes a difference.
Perhaps you could explain how that makes a difference.
Are the animals going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Oh, shite! Maybe God should have created them to be capable of recognizing the self inasmuch as they might then be able to recognize the idea of a personal savior.
Imagine that ... a dog smart enough to read. Or a penguin, for that matter.
By what definition of the word sexual? In the reproductive sense, homosexuality isn't a sexual act. People think it is a sexual act because it has to do with genitalia. But that superficial identification is it.
A question to you directly, Lady, but a rhetorical one for reflection: What about homosexuality is so important to a person as to cause them to shatter faith platforms or logical processes in the broader aspects of their lives in order to achieve this step along a narrow path?
In other words, it seems to me that many or most homophobes tend to be so determined to spread their condemnation of homosexuality that they're willing to rewrite their own logical platforms within that specific issue, creating massive contrasts between the expressed paradigm and the expressed results within that paradigm.
For instance, in our discussion, I've seen you wriggling to evade data that indicates that homosexual contact occurs in nature; I've seen you assert that duress equals free will; I've seen you base an assertion on an incorrect reading of the Bible ... it's time to ask you a very specific question, and this one can be taken as rhetorical or as direct; it's up to you: Are you really a Christian, or are you just an atheist provocateur? In the case of the former, I can only urge you to take more time with the scriptures of your faith until you can demonstrate a more fundamental knowledge of the ideas upon which you stake your principles. In the case of the latter, I must ask you to cease this sick dalliance with pseudo-Christianity; as a public exhibition, it seems a malicious parody of undereducated superstition.
That's your lack of compassion to answer for at Judgment.
Just because it's easier to pretend that people who think like you are right and people who don't are wrong does not make it so. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand people, since your explorations of their obligations to God according to the Bible has run so sour.
Well, because idiots claiming to be Christians make it an issue. Oregon, for instance, where the 1990s were dominated politically by a Christian group working to cause the state to intentionally and forcefully discriminate against homosexuals. Colorado actually had its Amendment 2 hacked to pieces in federal court as an offense to the constitution. In Vermont, Christians are very upset that domestic benefits should be extended to homosexual partners. Donald Wildmon's Christian ministry has called for a boycott of Disney for extending benefits to homosexual partners. It would seem that, when a Christian chooses to persecute, it is up to the target to either lie there and take it or else resist. And when the language of the debate is put so childishly as Christians have put it for twelve years (in my lifetime) and longer (in general), it becomes very obvious that in order to communicate with this spiteful lobby, one must stoop to their level of communication. While I'm not a fan of baby-talk to children, and while I will read cosmological theory to children, I don't necessarily expect them to understand it the same way I do. Factors that affect my perception and retelling of said cosmology may include those which the children have not yet had the chance to experience. And while I'm not recommending baby-talk all around, I do recognize--and the gay community seems to recognize--the need to attempt to communicate with their Christian persecutors according to the necessary dialect. If Christians choose to point out that God hates homosexuality, then homosexuals ought to point out that if God hates it, He shouldn't have made it.
Perhaps in that sense the Christians just don't understand: so long as they meddle in other people's lives, they're going to hear these responses. As much as Christians would often like to silence the infidels, it simply doesn't work that way. My recommendation to you: if you don't want homosexuals saying God made them that way, then help the homosexuals get the angry, hateful Christians out of their lives, and out of the public eye.
And, in that sense, you would be doing your faith and your God a huge favor.
And yet you don't see them as part of your community; you see them as something different that apparently needs to be observed, examined, and judged. Your choice to care that anyone is gay at all speaks to your priorities.
Then treat them as such.
Period.
You mean that "Choice" which you have utterly failed to establish in light of the evidence and ideas presented?
You know, it would be better off if they did. Because then they would be able to wonder what that means. And some of them might figure it out. In the meantime, homosexuality is not a crime in most states in this union, crack smoking is. Of course, I'm also one who advocates legalization of drugs so that we can finally haul the addicts out into the sunlight and make them taking a look at themselves without fearing Officer Friendly. Take a look at homosexuality: it's legal in most states and people have an easier time examining the issues related to homosexuality because nobody's in danger of being investigated for felonies for having ties to gay people. It's a much better climate. Hell, if the crackheads blamed God, they would have a point. What they did with that point would still be up to them, but they would have a point. If nothing happens without God's will ....
If you say so. Perhaps next time you should base your feelings in reality, instead of a rewritten Bible.
A couple of points:
(A) This is different from heterosexuality how?
(B) Let me know next time you're in Seattle. I'll happily take you out clubbing. And then you can see a number of things, such as (1) gay people going home with "whomever", (2) straight people going home with "whomever", (3) gay people going home with their stable partner, (4) straight people going home with their stable partner, (5) people of both orientations going home to look at porno and masturbate.
I guarantee you, it will take all of five minutes to show that entire range of people.
Eventually you will come to understand that if you and other Christians choose to leave God out of the argument, or, better yet, choose human tolerance and merely accept people as they are, the gays will stop worrying so much about how God made them. As long people choose to examine the issues at all, the issues must be examined.
None that I know of, but here's a hint: most of the wizards you come across, for all the fancy talk, will be approximately the equivalent of mystical "televangelism". Sure, they won't have huge ministries, but they'll be about as silly and pretentious, and even offensive.
Perhaps in the near future I'll put together a how-to guide on surviving the mountain of allegedly-sorcerous material out there. Don't worry, aside from the friends you choose, the biggest danger is boring yourself to death somewhere in the middle of Barrett or Mathers.
thanx,
Tiassa
Voodoo ...
Two cents on finger length ... I happened to catch a bit on TLC a few weeks back, part of the "How to Build a Human" series, in which a British scientist spoke about finger length and hormones.
It seems that by taking a ratio of your right index finger and your right ring finger, you can determine certain things about males. Theoretically, the ring-to-index ratio is representative of a testosterone/estrogen ratio.
A couple of things to throw in there:
• The producers of the series interviewed a woman who was genetically male. She had female anatomy, no menstrual cycle, and an XY chromosome. The difference, they have determined, appears to be hormonal.
• The British doctor who had theories on finger length was invited down to a track meet whereupon he measured the fingers of the runners and then projected the outcome of the race using no other statistical advice. He called the race perfectly, in order.
Take that for what it's worth. I find it quite intriguing.
thanx,
Tiassa
Voodoo--
Two cents on finger length ... I happened to catch a bit on TLC a few weeks back, part of the "How to Build a Human" series, in which a British scientist spoke about finger length and hormones.
It seems that by taking a ratio of your right index finger and your right ring finger, you can determine certain things about males. Theoretically, the ring-to-index ratio is representative of a testosterone/estrogen ratio.
A couple of things to throw in there:
• The producers of the series interviewed a woman who was genetically male. She had female anatomy, no menstrual cycle, and an XY chromosome. The difference, they have determined, appears to be hormonal.
• The British doctor who had theories on finger length was invited down to a track meet whereupon he measured the fingers of the runners and then projected the outcome of the race using no other statistical advice. He called the race perfectly, in order.
Take that for what it's worth. I find it quite intriguing.
thanx,
Tiassa
Re: Wow, Lady ... that was ... uh, yeah.
Tissa,
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.It seems, Lady, that by your logic, Abraham did not make any sacrifice unto the Lord. Yet the Lord finds that in Abraham's intent to carry through with the sacrifice that the act of sacrifice has been fulfilled. By what token is homosexuality so important to God that he should bless someone for offering a "smaller sin"? After all, if intent fulfills the act (a notion reinforced by Jesus' ministry; sins of the flesh can occur in the mind) then we see that applying a consistent (as opposed to arbitrary or opportunistic) perspective to the Bible, in order to accommodate your stance, we must call various critical elements of the Biblical message into question.
** Sounds like you have a problem with God and if you really wanted answer's you would go to him. However I read Abraham's story (God testing Abraham's loyalty).... I don't find God blessing Lot but rather angels trying to get them out of Sodom& Gommorah and if you discredit God so much perhaps you should rethink your own book, the one that claims being thrown in a river, in which wizards, prepare you for the Glory Of God.
To each their own, indeed.And, such as the Biblical God is considered to be the Supreme Being (and therefore authority), and also the creator of life, it would seem that people are as God creates them.Ah, well, that just clears everything up, then.
