100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Oh yeah? Then a woman having sexual relationships with a man, even if he is her husband, is an abomination. Don't believe me? Then check the gender of "thou", the pronoun of the subject of the advice or the order by Leviticus. It is genderless, "thou" is. So not only for a man, but for anyone who can be called a thou, is lying with a man an abomination. Maybe Leviticus was giving a sermon to sheep, after word got around that there is an alarmingly growing tendency of Sheep seducing men for sexual favours. I don't know why everyone points fingers at gay people exclusively when they read this passage. People lost their senses, they don't know how to read, they are screwed up totally in the language understandation department in their heads. What has happened to 2000 years of men of the Christian faith? They can't read? they can't think? Christian women have known that all along.
I was just discussing Proverbs in another thread, actually debating. Someone had the idea that Proverbs was encouraging knowledge from many sources. I argued that Proverbs was suggesting that the only source of widom came through the study and UNDERSTANDING of scripture and nowhere else. I can't say I was right or the other person was wrong, but I think I used a tiny bit more logic to make my point. And THAT, is my point here - I agree in many ways with the quote above. There are many ways of interpreting the words in scripture, but I believe it is more difficult to gain any clear perspective and apply any real logic, when the reader has many preconceptions of what the words 'should' be saying. Reading and interpreting what is read, without bias, takes theologians many years of training to learn how. It does not make most of them non-believers (in god), but it does make them more like the kind of poeple that Proverbs is encouraging - wise, knowledgable, subtle and descrete. Their wisdom is held in their heart and not in their lips. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
========================================= Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- ========================================== There are many ways to interpret scripture but those who study theology and history may have a bit more insight than the common people, who would interpret scripture in terms of what they EXPECT it to say. Try another view - written by scholars and ministers. Excerpts from “The Children Are Free” By: Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22) “If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”
(Leviticus 20:13) If we wish to understand the true meaning of these verses, we mush look at their context, both textual and historical. Until we understand what prompted these rules in Old Testament times, we will not be able to determine if the rules should be applied in the case of two people in a committed, loving relationship. The text itself gives a big clue as to the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 & 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did. The term Canaanites refers to the group of nations who lived in the land into which the Israelites migrated when they left Egypt. It follows, therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behavior was common among the Canaanites and Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses were meant to prohibit. Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god/goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex. Consider that a male worshiper was offering his greatest possession, semen (which was thought to be the essence of life), to the goddess through her priests. Depositing semen in the body of a priest of that goddess was believed to guarantee one’s immortality. This is what was going on in Canaan and Egypt at the time the Levitical rules were announced - - Homosexual temple prostitution. As already noted, Leviticus 18 and 20 specifically say they were written to address pagan religious practices. Leviticus 18 begins with the admonition, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.” (18:3) Chapter 20 is even more specific, beginning with an injunction against the pagan practices associated with a god named Molech. And both chapters include long lists of sexual practices common in the cultic rituals we mentioned above. However, neither of them speaks to the question of whether two people of the same sex can live in a loving relationship with the blessing of God. Historians tell us our model of loving, long-term homosexual relationships did not meaningfully exist in Canaanite culture. This was a tribal culture in which it would have been virtually impossible to form such relationships. Offspring were essential to survival in this primitive agricultural economy. Moreover, there were rigid distinctions between women’s work and men’s work. If two men had lived together as a couple, for example, one of them would have been placed in the position of doing women’s work, and the presence of a man working among the women of the village would not have been tolerated. It simply is not reasonable to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 & 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be applied. Some people may object, saying, “But if you ignore the context and just read the words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in black and white, they appear to prohibit all sex between men, not just sex in pagan rituals.” But this is the whole point: The meaning of words depends on context. Remember, the words of Corinthians 11 also appear to require long hair and head coverings for all women in all circumstances. But, because we have studied the context, we know that is not what was meant. A text taken out of context is pretext. Let’s apply the same common-sense rule here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about YOU DON'T JUDGE ME OR MY LIFE BASED FROM YOUR GOD THAT GOVERNS ONLY YOU AND THOSE WHO WANT TO BE GOVERNED BY HE/SHE/IT.