** So.........he created you to discredit him or did you choose too. People are given choices(Free Moral Agency) being that God is infinite he knew who would accept salvation and who wouldn't.I Know you don't believe in the Bible so what does Your God say about Homosexuality, Pedafilian's, Incest,and those who have sex with animals? Is it Right, Wrong? What?
From the Bible:
•_The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen. 2.16-17)
• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)
•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)
except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."[/font] (Gen. 2.16-17)
• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)
•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)
The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
** Sounds like the Tree OF Life is included.
One thing you must still learn, Lady, in order to deal with sexual deviance maturely, you must first deal with sexuality in a mature fashion.And once upon a time, I was taught that God created the world as told over the course of a few pages at the front of the Bible. In time, I learned more accurate descriptions of function in the Universe.Um ... that makes a difference.
** who created the world?
A question to you directly, Lady, but a rhetorical one for reflection: What about homosexuality is so important to a person as to cause them to shatter faith platforms or logical processes in the broader aspects of their lives in order to achieve this step along a narrow path?
** They don't have the Fear Of God or don't believe in him.
People think it is a sexual act because it has to do with genitalia.
** Sounds sexual to me.........The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary would disagree with you.
Are the animals going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Oh, shite! Maybe God should have created them to be capable of recognizing the self inasmuch as they might then be able to recognize the idea of a personal savior.
Imagine that ... a dog smart enough to read. Or a penguin, for that matter.By what definition of the word sexual? In the reproductive sense, homosexuality isn't a sexual act.But that superficial identification is it.
** This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)
In other words, it seems to me that many or most homophobes tend to be so determined to spread their condemnation of homosexuality that they're willing to rewrite their own logical platforms within that specific issue, creating massive contrasts between the expressed paradigm and the expressed results within that paradigm.
** I ONLY ASKED WHY HOMOSEXUALS CLAIM GOD CREATED THEM GAY(CONTRADICTORY TO BIBLE),HOW SHOULD IT BE EXPLAINED TO THE YOUTH, AND LAST SCIENCE HASN'T BACKED THE CREATION PART. BUT NEVER DID I CONDEM. THE FORUM WENT CRAZY FROM THERE.
For instance, in our discussion, I've seen you wriggling to evade data that indicates that homosexual contact occurs in nature; I've seen you assert that duress equals free will; I've seen you base an assertion on an incorrect reading of the Bible ... it's time to ask you a very specific question, and this one can be taken as rhetorical or as direct; it's up to you: Are you really a Christian, or are you just an atheist provocateur? In the case of the former, I can only urge you to take more time with the scriptures of your faith until you can demonstrate a more fundamental knowledge of the ideas upon which you stake your principles. In the case of the latter, I must ask you to cease this sick dalliance with pseudo-Christianity; as a public exhibition, it seems a malicious parody of undereducated superstition.That's your lack of compassion to answer for at Judgment.
** I never avoided the material posted about animals.......let's be honest. And as far as duress equal free will......what are you talking about? Free Moral Agency? There's no restriction's there....... I'm I a christian? Or you a witch hidden under the word Pagan?
Just because it's easier to pretend that people who think like you are right and people who don't are wrong does not make it so. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand people, since your explorations of their obligations to God according to the Bible has run so sour.Well, because idiots claiming to be Christians make it an issue. Oregon, for instance, where the 1990s were dominated politically by a Christian group working to cause the state to intentionally and forcefully discriminate against homosexuals. Colorado actually had its Amendment 2 hacked to pieces in federal court as an offense to the constitution. In Vermont, Christians are very upset that domestic benefits should be extended to homosexual partners. Donald Wildmon's Christian ministry has called for a boycott of Disney for extending benefits to homosexual partners. It would seem that, when a Christian chooses to persecute, it is up to the target to either lie there and take it or else resist. And when the language of the debate is put so childishly as Christians have put it for twelve years (in my lifetime) and longer (in general), it becomes very obvious that in order to communicate with this spiteful lobby, one must stoop to their level of communication. While I'm not a fan of baby-talk to children, and while I will read cosmological theory to children, I don't necessarily expect them to understand it the same way I do. Factors that affect my perception and retelling of said cosmology may include those which the children have not yet had the chance to experience. And while I'm not recommending baby-talk all around, I do recognize--and the gay community seems to recognize--the need to attempt to communicate with their Christian persecutors according to the necessary dialect. If Christians choose to point out that God hates homosexuality, then homosexuals ought to point out that if God hates it, He shouldn't have made it.
** once again I never said God hate homosexuality he did.....not the person the act...... but on what basis can homosexuals make such claims(created Gay) ...Science? Bible? This is the Question?
Perhaps in that sense the Christians just don't understand: so long as they meddle in other people's lives, they're going to hear these responses. As much as Christians would often like to silence the infidels, it simply doesn't work that way. My recommendation to you: if you don't want homosexuals saying God made them that way, then help the homosexuals get the angry, hateful Christians out of their lives, and out of the public eye.
** Perhaps if they didn't make such claims they wouldn't get the Christian's attention. (leave God out of it)
Period.You mean that "Choice" which you have utterly failed to establish in light of the evidence and ideas presented?You know, it would be better off if they did. Because then they would be able to wonder what that means. And some of them might figure it out. In the meantime, homosexuality is not a crime in most states in this union, crack smoking is. Of course, I'm also one who advocates legalization of drugs so that we can finally haul the addicts out into the sunlight and make them taking a look at themselves without fearing Officer Friendly. Take a look at homosexuality: it's legal in most states and people have an easier time examining the issues related to homosexuality because nobody's in danger of being investigated for felonies for having ties to gay people. It's a much better climate. Hell, if the crackheads blamed God, they would have a point. What they did with that point would still be up to them, but they would have a point. If nothing happens without God's will ....If you say so. Perhaps next time you should base your feelings in reality, instead of a rewritten Bible.A couple of points:
** What's so difficult about choice? you either do it or you don't
** Once again, I have gay familly members and friends who recently went gay(still friends) but none of this has to do with my topic. And I don't see where I have judged anyone.......ask question's, yes, exspecially when the homosexual's I deal with are atheist.
I guarantee you, it will take all of five minutes to show that entire range of people.Eventually you will come to understand that if you and other Christians choose to leave God out of the argument, or, better yet, choose human tolerance and merely accept people as they are, the gays will stop worrying so much about how God made them. As long people choose to examine the issues at all, the issues must be examined.None that I know of, but here's a hint: most of the wizards you come across, for all the fancy talk, will be approximately the equivalent of mystical "televangelism". Sure, they won't have huge ministries, but they'll be about as silly and pretentious, and even offensive.
**I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THIS POINT-------LEAVE GOD OUT OF IT(Amen)
Originally posted by tiassa
Oh, that makes it right.
On that note, why arrest anyone for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit a crime? If the crime doesn't occur, what is the problem with attempting it? To the other, the laws of man hardly apply to the laws of God, but on that same note, the logic you've offered presents problems with other traditional Biblical interpretations. As such, I'm wondering if you have any commentary on Genesis 22, in which God "put Abraham to the test" (22.1, NAB). You are, I take it, familiar with the story?
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.It seems, Lady, that by your logic, Abraham did not make any sacrifice unto the Lord. Yet the Lord finds that in Abraham's intent to carry through with the sacrifice that the act of sacrifice has been fulfilled. By what token is homosexuality so important to God that he should bless someone for offering a "smaller sin"? After all, if intent fulfills the act (a notion reinforced by Jesus' ministry; sins of the flesh can occur in the mind) then we see that applying a consistent (as opposed to arbitrary or opportunistic) perspective to the Bible, in order to accommodate your stance, we must call various critical elements of the Biblical message into question.
Now, I'm all well and fine with that, it's just that most Biblical advocates I know like to reinforce notions of the Bible's consistency and legitimacy, not undermine them.
To each their own, indeed.And, such as the Biblical God is considered to be the Supreme Being (and therefore authority), and also the creator of life, it would seem that people are as God creates them.Ah, well, that just clears everything up, then.
Of course, this situation, too, is as God wills. For, as you have noted, God is considered the Supreme being and therefore authority.Incorrect. How is it that I come to know the Bible better than its advocates?
As you can see, Lady, you are incorrect when you write that they did eat of the tree of life.Perhaps it's time to rethink that understanding, since it is based in an incorrect assertion of Biblical contents.There are many things worth dying for. The world itself and the perpetuity of the human species are quite high on that list.
The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
Accepting, for argument's sake, that this really is the best God could do, why, then, does God lie to people? It would appear that there are fairly narrow limits to God's authority, and while I haven't a problem with that, I must admit that the boundaries fall well inside the projected scope of God's power even according to the Bible.And when someone stalks you in a parking lot and puts a knife to your throat and f--ks you senseless at the stake of your life, remember that you can't charge him with rape because you chose that it should happen.
As a general question, rhetorical per se, that does not apply solely to you, What is it with people and duress? Is this really the "freedom" we seek?
Or, to put it simply: "You are free to do what I say or be punished if you do not."
At least you're free.
Get in the van, baby. Get in the stinkin' van.
If there's anything that upsets me about the Catholic scandal outside the fact that children are being abused, it's that this focus on men abusing boys continues a long tradition of overlooking churches of all sects covering up for child abuse within the flock.
Perhaps you could explain how that makes a difference.
(A) This is different from heterosexuality how?
(B) Let me know next time you're in Seattle. I'll happily take you out clubbing. And then you can see a number of things, such as (1) gay people going home with "whomever", (2) straight people going home with "whomever", (3) gay people going home with their stable partner, (4) straight people going home with their stable partner, (5) people of both orientations going home to look at porno and masturbate.
Perhaps in the near future I'll put together a how-to guide on surviving the mountain of allegedly-sorcerous material out there. Don't worry, aside from the friends you choose, the biggest danger is boring yourself to death somewhere in the middle of Barrett or Mathers.
thanx,
Tiassa
Tissa,
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Genesis 22: God comes to Abraham and says, "Take your only son, Isaac, to Moriah and offer him as a burnt sacrifice unto me." Essentially, Abraham does just that, and as he is prepared to set his son ablaze, God offers a second sacrifice, a ram trapped in a bush, to be given back to him in lieu of Abraham's son.It seems, Lady, that by your logic, Abraham did not make any sacrifice unto the Lord. Yet the Lord finds that in Abraham's intent to carry through with the sacrifice that the act of sacrifice has been fulfilled. By what token is homosexuality so important to God that he should bless someone for offering a "smaller sin"? After all, if intent fulfills the act (a notion reinforced by Jesus' ministry; sins of the flesh can occur in the mind) then we see that applying a consistent (as opposed to arbitrary or opportunistic) perspective to the Bible, in order to accommodate your stance, we must call various critical elements of the Biblical message into question.
** Sounds like you have a problem with God and if you really wanted answer's you would go to him. However I read Abraham's story (God testing Abraham's loyalty).... I don't find God blessing Lot but rather angels trying to get them out of Sodom& Gommorah and if you discredit God so much perhaps you should rethink your own book, the one that claims being thrown in a river, in which wizards, prepare you for the Glory Of God.
To each their own, indeed.And, such as the Biblical God is considered to be the Supreme Being (and therefore authority), and also the creator of life, it would seem that people are as God creates them.Ah, well, that just clears everything up, then.
** So.........he created you to discredit him or did you choose too. People are given choices(Free Moral Agency) being that God is infinite he knew who would accept salvation and who wouldn't.I Know you don't believe in the Bible so what does Your God say about Homosexuality, Pedafilian's, Incest,and those who have sex with animals? Is it Right, Wrong? What?
From the Bible:
•_The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen. 2.16-17)
• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)
•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)
except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."[/font] (Gen. 2.16-17)
• The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3.6-7)
•_Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Gen. 3.22-23)
The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
** Sounds like the Tree OF Life is included.
One thing you must still learn, Lady, in order to deal with sexual deviance maturely, you must first deal with sexuality in a mature fashion.And once upon a time, I was taught that God created the world as told over the course of a few pages at the front of the Bible. In time, I learned more accurate descriptions of function in the Universe.Um ... that makes a difference.
** who created the world?
A question to you directly, Lady, but a rhetorical one for reflection: What about homosexuality is so important to a person as to cause them to shatter faith platforms or logical processes in the broader aspects of their lives in order to achieve this step along a narrow path?
** They don't have the Fear Of God or don't believe in him.
People think it is a sexual act because it has to do with genitalia.
** Sounds sexual to me.........The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary would disagree with you.
Are the animals going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Oh, shite! Maybe God should have created them to be capable of recognizing the self inasmuch as they might then be able to recognize the idea of a personal savior.
Imagine that ... a dog smart enough to read. Or a penguin, for that matter.By what definition of the word sexual? In the reproductive sense, homosexuality isn't a sexual act.But that superficial identification is it.
** This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)
In other words, it seems to me that many or most homophobes tend to be so determined to spread their condemnation of homosexuality that they're willing to rewrite their own logical platforms within that specific issue, creating massive contrasts between the expressed paradigm and the expressed results within that paradigm.
** I ONLY ASKED WHY HOMOSEXUALS CLAIM GOD CREATED THEM GAY(CONTRADICTORY TO BIBLE),HOW SHOULD IT BE EXPLAINED TO THE YOUTH, AND LAST SCIENCE HASN'T BACKED THE CREATION PART. BUT NEVER DID I CONDEM. THE FORUM WENT CRAZY FROM THERE.
For instance, in our discussion, I've seen you wriggling to evade data that indicates that homosexual contact occurs in nature; I've seen you assert that duress equals free will; I've seen you base an assertion on an incorrect reading of the Bible ... it's time to ask you a very specific question, and this one can be taken as rhetorical or as direct; it's up to you: Are you really a Christian, or are you just an atheist provocateur? In the case of the former, I can only urge you to take more time with the scriptures of your faith until you can demonstrate a more fundamental knowledge of the ideas upon which you stake your principles. In the case of the latter, I must ask you to cease this sick dalliance with pseudo-Christianity; as a public exhibition, it seems a malicious parody of undereducated superstition.That's your lack of compassion to answer for at Judgment.
** I never avoided the material posted about animals.......let's be honest. And as far as duress equal free will......what are you talking about? Free Moral Agency? There's no restriction's there....... I'm I a christian? Or you a witch hidden under the word Pagan?
Just because it's easier to pretend that people who think like you are right and people who don't are wrong does not make it so. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand people, since your explorations of their obligations to God according to the Bible has run so sour.Well, because idiots claiming to be Christians make it an issue. Oregon, for instance, where the 1990s were dominated politically by a Christian group working to cause the state to intentionally and forcefully discriminate against homosexuals. Colorado actually had its Amendment 2 hacked to pieces in federal court as an offense to the constitution. In Vermont, Christians are very upset that domestic benefits should be extended to homosexual partners. Donald Wildmon's Christian ministry has called for a boycott of Disney for extending benefits to homosexual partners. It would seem that, when a Christian chooses to persecute, it is up to the target to either lie there and take it or else resist. And when the language of the debate is put so childishly as Christians have put it for twelve years (in my lifetime) and longer (in general), it becomes very obvious that in order to communicate with this spiteful lobby, one must stoop to their level of communication. While I'm not a fan of baby-talk to children, and while I will read cosmological theory to children, I don't necessarily expect them to understand it the same way I do. Factors that affect my perception and retelling of said cosmology may include those which the children have not yet had the chance to experience. And while I'm not recommending baby-talk all around, I do recognize--and the gay community seems to recognize--the need to attempt to communicate with their Christian persecutors according to the necessary dialect. If Christians choose to point out that God hates homosexuality, then homosexuals ought to point out that if God hates it, He shouldn't have made it.
** once again I never said God hate homosexuality he did.....not the person the act...... but on what basis can homosexuals make such claims(created Gay) ...Science? Bible? This is the Question?
Perhaps in that sense the Christians just don't understand: so long as they meddle in other people's lives, they're going to hear these responses. As much as Christians would often like to silence the infidels, it simply doesn't work that way. My recommendation to you: if you don't want homosexuals saying God made them that way, then help the homosexuals get the angry, hateful Christians out of their lives, and out of the public eye.