Then we will all be treating each other fairly because I am not imposing my beliefs on you. I personally don't believe in marriage but I don't push no marriage on the whole country. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
========================================= Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- ========================================== There are many ways to interpret scripture but those who study theology and history may have a bit more insight than the common people, who would interpret scripture in terms of what they EXPECT it to say. Try another view - written by scholars and ministers. Excerpts from “The Children Are Free” By: Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22) “If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”
(Leviticus 20:13) If we wish to understand the true meaning of these verses, we mush look at their context, both textual and historical. Until we understand what prompted these rules in Old Testament times, we will not be able to determine if the rules should be applied in the case of two people in a committed, loving relationship. The text itself gives a big clue as to the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 & 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did. The term Canaanites refers to the group of nations who lived in the land into which the Israelites migrated when they left Egypt. It follows, therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behavior was common among the Canaanites and Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses were meant to prohibit. Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god/goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex. Consider that a male worshiper was offering his greatest possession, semen (which was thought to be the essence of life), to the goddess through her priests. Depositing semen in the body of a priest of that goddess was believed to guarantee one’s immortality. This is what was going on in Canaan and Egypt at the time the Levitical rules were announced - - Homosexual temple prostitution. As already noted, Leviticus 18 and 20 specifically say they were written to address pagan religious practices. Leviticus 18 begins with the admonition, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.” (18:3) Chapter 20 is even more specific, beginning with an injunction against the pagan practices associated with a god named Molech. And both chapters include long lists of sexual practices common in the cultic rituals we mentioned above. However, neither of them speaks to the question of whether two people of the same sex can live in a loving relationship with the blessing of God. Historians tell us our model of loving, long-term homosexual relationships did not meaningfully exist in Canaanite culture. This was a tribal culture in which it would have been virtually impossible to form such relationships. Offspring were essential to survival in this primitive agricultural economy. Moreover, there were rigid distinctions between women’s work and men’s work. If two men had lived together as a couple, for example, one of them would have been placed in the position of doing women’s work, and the presence of a man working among the women of the village would not have been tolerated. It simply is not reasonable to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 & 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be applied. Some people may object, saying, “But if you ignore the context and just read the words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in black and white, they appear to prohibit all sex between men, not just sex in pagan rituals.” But this is the whole point: The meaning of words depends on context. Remember, the words of Corinthians 11 also appear to require long hair and head coverings for all women in all circumstances. But, because we have studied the context, we know that is not what was meant. A text taken out of context is pretext. Let’s apply the same common-sense rule here. Maybe if I was in 5th grade I could buy some of that BS. The men who wrote the bible did not write rules concerning what other people did concerning their religions.Why would they care?All the rules of the bible were written for the Jews and later the Christians.Pretending that Leviticus was writing laws to hand the Pagans is nothing short of ridicules. You want common sense?How about chewing on this.... Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply" Are you are telling me God doesn't know what he is talking about because Gays can't multiply and he is making a mistake by not talking about them?If he made gays and he accepted gays then why would he be insulting them by telling them to go out and multiply.The gays could safely say that God is confused and is making fun of them when he talks to them. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20). You are going to honor God by sticking your penis is a mans or womans rectum full of fecal matter on a daily basis?You are going to practice sodomy which the bible tells us over and over not to do.I do not see how having a penis covered in fecal matter is honoring God with your body.It is totally perverted,disgusting,and wrong. Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.(Genesis). Cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.Where is man shall cleave unto his husband and become one flesh? Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Is there any bible verse more clearer against homosexuality then this one? "Marriage is honourable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4). How does sodomy between two men fit into this equation?If God said "let them become one flesh" we can safely assume he would want two men to become one flesh.How does two women become one flesh?Sodomy is stictly forbidden. Deuteronomy 23, verse 17 17: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Romans 1, verse 24 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Romans 1, verses 26 , 27 26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 1 Timothy 1, verses 9, 10 9: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. 1Kings 14:24 Jeremiah 23:29 "Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock? John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was brought up to never be dishonest, I sure as hell am not gonna start lying now just to please a bunch of religious people. No one is asking you to become a homosexual, I personally do not care if you accept my homosexuality or not. I am the only one that has to worry about accepting it.
As I already said, if you don't like gay marriage don't marry someone of the same gender. I wish you all the best in your relationships but they are your business just as my relationships are my business. I don't tell you who you can marry or who to love, I would like the same consideration. I don't plan to get married but I also am not gonna stay single because a religion doesn't like it. I am going to be happy in my life, come hell or high water. I am not going to lie my way through life and pretend to love a woman. I feel nothing towards women in that respect. I have alot of female best friends and male friends that love me the way I am. You can quote scripture at me until you are blue in the face and it will not make me want to be dishonest. How can I start a relationship based on a big lie? How could I ever look at my family again? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 08/24/10 04:51 AM
|
|
I was brought up to never be dishonest, I sure as hell am not gonna start lying now just to please a bunch of religious people. No one is asking you to become a homosexual, I personally do not care if you accept my homosexuality or not. I am the only one that has to worry about accepting it. As I already said, if you don't like gay marriage don't marry someone of the same gender. I wish you all the best in your relationships but they are your business just as my relationships are my business. I don't tell you who you can marry or who to love, I would like the same consideration. I don't plan to get married but I also am not gonna stay single because a religion doesn't like it. I am going to be happy in my life, come hell or high water. I am not going to lie my way through life and pretend to love a woman. I feel nothing towards women in that respect. I have alot of female best friends and male friends that love me the way I am. You can quote scripture at me until you are blue in the face and it will not make me want to be dishonest. How can I start a relationship based on a big lie? How could I ever look at my family again? First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual. We all are born with the thought and desire of exploration, heck i've myself had times of exploring homosexuality. And yes i know some people are born with more hormones that do attract you to the same sex, but nevertheless it is still a choice. It all boils down to a decision. And that is what we will be judged on, our decisions we made in our lives. So I ask you to please truly think about your decision. Think about the possible consequence. And please don't think of it with the state of mind as a child or stubborn person "If you don't like it, live with it". Truly weigh out the options and the consequence, cause with every action there is a reaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a frog had wings, would it bumps its azz when it hopped? The female chula-chula frogs of eastern Brazil can jump off a coca leaf, make seven summersaults in the air, both frontward and backward, and land on the male with the loudest mating call in one shot to be in the fornicatory position with him. Gravity as a matchmaker. So, to answer your question, yes, those of the chula-chula that have wings still get their buttocks whopped. poor things |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can quote scripture at me until you are blue in the face and it will not make me want to be dishonest. How can I start a relationship based on a big lie? How could I ever look at my family again? Truly, a God who will only accept dishonest people into his heaven is no God at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Tue 08/24/10 10:27 AM
|
|
First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual... And yes i know some people are born with more hormones that do attract you to the same sex, but nevertheless it is still a choice. And how do come to hold this opinion? What sources have you followed up with for verification? What medical, scientific, or psychological journals have you based this opinion on? It all boils down to a decision.
I agree with this and according to anthropologists, and the study of current cultures, and historically, we know that this statement holds validity. In fact, some cultures have certain standards based on beliefs they hold, and men & woman who are mated go through extended periods, up to several years, in which they have no sexual contact with their mate - yet they remain totally faithful to one another. In OUR culture, however, has developed the absurd attitude that males have less 'control' of their sexual urges. We tend to blame their "raging" hormones for their misbehaviors as well. But scientifically and through the study of anthropology, we know this is not true. But we also hold another value in OUR culture, and that is the belief that no particular set of religious values can be responsible for creating the law which serves to protect the rights of everyone. It all boils down to a decision. And that is what we will be judged on, our decisions we made in our lives.
And the decision is a personal one. For example, people who are members in a Christian congregation, are not judged harshly by the congregation, even though divorce is a sin. Divorced people go about their business without discrimination. But the homosexual community is ostracized, denegrated, dehumaized, and even the law is suppose to uphold the continuence of such treatment. The only common responce that is give, is that only Jesus/God can judge. So while Christians in that framwork are allowed to make their own choices and but homosexuals are not, they must be stopped by LAW. How is that logical? So I ask you to please truly think about your decision. Think about the possible consequence. And please don't think of it with the state of mind as a child or stubborn person "If you don't like it, live with it".
Herein lay the greatest of hypocracies - If the choice is between committing a sin or staying the course, "if you don't like it" (JUST GROW UP) "and live with it." Why is it hypocarcy? Because no Christian is expected to 'live with it'. Their judgment is simply left up to God and they about their business. However, homosexuals (are acting childish)becasue they want the same right as those other Christians, to just go about their business. Truly weigh out the options and the consequence, cause with every action there is a reaction.
Then let the reaction be judged not by you, but by that which you would be judged. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Tue 08/24/10 10:39 AM
|
|
First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual. Cowboy, you can't prove this any more than I can prove its opposite. So I suggest until proof is found, you refrain from saying this as an empirical truth, and prefex it with "I believe that..." or something similar. You can't make a categorical sentence stating the truth based on your personal opinion. If you say it's the truth because the Bible says so, I challenge you to show me the passage in the bible that says "no one is born homosexual". Until such time, please say thing that cannot be other than your opinion in a way that makes your readers know it is your opinion and that only. In fact, my biggest beef about the bible is its interpretation by man. It is true that the bible says "be fruitful, go forth and multiply." And it means to make babies. But it DOES NOT AT THE SAME TIME RESTRICT man from other activities. All quotes in the old testament that have been brought up, and all quotes in the new testament as well, are SUPPORTIVE of sexual unison between men and women but none are EXLUSIVE or PROHIBITIVE about homosexual sex. The interpreters of the bible make us believe that the opposite of the above is true, and many people believe that, because most people prefer to believe authority over their own potential analytical reasoning capacity. So mostly they don't even use the latter. Yes, God is not a five-year-old child, and therefore he should have much better skills at composition than what he's been displaying in the lines of the Bible. If he can't make himself understood, well, sorry, that's his problem, not mine. But I think that interpreting his words any old way than what they actually say is not right. Not right at all. Interpretation is very biassed; very-very biassed. People can accept the interpretations by others, but a little probing of any of these, a little tapping on the seemingly solid surface on them, and the interpretations crumble and fall to dust. I don't interpret the bible. I just show how none of the interpretations stick if you take them seriously. Not one. Nada. People claim historical milieux and mindsets of the time the bible was written. Well, "The Republic" was written many centruries before, and it makes perfect sense to a reader today. It is a much superior text in terms of non-ambiguity. It also refrains from repeating its points over and over and over again. "Love god... god is big... love god..." Gad, how many times does the writer of the bible think he has to repeat this before it sinks in? The writer of the bible writes like the people speak on late-night real-time comp shows when the police go places where the husband is stone drunk, and all he can do is ask a few questions, and then ask them again. "Hi offisher. Who are you? Oh. What time is it? Where do I live? Oh, I'm at home, thanks for telling me. Who are you? And what am I doing here? Oh, I'm home? thanks for telling me. What's the time?" In the bible it comes across as "Love thy god, do what he says, love thy god, for he is the greatest, love thy god, do what he says..." and of course there are passages that talk about what he says, true. But the incessant repetition... is not in Plato's books. Yet the Republic was written by a man, longer ago than when Jesus had his life, and ... God can't do the same? Where is His omnipotence when He needs it? what a rubbish. Also, if you take the historical and social milieux... why don't you take the others that were present at the time, were very obvious and in-your-face of the people who lived at the time? It seems to me that the bible scholars present a view which is skewed, full of personal bias, and completely full of holes that are easy to uncover. The penetration of their unsure words in the population is only due to people wishing to believe the interpretations. And that is so because the interpretations support people's moral and emotional view of the issues... which was implanted them in their childhoods. But by whom? Their parents, who were also raised the exact same way. Truth can't be uncovered unless the vicious chain of telling people what they really want to hear, and making them want to hear what they want to, is broken at last. I fight to make this day occur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual... And yes i know some people are born with more hormones that do attract you to the same sex, but nevertheless it is still a choice. And how do come to hold this opinion? What sources have you followed up with for verification? What medical, scientific, or psychological journals have you based this opinion on? It all boils down to a decision.