** Perhaps if they didn't make such claims they wouldn't get the Christian's attention. (leave God out of it)
Period.You mean that "Choice" which you have utterly failed to establish in light of the evidence and ideas presented?You know, it would be better off if they did. Because then they would be able to wonder what that means. And some of them might figure it out. In the meantime, homosexuality is not a crime in most states in this union, crack smoking is. Of course, I'm also one who advocates legalization of drugs so that we can finally haul the addicts out into the sunlight and make them taking a look at themselves without fearing Officer Friendly. Take a look at homosexuality: it's legal in most states and people have an easier time examining the issues related to homosexuality because nobody's in danger of being investigated for felonies for having ties to gay people. It's a much better climate. Hell, if the crackheads blamed God, they would have a point. What they did with that point would still be up to them, but they would have a point. If nothing happens without God's will ....If you say so. Perhaps next time you should base your feelings in reality, instead of a rewritten Bible.A couple of points:
** What's so difficult about choice? you either do it or you don't
** Once again, I have gay familly members and friends who recently went gay(still friends) but none of this has to do with my topic. And I don't see where I have judged anyone.......ask question's, yes, exspecially when the homosexual's I deal with are atheist.
I guarantee you, it will take all of five minutes to show that entire range of people.Eventually you will come to understand that if you and other Christians choose to leave God out of the argument, or, better yet, choose human tolerance and merely accept people as they are, the gays will stop worrying so much about how God made them. As long people choose to examine the issues at all, the issues must be examined.None that I know of, but here's a hint: most of the wizards you come across, for all the fancy talk, will be approximately the equivalent of mystical "televangelism". Sure, they won't have huge ministries, but they'll be about as silly and pretentious, and even offensive.
**I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THIS POINT-------LEAVE GOD OUT OF IT(Amen)
"I don't believe it" just isn't a good answer
Like I said, just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's knowledge. The process I described for you can be found in the fantasy novels of Steven Brust.
In other words, if that God be true, then yes, my sentiments are according to His Will.
• Homosexuality--doesn't matter
• Pedophilia--this bears issues both of developmental health and consent. In fact, it serves well to demonstrate: child sexual abuse would not be as sexually traumatizing to the child if society in general was just a little less anal-retentive about matters sexual and biological. To the other, some of those pedophiles might not land in extremis. However, even with those considerations, we still see tremendous health hazards coming from sexual intercourse with children. Even if the grown-ups grew up enough to f--k their children without f--king them up, the stellar amount of developmental damage such intercourse causes rules out pedophilia as far too risky to submit anyone to, much less a child. I mean, sex with a thirteen year-old girl can triple her chance for cervical cancer. That's just a little ridiculous. But whether God creates a pedophile at the genetic level or molds one through the trials and conditions of life, God still wills the condition that results. A note from P.J. O'Rourke: Parents should never try to screw their children, except in their Will.
• Incest--I am tremendously against incest, however I will not deny two consenting adults their right to do whatever the hell makes them feel good.
• Bestialism--For something so ... seemingly distasteful, American culture has a thing for bestialism. Every guy I know has seen one or another video of either a woman blowing a horse or a woman f--king her dog. After drinking heavily, horsegag.avi was not something I was happy a friend showed me. The dog? Be careful what you wish for when you go looking for college-dorm porn. However, I can say in either case that the animals seemed to enjoy themselves, so I'm prone to say I don't want to hear about it, and that will make me happy enough.
Really, what is your point with that?
I quote Floyd: "Is there anybody out there?"
Why are you so afraid of homosexuality that you're devoting this much effort to it?
That you choose to separate it as an idea for examination indicates that it holds some sort of priority in your life. What is that priority? Why is it so important to you to identify homosexuality?
And where in the Bible does it say that God didn't create homosexuals?
Do you realize that for your talk of demons and so forth to have any legitimacy, God must either be weak enough to be unable to stop the evil or else God must will it.
Deal with it, Lady.
Think of it this way: if you choose (A) you get a shiny reward. If you choose (B) I will punish you.
Now think of it this way: Why charge anyone with rape? After all, the woman made a choice.
What's that? Duress? Ah ....
What are the limits of God's power?
Answer that question straight, and then we'll get back to this.
Haven't you figured out that as long as God is the Supreme Authority in the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, as long as God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately responsible for everything in the Universe?
Now: What are the limits of God's power?
What is so difficult about understanding that a gay person does not "choose" to like or dislike sexual contact any more than a person chooses to like or dislike a particular food? String beans just don't do it for me. I hate the things. Nobody in a million years can convince me string beans are a pleasant eating experience. Likewise, nobody in a million years can convince a gay person that heterosexual contact is better.
Easy enough?
Besides: Jesus was gay (I love this essay ... you'll see the problems that occur when Christians make people's sexual mores community business. Christianity in general has heaps of dirty laundry, and every once in a while, it has to get aired.
Do you have any divorced friends or family, Lady? Did any of them remarry? How do you explain their sins to the poor children?
thanx,
Tiassa
Which speaks nothing toward intent to act. The problem I have with such a miniscule god as presented in the Bible is, actually, quite irrelevant. Stop running from the issue.
My, my, good Lady. Is there a problem?
Like I said, just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's knowledge. The process I described for you can be found in the fantasy novels of Steven Brust.
Such as life is, such as it should be. Realize that you never actually perceive the present. It's all history by the time it hits your eyes and ears. It's kind of like looking at the equation after you've calculated it. The solution is the only one that could be, given the factors. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't.
In other words, if that God be true, then yes, my sentiments are according to His Will.
Doesn't change the fact that He made them that way.
Going down the list:
• Homosexuality--doesn't matter
• Pedophilia--this bears issues both of developmental health and consent. In fact, it serves well to demonstrate: child sexual abuse would not be as sexually traumatizing to the child if society in general was just a little less anal-retentive about matters sexual and biological. To the other, some of those pedophiles might not land in extremis. However, even with those considerations, we still see tremendous health hazards coming from sexual intercourse with children. Even if the grown-ups grew up enough to f--k their children without f--king them up, the stellar amount of developmental damage such intercourse causes rules out pedophilia as far too risky to submit anyone to, much less a child. I mean, sex with a thirteen year-old girl can triple her chance for cervical cancer. That's just a little ridiculous. But whether God creates a pedophile at the genetic level or molds one through the trials and conditions of life, God still wills the condition that results. A note from P.J. O'Rourke: Parents should never try to screw their children, except in their Will.
• Incest--I am tremendously against incest, however I will not deny two consenting adults their right to do whatever the hell makes them feel good.
• Bestialism--For something so ... seemingly distasteful, American culture has a thing for bestialism. Every guy I know has seen one or another video of either a woman blowing a horse or a woman f--king her dog. After drinking heavily, horsegag.avi was not something I was happy a friend showed me. The dog? Be careful what you wish for when you go looking for college-dorm porn. However, I can say in either case that the animals seemed to enjoy themselves, so I'm prone to say I don't want to hear about it, and that will make me happy enough.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Really, what is your point with that?
I figure humankind will either figure that out or not. In the meantime, I still don't get why there has to be a Who. That seems entirely your own problem.
This from someone who got the Bible wrong? Wouldn't the Fear of God compel you to get it right?
Then I think the researchers were seeing a sexual act, don't you?
You still haven't figured out the fact that God wills them to behave that way.
I quote Floyd: "Is there anybody out there?"
Well I answered the original question ages ago. What, weren't you paying attention?
Why are you so afraid of homosexuality that you're devoting this much effort to it?
That you choose to separate it as an idea for examination indicates that it holds some sort of priority in your life. What is that priority? Why is it so important to you to identify homosexuality?
And where in the Bible does it say that God didn't create homosexuals?
Do you realize that for your talk of demons and so forth to have any legitimacy, God must either be weak enough to be unable to stop the evil or else God must will it.
You did have a problem with homosexual contact occurring in nature. As I look up at your words, I see it's still an issue: This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)
Deal with it, Lady.
Well, get in the van ...
Think of it this way: if you choose (A) you get a shiny reward. If you choose (B) I will punish you.
Now think of it this way: Why charge anyone with rape? After all, the woman made a choice.
What's that? Duress? Ah ....
No matter how I segregated or integrated this with the rest of that alleged paragraph of yours, this doesn't seem to make any sense. Is there some inner significance in these words that I'm missing? Or is it just argumentative "filler"?
A three word question just flashed through my mind, but I'll let it slide for right now.
What are the limits of God's power?
Answer that question straight, and then we'll get back to this.
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Figure it out, Lady: If Christians hadn't used the Bible in an effort to compel the law to suspend civil and human rights on the basis of the gender of one's sexual partner, nobody would give a fuck whether God created anyone as they are.
Haven't you figured out that as long as God is the Supreme Authority in the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, as long as God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately responsible for everything in the Universe?
Now: What are the limits of God's power?
Yeah, tell that to the woman who chose to be gang-raped instead of having her throat slit.
What is so difficult about understanding that a gay person does not "choose" to like or dislike sexual contact any more than a person chooses to like or dislike a particular food? String beans just don't do it for me. I hate the things. Nobody in a million years can convince me string beans are a pleasant eating experience. Likewise, nobody in a million years can convince a gay person that heterosexual contact is better.
So why do you feel the need to "explain" their behavior, such as the topic goes?
I just find your thick-headedness to be offensive and spiteful.
So get it through your head: The homosexuals will leave God out of it when the bloody fucking Christians do!
Easy enough?
Besides: Jesus was gay (I love this essay ... you'll see the problems that occur when Christians make people's sexual mores community business. Christianity in general has heaps of dirty laundry, and every once in a while, it has to get aired.
Do you have any divorced friends or family, Lady? Did any of them remarry? How do you explain their sins to the poor children?
thanx,
Tiassa
Tiassa, I read the article on "When Christ was Gay" and I will fully admit that their are LOTS of Christians who are most hippocritical. However, plenty of them do live the way they profess to.
Of course, LOTS of movements and religious people, and scientists, and politicians are ALL hippocritical. It's human nature to be that way. I can give some great examples but that distracts from the subject at hand.
By condemning Christianity as a whole because not all of them practice what they preach, you are making sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people - a disrespect no one would ever tolerate if they applied it to blacks, feminists, liberals, greenpeacers, and plenty of others groups where plenty of people practice what they preach while others are total hippocrits.
If you have a beef with Christianity that's okay!! Lots of people do. But, don't condemn people who live that way as a whole based on the actions of SOME of them.
Of course, LOTS of movements and religious people, and scientists, and politicians are ALL hippocritical. It's human nature to be that way. I can give some great examples but that distracts from the subject at hand.
By condemning Christianity as a whole because not all of them practice what they preach, you are making sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people - a disrespect no one would ever tolerate if they applied it to blacks, feminists, liberals, greenpeacers, and plenty of others groups where plenty of people practice what they preach while others are total hippocrits.
If you have a beef with Christianity that's okay!! Lots of people do. But, don't condemn people who live that way as a whole based on the actions of SOME of them.
Xevious--care to be any less ... general?
Very simply, Xevious, this topic is about homosexuality in various contexts, as asked by Lady. Thus, if you have a specific complaint about the way I've treated Christianity, document it and ask me about it. You might find your perception of it is wrong, although I do understand it's easier for you to take the route you have.
However, when we get right down to it, this isn't just about hypocrites. Even those who are "genuine" Christians subscribe to an arrogant, deceptive religious paradigm. I try not to blame children who are brainwashed by their parents, but as with racists, I expect adults to know right and wrong. I mean, what's the difference between a "genuine" racist and someone who just likes to use the word "nigger" all the time? Should we have more respect for the "genuine" racist because he or she isn't hypocritical, and actually means it when using insulting words?
So deal with it. The choice to be a Christian is not one I have a tremendous amount of respect for. It's tough to do it right, I admit, but I don't intend to spend my life wandering the earth with my lantern held high looking for an honest Christian. Especially since most of the people I know who have approached that state have altered their religious paradigm in order to escape the constraints of Christianity. That degree of integrity seems to defy Christian capability, but since that's merely observational and experiential in my life, I can see how I'm absolutely imagining it.
In the meantime, which generalizations specifically would you like to undertake? We can do it publicly, you can PM me, you can email me. Go ahead and ask the question. At worst you might get an answer. At best, you might actually have a point to make. But I won't know until you tell me and we discuss those very issues. In the meantime, don't generalize about my generalizations. It's pretty silly when you do.
thanx,
Tiassa
While this is technically a distraction, I feel it merits a response.
Very simply, Xevious, this topic is about homosexuality in various contexts, as asked by Lady. Thus, if you have a specific complaint about the way I've treated Christianity, document it and ask me about it. You might find your perception of it is wrong, although I do understand it's easier for you to take the route you have.
However, when we get right down to it, this isn't just about hypocrites. Even those who are "genuine" Christians subscribe to an arrogant, deceptive religious paradigm. I try not to blame children who are brainwashed by their parents, but as with racists, I expect adults to know right and wrong. I mean, what's the difference between a "genuine" racist and someone who just likes to use the word "nigger" all the time? Should we have more respect for the "genuine" racist because he or she isn't hypocritical, and actually means it when using insulting words?
So deal with it. The choice to be a Christian is not one I have a tremendous amount of respect for. It's tough to do it right, I admit, but I don't intend to spend my life wandering the earth with my lantern held high looking for an honest Christian. Especially since most of the people I know who have approached that state have altered their religious paradigm in order to escape the constraints of Christianity. That degree of integrity seems to defy Christian capability, but since that's merely observational and experiential in my life, I can see how I'm absolutely imagining it.
In the meantime, which generalizations specifically would you like to undertake? We can do it publicly, you can PM me, you can email me. Go ahead and ask the question. At worst you might get an answer. At best, you might actually have a point to make. But I won't know until you tell me and we discuss those very issues. In the meantime, don't generalize about my generalizations. It's pretty silly when you do.
thanx,
Tiassa
Tiassa, I come to think it's pointless to debate with you because you sound like you so sure of your position and you yourself are so intollerant that it's useless to even try to present another point of view. I can see already you seem to look down upon me.
If I will not be respected even from the get-go their is no point. You in turn will not be respected. It's funny for someone who preaches tollerance and detests hippocracy that you show it in your own actions.
If I will not be respected even from the get-go their is no point. You in turn will not be respected. It's funny for someone who preaches tollerance and detests hippocracy that you show it in your own actions.
Re: "I don't believe it" just isn't a good answer
Tiassa,
B]Which speaks nothing toward intent to act. The problem I have with such a miniscule god as presented in the Bible is, actually, quite irrelevant. Stop running from the issue.My, my, good Lady. Is there a problem
** Unlike us God is able to raise the dead had he gone through with it.But we come to find out it was a faith tester. Eventually God would sacrifice his own son.(a moment between God & his prophet)
In other words, if that God be true, then yes, my sentiments are according to His Will.Doesn't change the fact that He made them that way.Going down the list:
• Homosexuality--doesn't matter
• Pedophilia--this bears issues both of developmental health and consent. In fact, it serves well to demonstrate: child sexual abuse would not be as sexually traumatizing to the child if society in general was just a little less anal-retentive about matters sexual and biological. To the other, some of those pedophiles might not land in extremis. However, even with those considerations, we still see tremendous health hazards coming from sexual intercourse with children. Even if the grown-ups grew up enough to f--k their children without f--king them up, the stellar amount of developmental damage such intercourse causes rules out pedophilia as far too risky to submit anyone to, much less a child. I mean, sex with a thirteen year-old girl can triple her chance for cervical cancer. That's just a little ridiculous. But whether God creates a pedophile at the genetic level or molds one through the trials and conditions of life, God still wills the condition that results. A note from P.J. O'Rourke: Parents should never try to screw their children, except in their Will.
• Incest--I am tremendously against incest, however I will not deny two consenting adults their right to do whatever the hell makes them feel good.
• Bestialism--For something so ... seemingly distasteful, American culture has a thing for bestialism. Every guy I know has seen one or another video of either a woman blowing a horse or a woman f--king her dog. After drinking heavily, horsegag.avi was not something I was happy a friend showed me. The dog? Be careful what you wish for when you go looking for college-dorm porn. However, I can say in either case that the animals seemed to enjoy themselves, so I'm prone to say I don't want to hear about it, and that will make me happy enough.I'm not sure what your point is.