I agree with this and according to anthropologists, and the study of current cultures, and historically, we know that this statement holds validity. In fact, some cultures have certain standards based on beliefs they hold, and men & woman who are mated go through extended periods, up to several years, in which they have no sexual contact with their mate - yet they remain totally faithful to one another. In OUR culture, however, has developed the absurd attitude that males have less 'control' of their sexual urges. We tend to blame their "raging" hormones for their misbehaviors as well. But scientifically and through the study of anthropology, we know this is not true. But we also hold another value in OUR culture, and that is the belief that no particular set of religious values can be responsible for creating the law which serves to protect the rights of everyone. It all boils down to a decision. And that is what we will be judged on, our decisions we made in our lives.
And the decision is a personal one. For example, people who are members in a Christian congregation, are not judged harshly by the congregation, even though divorce is a sin. Divorced people go about their business without discrimination. But the homosexual community is ostracized, denegrated, dehumaized, and even the law is suppose to uphold the continuence of such treatment. The only common responce that is give, is that only Jesus/God can judge. So while Christians in that framwork are allowed to make their own choices and but homosexuals are not, they must be stopped by LAW. How is that logical? So I ask you to please truly think about your decision. Think about the possible consequence. And please don't think of it with the state of mind as a child or stubborn person "If you don't like it, live with it".
Herein lay the greatest of hypocracies - If the choice is between committing a sin or staying the course, "if you don't like it" (JUST GROW UP) "and live with it." Why is it hypocarcy? Because no Christian is expected to 'live with it'. Their judgment is simply left up to God and they about their business. However, homosexuals (are acting childish)becasue they want the same right as those other Christians, to just go about their business. Truly weigh out the options and the consequence, cause with every action there is a reaction.
Then let the reaction be judged not by you, but by that which you would be judged. ===================================== And the decision is a personal one. For example, people who are members in a Christian congregation, are not judged harshly by the congregation, even though divorce is a sin. Divorced people go about their business without discrimination. But the homosexual community is ostracized, denegrated, dehumaized, and even the law is suppose to uphold the continuence of such treatment. =================================== Christians aren't judged by anyone on this earth, NO ONE has the right to judge anyone. The only being that has the right to judge and will be the judge of us all is Jesus Christ and God. i agree somewhat with the bottom part. It is strange why people make such a big thing out of certain things. When all but one sin is equal, there for divorcing and homosexuality would hold no difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual... And yes i know some people are born with more hormones that do attract you to the same sex, but nevertheless it is still a choice. And how do come to hold this opinion? What sources have you followed up with for verification? What medical, scientific, or psychological journals have you based this opinion on? It all boils down to a decision.
I agree with this and according to anthropologists, and the study of current cultures, and historically, we know that this statement holds validity. In fact, some cultures have certain standards based on beliefs they hold, and men & woman who are mated go through extended periods, up to several years, in which they have no sexual contact with their mate - yet they remain totally faithful to one another. In OUR culture, however, has developed the absurd attitude that males have less 'control' of their sexual urges. We tend to blame their "raging" hormones for their misbehaviors as well. But scientifically and through the study of anthropology, we know this is not true. But we also hold another value in OUR culture, and that is the belief that no particular set of religious values can be responsible for creating the law which serves to protect the rights of everyone. It all boils down to a decision. And that is what we will be judged on, our decisions we made in our lives.
And the decision is a personal one. For example, people who are members in a Christian congregation, are not judged harshly by the congregation, even though divorce is a sin. Divorced people go about their business without discrimination. But the homosexual community is ostracized, denegrated, dehumaized, and even the law is suppose to uphold the continuence of such treatment. The only common responce that is give, is that only Jesus/God can judge. So while Christians in that framwork are allowed to make their own choices and but homosexuals are not, they must be stopped by LAW. How is that logical? So I ask you to please truly think about your decision. Think about the possible consequence. And please don't think of it with the state of mind as a child or stubborn person "If you don't like it, live with it".
Herein lay the greatest of hypocracies - If the choice is between committing a sin or staying the course, "if you don't like it" (JUST GROW UP) "and live with it." Why is it hypocarcy? Because no Christian is expected to 'live with it'. Their judgment is simply left up to God and they about their business. However, homosexuals (are acting childish)becasue they want the same right as those other Christians, to just go about their business. Truly weigh out the options and the consequence, cause with every action there is a reaction.