** You're the first to admitt God made pedafilian,homosexuality, and bestialism or willed it.............basically you don't believe Satan has a role in anything? If Satan were out of the picture none of the above would exist...behavior's created by Satan to make man fall. When I speak of Free Moral Agency look at it this way- there's all kinds of temptations Satan's worldy delights and God's provided way. But in order for God not to be a Tyrant he allowed Satan to use his tactics......therefore man aren't forced to worship God but have a choice .........I think this is more of a permissive will rather than his perfect will.
** I tryed to make the point earlier if homosexuality is accepted as creation rather than choice.....than those who committ the behavior's above can also make the same claims,and you admitted that. If it's more of creation theory rather than choice we have no right to condem pedafiles, incest, beastality, and other deviant behaviors- if it's a God given desire. I personally don't believe that but you already know that.
Really, what is your point with that?I figure humankind will either figure that out or not. In the meantime, I still don't get why there has to be a Who. That seems entirely your own problem.This from someone who got the Bible wrong? Wouldn't the Fear of God compel you to get it right?Then I think the researchers were seeing a sexual act, don't you?You still haven't figured out the fact that God wills them to behave that way.
** You mentioned God didn't created the world...why should humankind have to figure it out.....if you have the answer?
^And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of EVERY tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.
** The Tree Of Life is included in the trees they could eat from.only after the fall was they no longer allowed to eat of the Tree Of Life.
** Temptation is set forth so that mankind can make a choice. God doesn't force people to worship him......and this is why Satan is allowed to use his tactic's.......but no one force's us on the choices we make pertaining to (Free Moral Agency) (FMA) has nothing to do with being forced in a van or raped.
Why are you so afraid of homosexuality that you're devoting this much effort to it?
That you choose to separate it as an idea for examination indicates that it holds some sort of priority in your life. What is that priority? Why is it so important to you to identify homosexuality?
** I believe God when he say's he didn't create homosexual or any deviant behaviors(for that matter) As I mentioned before I have relatives and friends who enjoy homosexual relations as well as hetero relations. And I don't see how telling people they can't change helps. I know it has to be a personal experience with a individual & God before many believe him. However my world would be upside down if God purposely created people so he could abhor them and throw them in hell. People need to know they can change and God is there not to judge but to love and save. Seek him.
What are the limits of God's power?
** Ask him..........develope a relationship despite all the things you heard about God.......question the bible.........question him. At least he'll see your interested in knowing. You' ll be amazed in some of the way's he answer's.
Do you realize that for your talk of demons and so forth to have any legitimacy, God must either be weak enough to be unable to stop the evil or else God must will it.You did have a problem with homosexual contact occurring in nature. As I look up at your words, I see it's still an issue: This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)
** Satan knows his time is short......
** Mankind can either choose between God or Satan........(God is not a Tyrant)
** I also mentioned I don't believe animals have sex anytime they want to but rather during mating season nor can the students prove it was a sexual act in the animal kingdom. Sure if a human see's a gorilla grabbing another gorilla's private's of course were going to think sexual. It is sexual to us.
Answer that question straight, and then we'll get back to this.Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Figure it out, Lady: If Christians hadn't used the Bible in an effort to compel the law to suspend civil and human rights on the basis of the gender of one's sexual partner, nobody would give a fuck whether God created anyone as they are.
**I do know people use the Bible for their own agenda's and twist the word therin but don't get upset with me.
Haven't you figured out that as long as God is the Supreme Authority in the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, as long as God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately responsible for everything in the Universe?
** I've always know that God is ultimate but he is not responsible for our choices, sure he may have allowed Satan to use tactic's to make us fall but he also provided a way out. Man has a choice to either Serve God or Satan .......we aren't forced to serve God and in order for that to be so there had to be another......option (Satan)
What is so difficult about understanding that a gay person does not "choose" to like or dislike sexual contact any more than a person chooses to like or dislike a particular food? String beans just don't do it for me. I hate the things. Nobody in a million years can convince me string beans are a pleasant eating experience. Likewise, nobody in a million years can convince a gay person that heterosexual contact is better.So why do you feel the need to "explain" their behavior, such as the topic goes?I just find your thick-headedness to be offensive and spiteful.So get it through your head: The homosexuals will leave God out of it when the bloody fucking Christians do![/i
**Perhaps you should watch Jerry Springer, where self proclaimed homosexuals change their prefrences like a clean person changes their underware or just come to my neighborhood.
Easy enough?
Besides: Jesus was gay (I love this essay ... you'll see the problems that occur when Christians make people's sexual mores community business. Christianity in general has heaps of dirty laundry, and every once in a while, it has to get aired.
**If Christ was gay he couldn't not have died for our sin's
** You don't have to convince me that Christianity has dirty laundry(start with the R.C.C.
Do you have any divorced friends or family, Lady? Did any of them remarry? How do you explain their sins to the poor children?
** I do have some divorce's in my family however the children or approx. 12-15 year's older and they don't care as far as I can tell.
Originally posted by tiassa
[blem?
Like I said, just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's knowledge. The process I described for you can be found in the fantasy novels of Steven Brust.Such as life is, such as it should be. Realize that you never actually perceive the present. It's all history by the time it hits your eyes and ears. It's kind of like looking at the equation after you've calculated it. The solution is the only one that could be, given the factors. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't.
I quote Floyd: "Is there anybody out there?"Well I answered the original question ages ago. What, weren't you paying attention?
And where in the Bible does it say that God didn't create homosexuals?
Deal with it, Lady.Well, get in the van ...
Think of it this way: if you choose (A) you get a shiny reward. If you choose (B) I will punish you.
Now think of it this way: Why charge anyone with rape? After all, the woman made a choice.
What's that? Duress? Ah ....No matter how I segregated or integrated this with the rest of that alleged paragraph of yours, this doesn't seem to make any sense. Is there some inner significance in these words that I'm missing? Or is it just argumentative "filler"?A three word question just flashed through my mind, but I'll let it slide for right now.
Now: What are the limits of God's power?Yeah, tell that to the woman who chose to be gang-raped instead of having her throat slit.
thanx,
Tiassa
Tiassa,
B]Which speaks nothing toward intent to act. The problem I have with such a miniscule god as presented in the Bible is, actually, quite irrelevant. Stop running from the issue.My, my, good Lady. Is there a problem
** Unlike us God is able to raise the dead had he gone through with it.But we come to find out it was a faith tester. Eventually God would sacrifice his own son.(a moment between God & his prophet)
In other words, if that God be true, then yes, my sentiments are according to His Will.Doesn't change the fact that He made them that way.Going down the list:
• Homosexuality--doesn't matter
• Pedophilia--this bears issues both of developmental health and consent. In fact, it serves well to demonstrate: child sexual abuse would not be as sexually traumatizing to the child if society in general was just a little less anal-retentive about matters sexual and biological. To the other, some of those pedophiles might not land in extremis. However, even with those considerations, we still see tremendous health hazards coming from sexual intercourse with children. Even if the grown-ups grew up enough to f--k their children without f--king them up, the stellar amount of developmental damage such intercourse causes rules out pedophilia as far too risky to submit anyone to, much less a child. I mean, sex with a thirteen year-old girl can triple her chance for cervical cancer. That's just a little ridiculous. But whether God creates a pedophile at the genetic level or molds one through the trials and conditions of life, God still wills the condition that results. A note from P.J. O'Rourke: Parents should never try to screw their children, except in their Will.
• Incest--I am tremendously against incest, however I will not deny two consenting adults their right to do whatever the hell makes them feel good.
• Bestialism--For something so ... seemingly distasteful, American culture has a thing for bestialism. Every guy I know has seen one or another video of either a woman blowing a horse or a woman f--king her dog. After drinking heavily, horsegag.avi was not something I was happy a friend showed me. The dog? Be careful what you wish for when you go looking for college-dorm porn. However, I can say in either case that the animals seemed to enjoy themselves, so I'm prone to say I don't want to hear about it, and that will make me happy enough.I'm not sure what your point is.
** You're the first to admitt God made pedafilian,homosexuality, and bestialism or willed it.............basically you don't believe Satan has a role in anything? If Satan were out of the picture none of the above would exist...behavior's created by Satan to make man fall. When I speak of Free Moral Agency look at it this way- there's all kinds of temptations Satan's worldy delights and God's provided way. But in order for God not to be a Tyrant he allowed Satan to use his tactics......therefore man aren't forced to worship God but have a choice .........I think this is more of a permissive will rather than his perfect will.
** I tryed to make the point earlier if homosexuality is accepted as creation rather than choice.....than those who committ the behavior's above can also make the same claims,and you admitted that. If it's more of creation theory rather than choice we have no right to condem pedafiles, incest, beastality, and other deviant behaviors- if it's a God given desire. I personally don't believe that but you already know that.
Really, what is your point with that?I figure humankind will either figure that out or not. In the meantime, I still don't get why there has to be a Who. That seems entirely your own problem.This from someone who got the Bible wrong? Wouldn't the Fear of God compel you to get it right?Then I think the researchers were seeing a sexual act, don't you?You still haven't figured out the fact that God wills them to behave that way.
** You mentioned God didn't created the world...why should humankind have to figure it out.....if you have the answer?
^And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of EVERY tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.
** The Tree Of Life is included in the trees they could eat from.only after the fall was they no longer allowed to eat of the Tree Of Life.
** Temptation is set forth so that mankind can make a choice. God doesn't force people to worship him......and this is why Satan is allowed to use his tactic's.......but no one force's us on the choices we make pertaining to (Free Moral Agency) (FMA) has nothing to do with being forced in a van or raped.
Why are you so afraid of homosexuality that you're devoting this much effort to it?
That you choose to separate it as an idea for examination indicates that it holds some sort of priority in your life. What is that priority? Why is it so important to you to identify homosexuality?
** I believe God when he say's he didn't create homosexual or any deviant behaviors(for that matter) As I mentioned before I have relatives and friends who enjoy homosexual relations as well as hetero relations. And I don't see how telling people they can't change helps. I know it has to be a personal experience with a individual & God before many believe him. However my world would be upside down if God purposely created people so he could abhor them and throw them in hell. People need to know they can change and God is there not to judge but to love and save. Seek him.
What are the limits of God's power?
** Ask him..........develope a relationship despite all the things you heard about God.......question the bible.........question him. At least he'll see your interested in knowing. You' ll be amazed in some of the way's he answer's.
Do you realize that for your talk of demons and so forth to have any legitimacy, God must either be weak enough to be unable to stop the evil or else God must will it.You did have a problem with homosexual contact occurring in nature. As I look up at your words, I see it's still an issue: This is exactly why animals aren't held accountable for homosexual behavior even if it is manifested amongst (doubt it)
** Satan knows his time is short......
** Mankind can either choose between God or Satan........(God is not a Tyrant)
** I also mentioned I don't believe animals have sex anytime they want to but rather during mating season nor can the students prove it was a sexual act in the animal kingdom. Sure if a human see's a gorilla grabbing another gorilla's private's of course were going to think sexual. It is sexual to us.
Answer that question straight, and then we'll get back to this.Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Figure it out, Lady: If Christians hadn't used the Bible in an effort to compel the law to suspend civil and human rights on the basis of the gender of one's sexual partner, nobody would give a fuck whether God created anyone as they are.
**I do know people use the Bible for their own agenda's and twist the word therin but don't get upset with me.
Haven't you figured out that as long as God is the Supreme Authority in the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, as long as God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately responsible for everything in the Universe?
** I've always know that God is ultimate but he is not responsible for our choices, sure he may have allowed Satan to use tactic's to make us fall but he also provided a way out. Man has a choice to either Serve God or Satan .......we aren't forced to serve God and in order for that to be so there had to be another......option (Satan)
What is so difficult about understanding that a gay person does not "choose" to like or dislike sexual contact any more than a person chooses to like or dislike a particular food? String beans just don't do it for me. I hate the things. Nobody in a million years can convince me string beans are a pleasant eating experience. Likewise, nobody in a million years can convince a gay person that heterosexual contact is better.So why do you feel the need to "explain" their behavior, such as the topic goes?I just find your thick-headedness to be offensive and spiteful.So get it through your head: The homosexuals will leave God out of it when the bloody fucking Christians do![/i
**Perhaps you should watch Jerry Springer, where self proclaimed homosexuals change their prefrences like a clean person changes their underware or just come to my neighborhood.
Easy enough?
Besides: Jesus was gay (I love this essay ... you'll see the problems that occur when Christians make people's sexual mores community business. Christianity in general has heaps of dirty laundry, and every once in a while, it has to get aired.
**If Christ was gay he couldn't not have died for our sin's
** You don't have to convince me that Christianity has dirty laundry(start with the R.C.C.
Do you have any divorced friends or family, Lady? Did any of them remarry? How do you explain their sins to the poor children?
** I do have some divorce's in my family however the children or approx. 12-15 year's older and they don't care as far as I can tell.
Last edited:
I HATE imacs, they suck. And I hate these stupid sarcasm faces and the aristocratic your-a-dumbass laugh . Maybe i just need counciling.
By the way, is this forum about god or what?!
and the aristocratic your-a-dumbass laugh . Maybe i just need counciling.By the way, is this forum about god or what?!
Springer? O-tay!
No, dear Lady, I am not the first. Christians have known for a long, long time, and just had a hard time dealing with it.
In order for God to not be a tyrant? Choose God's way or be punished does not equal free will or free moral agency. In order for will or moral agency to be free it must be unfettered by external duress.
Why does there has to be a who?
Obey God or go to Hell, as per the Bible.
Obey the rapist or get a knife in the throat.
In either case, it's your own damn choice, right? So why prosecute the rapist? The woman chose to have sex, which seems to undermine the notion of rape.
Lights, camera ... you're on.
Thank you for demonstrating that little point. Are you sure you're not an atheist provocateur? I don't know many who could have pulled off that little slam against Christian faith as well as you just did. Those who could ... well, they're both bright and obsessive. But it was a nice nail in the wrist of Christian faith.
It's these little lapses that tip me toward the notion that you're an atheist playing provocateur. Nonetheless, the nail in the wrist about how upside down your world would be if God turned out to be something other than you wanted it to be was skillfully driven.
• What is the limit of God's power?
If our choices were merely of academic interest to God, if our choices had nothing to do with morality, then why punish the people? God looked at the future in which homosexuals would exist and said, "It is good."
Tell me, what would God say about your choice to preach his name in ignorance? False teachings in the name of God are very sinful, you know.
Did any of that divorced family remarry, Lady?
Answer that question and then we can examine the children, as such.
I see you tap-dancing around the issues. Really, why can't you just focus on the issues you raised? Why are you afraid to face them? Oh, is Jerry Springer on? Forgive me. I hold myself answered. At least we know a little more about what's important to you.
thanx,
Tiassa
If God could raise the dead then why not let Abraham go forward with the actual act of sacrificing his son? It seems the intent is enough. Quit dodging the issue.
I should be famous, then.
No, dear Lady, I am not the first. Christians have known for a long, long time, and just had a hard time dealing with it.
Nobody has shown me that the Devil is necessary or vital in terms of the occurrence of evil. Satan seems quite the unnecessary middle-man.
Ah, so God is not the Supreme Authority? Without the equal authority of the Devil, evil would not exist? Perhaps you should expand on your point to cover such bases.
Well, that notion presupposes the existence and authority of Satan.
Just like, in order not to be a rapist, the man in the van gives a woman a choice: submit or get a knife in the throat.
In order for God to not be a tyrant? Choose God's way or be punished does not equal free will or free moral agency. In order for will or moral agency to be free it must be unfettered by external duress.
In other words, God's law changes as ... who, you see fit? If it was a permissive will, it would permit--that is, give permission to--such behavior without the threat of reprisal on Judgment Day.
Now that is quite a stupid leap. Try the actual issue.
Why does there has to be a who?
Would you please tell me what this has to do with anything? Had they actually eaten of the Tree of Life, why had they not achieved immortality? Had they actually eaten of the Tree of Life, why was God worried that they would eat from the Tree of Life?
Actually, God doesn't force people to worship him any more than a rapist forces a woman to have sex with him. It is a matter of free choice versus duress that you seem to fail to understand. If "God does not force people to worship him", then "a rapist does not force a woman to have sex with him".
Obey God or go to Hell, as per the Bible.
Obey the rapist or get a knife in the throat.
In either case, it's your own damn choice, right? So why prosecute the rapist? The woman chose to have sex, which seems to undermine the notion of rape.
And where does God say that?