Then let the reaction be judged not by you, but by that which you would be judged. ===================================== And the decision is a personal one. For example, people who are members in a Christian congregation, are not judged harshly by the congregation, even though divorce is a sin. Divorced people go about their business without discrimination. But the homosexual community is ostracized, denegrated, dehumaized, and even the law is suppose to uphold the continuence of such treatment. =================================== Christians aren't judged by anyone on this earth, NO ONE has the right to judge anyone. The only being that has the right to judge and will be the judge of us all is Jesus Christ and God. i agree somewhat with the bottom part. It is strange why people make such a big thing out of certain things. When all but one sin is equal, there for divorcing and homosexuality would hold no difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual. Cowboy, you can't prove this any more than I can prove its opposite. So I suggest until proof is found, you refrain from saying this as an empirical truth, and prefex it with "I believe that..." or something similar. You can't make a categorical sentence stating the truth based on your personal opinion. If you say it's the truth because the Bible says so, I challenge you to show me the passage in the bible that says "no one is born homosexual". Until such time, please say thing that cannot be other than your opinion in a way that makes your readers know it is your opinion and that only. In fact, my biggest beef about the bible is its interpretation by man. It is true that the bible says "be fruitful, go forth and multiply." And it means to make babies. But it DOES NOT AT THE SAME TIME RESTRICT man from other activities. All quotes in the old testament that have been brought up, and all quotes in the new testament as well, are SUPPORTIVE of sexual unison between men and women but none are EXLUSIVE or PROHIBITIVE about homosexual sex. The interpreters of the bible make us believe that the opposite of the above is true, and many people believe that, because most people prefer to believe authority over their own potential analytical reasoning capacity. So mostly they don't even use the latter. Yes, God is not a five-year-old child, and therefore he should have much better skills at composition than what he's been displaying in the lines of the Bible. If he can't make himself understood, well, sorry, that's his problem, not mine. But I think that interpreting his words any old way than what they actually say is not right. Not right at all. Interpretation is very biassed; very-very biassed. People can accept the interpretations by others, but a little probing of any of these, a little tapping on the seemingly solid surface on them, and the interpretations crumble and fall to dust. I don't interpret the bible. I just show how none of the interpretations stick if you take them seriously. Not one. Nada. People claim historical milieux and mindsets of the time the bible was written. Well, "The Republic" was written many centruries before, and it makes perfect sense to a reader today. It is a much superior text in terms of non-ambiguity. It also refrains from repeating its points over and over and over again. "Love god... god is big... love god..." Gad, how many times does the writer of the bible think he has to repeat this before it sinks in? The writer of the bible writes like the people speak on late-night real-time comp shows when the police go places where the husband is stone drunk, and all he can do is ask a few questions, and then ask them again. "Hi offisher. Who are you? Oh. What time is it? Where do I live? Oh, I'm at home, thanks for telling me. Who are you? And what am I doing here? Oh, I'm home? thanks for telling me. What's the time?" In the bible it comes across as "Love thy god, do what he says, love thy god, for he is the greatest, love thy god, do what he says..." and of course there are passages that talk about what he says, true. But the incessant repetition... is not in Plato's books. Yet the Republic was written by a man, longer ago than when Jesus had his life, and ... God can't do the same? Where is His omnipotence when He needs it? what a rubbish. Also, if you take the historical and social milieux... why don't you take the others that were present at the time, were very obvious and in-your-face of the people who lived at the time? It seems to me that the bible scholars present a view which is skewed, full of personal bias, and completely full of holes that are easy to uncover. The penetration of their unsure words in the population is only due to people wishing to believe the interpretations. And that is so because the interpretations support people's moral and emotional view of the issues... which was implanted them in their childhoods. But by whom? Their parents, who were also raised the exact same way. Truth can't be uncovered unless the vicious chain of telling people what they really want to hear, and making them want to hear what they want to, is broken at last. I fight to make this day occur. It is the truth, doesn't matter the genetics of a person or anything. It still boils down to a decision one has made to have that sexual orientation. For instance, i'm attracted to women, BUT if God was to have said it was a sin to sleep with women, then i'd have no choice but not to. Reason i put that is to spell out what i'm get'n at. Even though we are attracted to something, same sex, drugs, rush of murdering someone, ect DOES NOT mean we are to go with those urges. So since you're support homosexuals because they are attracted to each other and not the opposite sex because of genetics. Do you support mass murdering by mentally challenged people or someone that just has the extreme urge to destroy the world? Again, because of the desire they have due to genetics? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual. Cowboy, you can't prove this any more than I can prove its opposite. So I suggest until proof is found, you refrain from saying this as an empirical truth, and prefex it with "I believe that..." or something similar. You can't make a categorical sentence stating the truth based on your personal opinion. If you say it's the truth because the Bible says so, I challenge you to show me the passage in the bible that says "no one is born homosexual". Until such time, please say thing that cannot be other than your opinion in a way that makes your readers know it is your opinion and that only. In fact, my biggest beef about the bible is its interpretation by man. It is true that the bible says "be fruitful, go forth and multiply." And it means to make babies. But it DOES NOT AT THE SAME TIME RESTRICT man from other activities. All quotes in the old testament that have been brought up, and all quotes in the new testament as well, are SUPPORTIVE of sexual unison between men and women but none are EXLUSIVE or PROHIBITIVE about homosexual sex. The interpreters of the bible make us believe that the opposite of the above is true, and many people believe that, because most people prefer to believe authority over their own potential analytical reasoning capacity. So mostly they don't even use the latter. Yes, God is not a five-year-old child, and therefore he should have much better skills at composition than what he's been displaying in the lines of the Bible. If he can't make himself understood, well, sorry, that's his problem, not mine. But I think that interpreting his words any old way than what they actually say is not right. Not right at all. Interpretation is very biassed; very-very biassed. People can accept the interpretations by others, but a little probing of any of these, a little tapping on the seemingly solid surface on them, and the interpretations crumble and fall to dust. I don't interpret the bible. I just show how none of the interpretations stick if you take them seriously. Not one. Nada. People claim historical milieux and mindsets of the time the bible was written. Well, "The Republic" was written many centruries before, and it makes perfect sense to a reader today. It is a much superior text in terms of non-ambiguity. It also refrains from repeating its points over and over and over again. "Love god... god is big... love god..." Gad, how many times does the writer of the bible think he has to repeat this before it sinks in? The writer of the bible writes like the people speak on late-night real-time comp shows when the police go places where the husband is stone drunk, and all he can do is ask a few questions, and then ask them again. "Hi offisher. Who are you? Oh. What time is it? Where do I live? Oh, I'm at home, thanks for telling me. Who are you? And what am I doing here? Oh, I'm home? thanks for telling me. What's the time?" In the bible it comes across as "Love thy god, do what he says, love thy god, for he is the greatest, love thy god, do what he says..." and of course there are passages that talk about what he says, true. But the incessant repetition... is not in Plato's books. Yet the Republic was written by a man, longer ago than when Jesus had his life, and ... God can't do the same? Where is His omnipotence when He needs it? what a rubbish. Also, if you take the historical and social milieux... why don't you take the others that were present at the time, were very obvious and in-your-face of the people who lived at the time? It seems to me that the bible scholars present a view which is skewed, full of personal bias, and completely full of holes that are easy to uncover. The penetration of their unsure words in the population is only due to people wishing to believe the interpretations. And that is so because the interpretations support people's moral and emotional view of the issues... which was implanted them in their childhoods. But by whom? Their parents, who were also raised the exact same way. Truth can't be uncovered unless the vicious chain of telling people what they really want to hear, and making them want to hear what they want to, is broken at last. I fight to make this day occur. It is the truth, doesn't matter the genetics of a person or anything. It still boils down to a decision one has made to have that sexual orientation. For instance, i'm attracted to women, BUT if God was to have said it was a sin to sleep with women, then i'd have no choice but not to. Reason i put that is to spell out what i'm get'n at. Even though we are attracted to something, same sex, drugs, rush of murdering someone, ect DOES NOT mean we are to go with those urges. So since you're support homosexuals because they are attracted to each other and not the opposite sex because of genetics. Do you support mass murdering by mentally challenged people or someone that just has the extreme urge to destroy the world? Again, because of the desire they have due to genetics? In a roundabout way what i'm saying is, the attraction itself may not be a decision that person has made. But the actions taken upon this attraction is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you believe that I have not thought about the consequences? I grew up in a catholic family. I have sacrificed most of my family in order to tell the truth. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't consider the consequences. However, I will never lie about who I am or anything else. I will NOT be in a relationship with a woman that I would never love in that way. That would do more harm than good in the long run.
How about I consider the consequences of building a life with a woman, having kids, and then they find out that all along I am gay? What will that do to them? How will that make them feel? How about I think about other people instead of myself? What would that do to the kids? How would you feel if you had a wife for 10 years and then found out that the only way for her to get aroused with you was to think about other women? I know I would be devastated. I have known that I liked men since I was 15. I have done nothing but think about the consequences for the past 18 years. That doesn't mean that I am going to be willing to start lying now. I had a girlfriend until I was 21, when I finally realized I wasn't happy. She was a wonderful girl and didn't deserve to be used to hide my attraction to men. So when you ask me to consider the consequences, trust me, I have. I know exactly whats going on for me. I also know that God would not want me to break his first commandment. Thou shalt not lie! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you believe that I have not thought about the consequences? I grew up in a catholic family. I have sacrificed most of my family in order to tell the truth. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't consider the consequences. However, I will never lie about who I am or anything else. I will NOT be in a relationship with a woman that I would never love in that way. That would do more harm than good in the long run. How about I consider the consequences of building a life with a woman, having kids, and then they find out that all along I am gay? What will that do to them? How will that make them feel? How about I think about other people instead of myself? What would that do to the kids? How would you feel if you had a wife for 10 years and then found out that the only way for her to get aroused with you was to think about other women? I know I would be devastated. I have known that I liked men since I was 15. I have done nothing but think about the consequences for the past 18 years. That doesn't mean that I am going to be willing to start lying now. I had a girlfriend until I was 21, when I finally realized I wasn't happy. She was a wonderful girl and didn't deserve to be used to hide my attraction to men. So when you ask me to consider the consequences, trust me, I have. I know exactly whats going on for me. I also know that God would not want me to break his first commandment. Thou shalt not lie! Not asking and never have asked you nor told you to lie. Would be a large bolder to carry around, but there is such a thing as staying abstinent. Take a second to think, do you want to live your life for your? Or do you want to live your life for God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you believe that I have not thought about the consequences? I grew up in a catholic family. I have sacrificed most of my family in order to tell the truth. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't consider the consequences. However, I will never lie about who I am or anything else. I will NOT be in a relationship with a woman that I would never love in that way. That would do more harm than good in the long run. How about I consider the consequences of building a life with a woman, having kids, and then they find out that all along I am gay? What will that do to them? How will that make them feel? How about I think about other people instead of myself? What would that do to the kids? How would you feel if you had a wife for 10 years and then found out that the only way for her to get aroused with you was to think about other women? I know I would be devastated. I have known that I liked men since I was 15. I have done nothing but think about the consequences for the past 18 years. That doesn't mean that I am going to be willing to start lying now. I had a girlfriend until I was 21, when I finally realized I wasn't happy. She was a wonderful girl and didn't deserve to be used to hide my attraction to men. So when you ask me to consider the consequences, trust me, I have. I know exactly whats going on for me. I also know that God would not want me to break his first commandment. Thou shalt not lie! Not asking and never have asked you nor told you to lie. Would be a large bolder to carry around, but there is such a thing as staying abstinent. Take a second to think, do you want to live your life for your? Or do you want to live your life for God? I want to live a good life for me. You'll notice I never said I was actively dating... I just want to live my life honestly, and that is what I plan to do. Also I'm pretty sure I pointed this out before, I don't believe in God, I believe there might be something out there just not sure it's the christian God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is the truth, doesn't matter the genetics of a person or anything. It still boils down to a decision one has made to have that sexual orientation. For instance, i'm attracted to women, BUT if God was to have said it was a sin to sleep with women, then i'd have no choice but not to. Reason i put that is to spell out what i'm get'n at. Even though we are attracted to something, same sex, drugs, rush of murdering someone, ect DOES NOT mean we are to go with those urges.
So since you're support homosexuals because they are attracted to each other and not the opposite sex because of genetics. Do you support mass murdering by mentally challenged people or someone that just has the extreme urge to destroy the world? Again, because of the desire they have due to genetics? If we assume that some people commit acts willful and even well considered act of violence such as murder, what should their punishment be? If we assume that some people commit acts of violence only because they suffer a severe mental disorder, what should their punishment be? I'm only asking because according to you, practicing homosexuals deserve the exact same 'punishment' as a murderer who has a severe mental disorder. The next quesitons would be, is the number of offenses of any consequence? and how would you treat repeat offenders? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Tue 08/24/10 03:24 PM
|
|
First i want to say no one is "born" homosexual. Cowboy, you can't prove this any more than I can prove its opposite. It is the truth, doesn't matter the genetics of a person or anything. It still boils down to a decision one has made to have that sexual orientation. For instance, i'm attracted to women, BUT if God was to have said it was a sin to sleep with women, then i'd have no choice but not to. Reason i put that is to spell out what i'm get'n at. Even though we are attracted to something, same sex, drugs, rush of murdering someone, ect DOES NOT mean we are to go with those urges. So since you're support homosexuals because they are attracted to each other and not the opposite sex because of genetics. Do you support mass murdering by mentally challenged people or someone that just has the extreme urge to destroy the world? Again, because of the desire they have due to genetics? In a roundabout way what i'm saying is, the attraction itself may not be a decision that person has made. But the actions taken upon this attraction is. Cowboy, you make sense for the first time I have been reading your posts. I disagree with how you see things, but that is far outweighed by the benefit of your making a statement that I believe is solid. There is two ways to reply to it: You said nobody is born gay. Later you say people may be attracted to someone, but to allow the attraction to move the person to action is or ought to be governed by the level of the person's desire to obey god. So. You say a man may not be attracted to women, but he must not be acting as gays do, even if he wants to. This brings the issue to ask: Is gayness the act of living out one's desire, or is gayness a quality that gives a man a desire to act in a certain way? Whether he acts it or not. If we can see that the quality of gayness is satisfied sufficiently by owning a desire to have sex with the same gender people, then your original statement, which I wished you to refute, that is, "nobody is born gay" is not true. However, if we agree that to be gay one must act as a gay, your original statement of "nobody's born gay" is true. Whether I support gays or mass murderers is not the issue. The issue is "can someone be born as a gay man"? You admit that one can be born with gay desires, but you do insist that they are not gay, so action is what decides a determination of gender preference. If we accept your definition, yes, nobody is born gay, in the act of homosexual love. What else do we get born without, in lack of having performed an activity that makes us a part of a group? Nobody is born blind. A blind person is liable to walk into walls when unaided. A newborn baby does NOT walk into walls. A blind person does get a card that certifies he or she is blind, and it restricts him or her from some privileges and aides him or her to privileges exclusive to blind people (for instance, driving a car int he first case, and carrying a dog on an airplane in the second case.) A baby does not drive, and does not carry a dog on an airplane. Yet there are babies born with no eyes. Very sad, but there are some. Are they not born blind? I wonder. Do they carry dogs on airplanes? Do they walk into walls? Do they apply for drivers licences and get refused an issue? No, no, and no. So nobody gets born blind. Even those who get born blind don't get born blind, because the newborns have not demonstrated with an ACT or ACTION that they are blind. Yet they are blind. On the strength of this above reasoning, I reject your statement that those who get born with a desire to have sex with people of the same gender, are not born gay, on the strength on their lack of action alone. I think an ability or a talent or a given character that one gets born with is a true talent or character, and others do not need the proof to see that person act in the capacity of showing the talent or the character to know for sure about the person's congenital possession of it. That's A. And B. is that God forbade only the Israelites to stay away from homosexual sex; but for everyone else, it was okay to do. God only wants all the Jews to be straight, all others can go themselves or anything that moves, for all God cares. (Deuteronomy 23, verse 17 17: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. ) It is the same with pork and shrimp. The Bible forbids the JEWS to eat pork; all others can. Christians do. Christians eat pork and shrimp. So if a Jew cannot do something, somebody who is not a Jew, can still do it. Christians are allowed by God to have gay sex. The whole hoolaboo is based on not even an interpretation, but a misplaced moral judgment on an extrapolation that is not valid, since other extrapolations must be existing then, which don't at all. Christians are not Jews. Only their god is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh,I see. To be quite honest, if I read a report about a 50 yr old man having sex with any minor, my first thought would be curiosity about the man. What would make a 50 yr old man think sex with a 12/14/16 year old sound like a good idea? Does it offend my sensibility to consider such a thing, (minors having sex) of course it does, but in the past it was not considered all that unusual for girls of 14 to be married and have children by the time they were 16 or 18. Although, I thing the age differential was not that great. Do I want to see a return to that, no I don't. But there still exit tribes of people today for whom it works. This is what I would expect most people to say, only because of what I perceive as the "norm". But why would it offend your sensibility? Is this something you have a logical reason to be offended by? Or is it simply a matter of preference? No it's not a matter of preference it's a matter of how gender and roles have evolved. At a time when having only an 8th grade education was normal and most poeple were farmers, children moved into adult roles much sooner. When women were helping in the fields 6 & 7 year olds were babysitting their little brothers and sisters. By the time a young girl was 10 she knew more about babies, birthing and survival than a lot of young adult women do today. Even into the late 19th and early 20th century there was little room in the 'role' of women for education and not much more for the vast majority of men. Again thier childhood was very short as kids were often required to take on huge responsibities very young. Even into the 1970's the roles had not changed much, and most men were able to go to work and make a living. What HAD changed was child labor laws and a vast public school system.... This is getting longer than I wanted and it doesn't even begin to put dent in the reasoning. But at least it's enough to let you know there is REASON behind the reply I made, not just an gut responce. But couldn't "gender and roles" be used as an agument against gay marriage too? To me, "gender and roles" is a matter of public opinion. Although it's politically correct to take into account public opinion, it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision. I will also have to shoot down "existing laws" as an aguement too as there are current laws prohibiting gay marriage as well. What about immediate harm? There is no more than if 2 adults were doing the same thing. What about long-lasting harm (emotional)? Hard to say... I would think that only those who experienced harm would be the ones identified, thus making any surver or study biased. All I'm trying do is show you that opinions are allowed to be gut reactions. There is no logical thought process which accounts for taste. I think my example may have hit the nail on the head with the terminology you used (offends my sensibilities). To me, "gender and roles" is a matter of public opinion. Although it's politically correct to take into account public opinion, it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision.
How are you defining “ matter of public opinion”, as inclusive of all public or as opinion of individuals? Why do you say it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision ?It doesn't matter how it's defined, it's the opinion of other people, not your own. Thus it's not a good basis for your opinion. You tried to support your "gut reaction" opinion with another opinion. I will also have to shoot down "existing laws" as an aguement too as there are current laws prohibiting gay marriage as well.
Because that quote has taken from the context in which it was delivered it’s impossible to make any connection between it and the point you are trying to make. Can you rephrase to make your point clearer? In support of your gut reaction, I'd have to dismiss "previous laws" as I've seen you use that reasoning before. If I'm correct, I think you used it twice, once each against incest and minor sex. I see you support gay marriage, so previous laws doesn't seem to really be an issue then, does it? What about immediate harm? There is no more than if 2 adults were doing the same thing.
What about long-lasting harm (emotional)? Hard to say... I would think that only those who experienced harm would be the ones identified, thus making any surver or study biased. Both the question and the response in the above are very broad and generalized statements. In their original context was any factual information provided which would have narrowed or focused these generalizations into a viable discussion? We are not even sure if there was a point or opinion being expressed or if this was just a general discussion about some questions that might play a role in forming an opinion. They weren't meant to generate a new topic of discussion, they are to prove a point. The first one is true, you can try to find facts if you desire them. I'm 99.99% sure the only logical reason you can come up with to refute emotional harm is to "protect the children", or something to that effect, am I right? Which of course would require someone's opinion as to whom needed protection. All I'm trying do is show you that opinions are allowed to be gut reactions. There is no logical thought process which accounts for taste.
Yes, and I have agreed, on the basis of the purely subjective, such qualities as affects our physical senses in ways which are known only to the self. There are even times when we are asked to provide our instantaneous gut reaction, about an objective issue, based only on a limited amount of information. However, it is understood that the information is limited. This is actually a valid format through which discussion and even debate about an issue begins. Obviously we are use to this type of format because we use it consistently here in our forum discussion. The point of instigating such discussion is to allow everyone an opportunity to air their opinion – but also to gain new insight through the information that others provide as they support their conclusions with various facts and examples. I think my example may have hit the nail on the head with the terminology you used (offends my sensibilities).
The statement (offends my sensibilities) is a subjective one which actually offers no opinion beyond the gut feeling of the individual. There is no pretense of it being anything else. On the other hand, in the context in which the statement was made, there was not enough information given to support an objective response. Therefore, more information was presented regarding possible questions surrounding such an issue to indicate that there is a possibility of examining all the facts and drawing more logical conclusion besides that of my initial subjective response. Herein lies the problem. You think an opinion can be objective. So if someone would have said that gay marriage "offends their senisibilities", you wouldn't have questioned their "critical thought process" and "DOUBLE DOG DARED" them to provide reasoning? And your "objective" opinion would have been able to spot that "subjective" response? |
|
|
|
|