I don't see how telling a homosexual must change helps. Perhaps you could explain that, as an ethical issue (since that is the forum we're in): Why should a homosexual attempt to be a heterosexual?
Lights, camera ... you're on.
Well, at least you're honest about that.
Thank you for demonstrating that little point. Are you sure you're not an atheist provocateur? I don't know many who could have pulled off that little slam against Christian faith as well as you just did. Those who could ... well, they're both bright and obsessive. But it was a nice nail in the wrist of Christian faith.
Funny, doesn't the Bible say something about God sitting in Judgment? Somewhere in Matthew, at least? Somewhere around Matthew 25, at least? You know, those on the right hand go to heaven, those on the left are cast into the fire reserved for the Devil and his angels? Remember Jesus' little speech there, about whatsoever you do or don't do to the least of his brethren?
It's these little lapses that tip me toward the notion that you're an atheist playing provocateur. Nonetheless, the nail in the wrist about how upside down your world would be if God turned out to be something other than you wanted it to be was skillfully driven.
Why are you so afraid to answer that question? I'm asking you. If I ask God, at least I get deafening silence. If I ask you I get sad excuses. Try answering the question. I am asking you!
• What is the limit of God's power?
Something about ruby slippers and faery-dust comes to mind. What does Satan's wristwatch have to do with anything?
And mankind can also choose between ice cream and sorbet (Sorbet is not a dairy product).
Hang out with bonobos sometime.
Yes ... human sexual obsession is definitely part of the problem. I still don't see why homosexuality is so damned important to you that you need to make a point of explaining it to children.
Next time try answering the issue straight. When you figure it out, let me know. I'd loan you the fifty cents, but I think pay phones will cost more by the time you figure it out.
And that's why God punished Adam and Eve for making choices?
If our choices were merely of academic interest to God, if our choices had nothing to do with morality, then why punish the people? God looked at the future in which homosexuals would exist and said, "It is good."
And man has a choice between Barq's and A&W root beer. (A&W is not caffeinated.)
Then why does God have the authority to judge those who serve Satan?
Um ... okay. Jerry Springer ... when I think of a less insulting way to advise you of what the hell is wrong with that, I'll come back to it. In the meantime, I think I'm starting to see why you don't know the contents of the Bible you advocate.
Tell me, what would God say about your choice to preach his name in ignorance? False teachings in the name of God are very sinful, you know.
Okay, I'll bite. Why not?
Talk about shooting fish in a barrel! Tell me, do you kick dogs or steal candy from children? There have been problems in the Catholic organization since before it was organized or catholic. I would have thought that the "Protestant reformation" would have been about more than labels and dominion. In other words, you'd think Christians would start cleaning their damn laundry instead of just hanging out more soiled laundry.
I noticed you left out a part of that in order to divert the issue.
Did any of that divorced family remarry, Lady?
Answer that question and then we can examine the children, as such.
I see you tap-dancing around the issues. Really, why can't you just focus on the issues you raised? Why are you afraid to face them? Oh, is Jerry Springer on? Forgive me. I hold myself answered. At least we know a little more about what's important to you.
thanx,
Tiassa
Tiassa, it says:
"if Christ was gay he could NOT NOT have died for our sins"
Lady,
what is the ultimate reason for you to believe God would even find this an important matter?
And why is it important to you?
In other words: why is homosexuality a moral issue?
that was my original question, and it has not been answered by you. as you can see by the replies, the Bible can very well be used to show God loves all humans (not only straight men).
Last edited:
here is for clarity, why i do not feel the question has been answered:
"The knowledge of right and wrong..............but I personally believe God doesn't condone many things including homosexuality.........therefore upon recieving this info(Bible).........I personally conclude it must be a wrong or unintended behavior."
what are you on? what does this mean.
Even stranger:
"Homosexuality and whether its immoral is the decision of the individual. My argument lies in leading people to believe God is satanic........... I could respect----choice. Crack heads, murders, adulterous.......ect.... don't blame God for their choices.... why not blame Satan."
Apart from the coontents- your writing do make sense. the logic is flawed, but the grammar is okay - UNTIL you get to answer the why-it-is-wrong question. Then all fails.
is it so extremely hard to consider that it is a misguided coception that homosexuals are perverse and go to hell.
If you do, you will see suddenly all questions (like: "Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell. ") get answered.
"The knowledge of right and wrong..............but I personally believe God doesn't condone many things including homosexuality.........therefore upon recieving this info(Bible).........I personally conclude it must be a wrong or unintended behavior."
what are you on? what does this mean.
Even stranger:
"Homosexuality and whether its immoral is the decision of the individual. My argument lies in leading people to believe God is satanic........... I could respect----choice. Crack heads, murders, adulterous.......ect.... don't blame God for their choices.... why not blame Satan."
Apart from the coontents- your writing do make sense. the logic is flawed, but the grammar is okay - UNTIL you get to answer the why-it-is-wrong question. Then all fails.
is it so extremely hard to consider that it is a misguided coception that homosexuals are perverse and go to hell.
If you do, you will see suddenly all questions (like: "Why lead the world to believe God deliberately created a behavior he considers perverse in which the penalty of is hell. ") get answered.
Xevious, I'm disappinted in you
But it won't happen as long as you just sit there and whine that I'm doing it. If you are unwilling to offer examples of what disturbs you, I can hardly address those points.
Take a look around, Xevious, most people who fight with me have a bone to pick, anyway. Take T1 as an example: the guy never actually argues the topic with me, whatever it is is some perverse obsession with arguing with me. KalvinB was the same way. Xev has done that before but she is capable of arguing the topic. But very few who undertake any of my posts in the religious forum demonstrate any understanding, and that's hardly my problem. You'll notice that in other forums, people are capable of addressing issues and not me.
I have very little respect for the kind of weasel-whining you're about right now. Show me what you've got, tell me what's bugging you, and you might even have a point. I will never know unless you tell me.
I mean, I'm getting kind of sick of it. I keep hearing about how awful I am, but nobody can give me any good examples. Show me. Go on, try.
Or else shut the hell up.
--Tiassa
You know, one of these days, one of these pathetic assertions of how unfair and intolerant and how much I look down at people will become a legitimate topic.
But it won't happen as long as you just sit there and whine that I'm doing it. If you are unwilling to offer examples of what disturbs you, I can hardly address those points.
I have no respect for childish whining. If you have an example in mind, well, I'll respect that or not based on the merits of the example.
And that will be different from yesterday how?
Take a look around, Xevious, most people who fight with me have a bone to pick, anyway. Take T1 as an example: the guy never actually argues the topic with me, whatever it is is some perverse obsession with arguing with me. KalvinB was the same way. Xev has done that before but she is capable of arguing the topic. But very few who undertake any of my posts in the religious forum demonstrate any understanding, and that's hardly my problem. You'll notice that in other forums, people are capable of addressing issues and not me.
Help me laugh with you and give me an example.
I have very little respect for the kind of weasel-whining you're about right now. Show me what you've got, tell me what's bugging you, and you might even have a point. I will never know unless you tell me.
I mean, I'm getting kind of sick of it. I keep hearing about how awful I am, but nobody can give me any good examples. Show me. Go on, try.
Or else shut the hell up.
--Tiassa
Merlijn--true enough, but now I'm confused
Merlijn:
The reason I ask is partially the reason for my mistake. I got used to reading around the awful grammar and spelling, and had been trying to not say anything about it. Oh, well. It caught up with me, it seems. Nonetheless, if not not is the way I should be reading it, I must wonder what the hell that response was supposed to mean in the context of its post.
Thanks for clearing that up, though I must admit it makes a couple of things less clear.
thanx,
Tiassa
Merlijn:
True enough, it seems. To point out your next post in the topic, you note that Lady's "grammar is okay". Why point that out?
The reason I ask is partially the reason for my mistake. I got used to reading around the awful grammar and spelling, and had been trying to not say anything about it. Oh, well. It caught up with me, it seems. Nonetheless, if not not is the way I should be reading it, I must wonder what the hell that response was supposed to mean in the context of its post.
Thanks for clearing that up, though I must admit it makes a couple of things less clear.
thanx,
Tiassa
pro gay christians pick articles in the bible that support them
anti gay christians do the same
god the schizo
anti gay christians do the same
god the schizo
Last edited: