Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 6:39 PM
222 online now:
dwise1, JonF, Meddle, ooh-child, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (7 members, 215 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,008 Year: 16,831/29,783 Month: 819/1,956 Week: 322/331 Day: 50/50 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   The bible and homosexuality
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3578
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 31 of 323 (103791)
04-29-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes:

But the contention that God has somehow changed his rules to suit our times, is ridiculous since health and multiplying are still extant facts.

Please read the original post of this thread and respond to all the things I said in that blue box.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 2:02 PM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5351
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 32 of 323 (103801)
04-29-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Inversion
Therefore, the laws of health as found in Leviticus, including those of sexual behavior, apply throuhout time and apply to all those who wish to obey the God who gave them.

So you better stay away from the cafe on Friday, when they have Shrimp and Catfish Night. Abominations, y'know. Bad for you. No scales....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 2:02 PM PecosGeorge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 5:34 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 323 (103811)
04-29-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Inversion
quote:
Homosexuality is inverted behavior not conducive to health or the established 'request' to be 'fruitful and multiply'.

Homosexuality is only inverted if you first decide that heterosexuality is the only correct practice.

Also, heterosexual sex is just as unhealthy as homosexual sex. Numerous STD's are transmitted through hetero sex. In fact, wearing a condom is actually healthier, but it prevents humans from being fruitful and multiplying. This is in stark contrast to what you seem to be implying, that unprotected heterosexual sex is healthy compared to other sexual acts. Perhaps the safest sex there is is partner-less sex, masturbation.

quote:
For God to condone it, certainly would be against his establishment. For these reasons, it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether the Old or New Testament speaks against it, and the New Testament does most vehemently speak against it.

It does matter if commandments and proscriptions are in the Old or New testament, as I laid out earlier. The Old Covenant, including dietary restrictions and Holy Observations, was fulfilled by the coming of the Christ. Christians are now under the New Covenant, as proscribed by Jesus's teachings. I would argue that this is one of the most important tenets within christianity. Nowhere did Jesus speak out against homosexuality. It is only in the Pauline and Deuteropauline letters do we see homosexuality mentioned, and even then it is only certain practices (homosexual prostitution by temple priests) that are spoken of. The Apostle Paul was a very wise man, but his teachings should not be taken as coming from the mouth of Jesus (in my opinion only, you may think differently).

quote:
I believe there is heterosexual behavior that is foul and unhealthy, and I do not care how people get their jollies. But the contention that God has somehow changed his rules to suit our times, is ridiculous since health and multiplying are still extant facts.

The coming of the Messiah did change the rules. Jesus is now the intermediary between us and YHWH.

quote:
Does God want New Testament people to be healthy? Well, yes! Therefore, the laws of health as found in Leviticus, including those of sexual behavior, apply throuhout time and apply to all those who wish to obey the God who gave them.

Do you eat pork? Think about it.

quote:
As for the number of translations being the reason for the number of sects, no, that is not it. It is the number of interpretations of the Written Word that are the cause. Well, think about it.

Good point. Differences in interpretation of agreed upon translations is in fact the main difference between sects. You caught me on that one.

I hope you don't feel like I am telling you what christians should believe or how they should practice their religion. My posts in this thread are my opinion, and should be regarded as such. The tone of my posts can, at times, sound patronizing, but that isn't what I intend. I am just trying to communicate what I feel is the truth, but realize that the truth is very elusive. Happy posting.

[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-29-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 2:02 PM PecosGeorge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 5:32 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 34 of 323 (103837)
04-29-2004 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Inversion
Homosexuality is inverted behavior

What does that mean?

For God to condone it, certainly would be against his establishment

What does that mean?

Therefore, the laws of health as found in Leviticus, including those of sexual behavior, apply throuhout time and apply to all those who wish to obey the God who gave them.

Speaking of behavior...

What about Leviticus 25: 44-46?

How about Exodus 21: 7


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 2:02 PM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 35 of 323 (103848)
04-29-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Lammy
04-29-2004 2:26 PM


Re: Inversion
Thank you so much for your kind advice. As for how far I will get on this forum.....let's just say I won't do your research for you. Get a good concordance and do your own. It will do you a world of good. Reference, cross-reference and such and etc. Good luck.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Lammy, posted 04-29-2004 2:26 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-29-2004 5:16 PM PecosGeorge has responded
 Message 40 by Lammy, posted 04-29-2004 6:42 PM PecosGeorge has responded

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 252 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 36 of 323 (103850)
04-29-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 5:09 PM


Re: Inversion
Hi Pecos, welcome to EvC.

Stating an opinion and then telling others to do their own research isn't quite how we do things around here. When asked for a reference it is only common curtesy to give one.

If there is no reference and you are just stating an unsupported opinion then please say so. If you have supported reasoning for your statement then please offer it when asked.

Please reread the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to when joining this site. Pay particular attention to #4.


AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 5:09 PM PecosGeorge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-30-2004 11:38 AM AdminAsgara has not yet responded

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 37 of 323 (103857)
04-29-2004 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Loudmouth
04-29-2004 3:54 PM


Re: Inversion
Thank you for being straight forward, I am so myself. That style of approaching conversation is often misinterpreted. Alas, it has not changed me.
Christ came to fulfill the law, not to change it. It is immutable for the very reason that it is an expression of God's character and how he thinks and what he deems appropriate for his creation. Christ came to bring salvation, and that alone. Not one jot or tittle will pass from the law....etc. He also did not come to make animals clean to eat, that is ridiculous, why make them unclean for consumption and then change your mind.....because? What did cease is the ceremonial law of sacrifices. No longer necessary since the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world gave up.....

Anal sex is a poor choice of intercourse method, since the anal cavity is fragile and not intended for the purpose.

Christ has always been the intermediary, he has simply put on priestly robes since his sojourn on earth. Melchizedek.

Nice talking with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Loudmouth, posted 04-29-2004 3:54 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-29-2004 6:28 PM PecosGeorge has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2004 1:13 AM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 38 of 323 (103858)
04-29-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coragyps
04-29-2004 2:53 PM


Re: Inversion
yes'm
thank you
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coragyps, posted 04-29-2004 2:53 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 323 (103881)
04-29-2004 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 5:32 PM


Re: Inversion
quote:
Christ came to fulfill the law, not to change it.

So... you do keep kosher, and you don't wear two types of cloth together?

quote:
Anal sex is a poor choice of intercourse method, since the anal cavity is fragile and not intended for the purpose.

It's not made of glass, guy.

A little lube and some careful motion, and anal sex can be pulled off without harm.

Besides, what makes you think gay people are all having anal sex?

Please answer my earlier questions about men sucking wang, and lesbian sex.


"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 5:32 PM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

Lammy
Member
Posts: 3578
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 40 of 323 (103896)
04-29-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 5:09 PM


Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes:

Thank you so much for your kind advice. As for how far I will get on this forum.....let's just say I won't do your research for you. Get a good concordance and do your own. It will do you a world of good. Reference, cross-reference and such and etc. Good luck.

Did you even read my original post? Go to the very first post of this thread and read the words in the blue box. Heck, just read the stuff below.

quote:
Let's start with Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 states, "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."

Leviticus is, of course, old testament. Most Christians these days ignore the majority of the teachings in the old testaments for obvious reasons: they're considered outdated to our moral standards today.

Leviticus 21:9 states, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."

Now really, do you think, with our modern sense of morality, that we can ever justify burning someone alive?

Leviticus 12:4-5 states, "and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled. If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she sahll be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood."

Ok, to plainly put it, these verses forbids a woman from entering church for 42 days after giving birth. The Catholic church has completely ignored this verse as far as creating their policies go. To our moral standards today, the notion of a woman somehow "unclean" for 42 days after giving birth is absurd.

Leviticus 25:44 states, "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations."

Leviticus 25:45, 46 states, "You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slavesyou may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."

These verses clearly justify slavery, given that slaves are bought from neighboring states. Verse 25:46 clearly states that slaves are property.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, many Americans used these verses to justify slavery in this country. In other words, Leviticus was used to justify one of the darkest and most embarrassing part of our history.

Let us go back to Leviticus 18:22. If we think that this part of Leviticus in the old testament holds for our modern morality, then why not the other verses that I mentioned above? The verses that I mentioned above are only a few of the examples from the old testament where our modern sense of morality condemns as immoral.

If Leviticus 18:22 is the only thing that is telling you that homosexuality is wrong, I hope that you rethink about your position on the issue.


By the way, giving vague answers like what you have done isn't going to make us think that you are somehow smarter than us and that you know all. Either answer our questions or go away.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 5:09 PM PecosGeorge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-30-2004 12:21 PM Lammy has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4621
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 41 of 323 (103938)
04-29-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dan Carroll
04-29-2004 1:45 PM


Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me
But seriously, he's got a point. Why don't you become a Rastafarian? What have you go to lose?

I guess I am content that Christ is the way, to God. I am satisfied Christ is the only begotten son of God, that in itself and the teachings of the NT thereof - satisfy me. It is all in the bible, and I want to be written in the book of life. I could go on but it is hard to explain and I can hear you sighing from here........

Equally unfortunately, in order to have concern for our immortal souls, you must first work under the assumption that our souls are in danger. In other words, the sentiment's nice and all, but a pre-requisite for it is to judge us to the pit.

Well - if it helps, I think everybody is in danger of the pit. But I only try to preach to people because of what God says about sin, not what I say. So - the point is, I believe fully, and therefore am convinced that Christ is the truth - what would you do in my position? (That last bit isn't sexual innuendo )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-29-2004 1:45 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2004 1:05 AM mike the wiz has responded

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 42 of 323 (104035)
04-30-2004 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 8:13 PM


Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me
mike the wiz writes:

quote:
So - the point is, I believe fully, and therefore am convinced that Christ is the truth - what would you do in my position?

Keep my big mouth shut. Have the respect to understand that I am not in any position to tell anybody else about the supernatural since the only evidence that exists is entire personal and subjective. Have enough faith that god does not need me to spread the word. If god wants another person to join the song, he'll hand out the music for himself.

Why is that so difficult to understand?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 8:13 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 9:30 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 323 (104038)
04-30-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 5:32 PM


Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes:

quote:
Anal sex is a poor choice of intercourse method, since the anal cavity is fragile and not intended for the purpose.

Obviously untrue by mere observation. Since so many people engage in anal sex without any problems...including putting things much larger than a simple penis in there...then it necessarily is the case that anal sex is a perfectly legitimate choice of intercourse.

In fact, depending upon how you look at it, anal intercourse is a better choice than vaginal intercourse. For one, everybody has an anus. Thus, everybody can participate in the pleasures of anal sex. Two, the rectum doesn't have a stopper on the end the way the vagina does (i.e., the cervix). Thus, anal sex provides more possibilities.

By your logic, we should give up eating any sort of grown food and instead all switch to processed, "engineered" foods and vitamin pills. They are much more efficient at providing the exact levels of nutritional value needed.

I've never understood the argument of "the parts don't fit." Obviously, they do or people would be incapable of having sex that way.

By the way, what do you say to all the heterosexuals who have anal sex? There's more of them, you know. And just because somebody is gay does not mean he engages in anal sex.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 5:32 PM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Unseul, posted 04-30-2004 7:35 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 323 (104048)
04-30-2004 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by PecosGeorge
04-29-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Inversion
PecosGeorge writes:

quote:
But the contention that God has somehow changed his rules to suit our times, is ridiculous since health and multiplying are still extant facts. Does God want New Testament people to be healthy? Well, yes! Therefore, the laws of health as found in Leviticus, including those of sexual behavior, apply throuhout time and apply to all those who wish to obey the God who gave them.

Oh, stop beating around the bush.

You're talking about HIV.

Hate to break the news to you, but HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex. It always has been. There is more to the world than the United States. Worldwide, three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission were passed via heterosexual sex. Guess what #2 was? That's right...IV drug use. Sex between men is such a tiny part of HIV transmission that it is only in the West that it shows up as a significant vector.

In fact, the US is one of the last remaining places in the world where HIV is transmitted mostly between men. Europe flipped to primarily heterosexual sex back in 1999.

So go ahead and talk about health all you want.

You still have to show that there is any health risk to same-sex sexual activity that isn't just as prevalent in opposite-sex sex.

By your logic, god's chosen people are lesbians. They have the lowest transmission of STDs of all. If health is your criteria, why are you condemning the healthiest?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 2:02 PM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 323 (104101)
04-30-2004 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rrhain
04-30-2004 1:13 AM


Re: Inversion
Erm, anal intercourse is thought to be more risky as far as transmitting AIDS is concerned. There is more chance of abrasions and cuts opening, once direct access to the bloodstream is available it is a lot easier for the virus to transmit. Blood to blood transmissions are the most common to occur, IF all transmission modes were practiced equally by HIV positive people.

Statistics your using for HIV being primarily transmitted by heterosexual intercourse are probably extremely biased. Because as far as i am aware homosexuals are still in the minority (by a large degree) so obviously once HIV enters the heterosexual pool then its going to cause more cases, simply through larger number.

Of course not just homosexuals engage in anal sex (if they do), however it still stands that the anus, whilst being capable of taking a penis, still does take damage.

One last thing, even tho you appear to be an extremely regular poster,you seem to be not taking much notice of the rules by being slightl insulting to Mike, "Keep my big mouth shut" could easily have been put better.

Plus as mike said, as far as hes concerned he might not want to do that, but its what his diety says he should do. Personally ive found mike to be one of the most reasonable preachy types, and dont mind listening to his arguments. Perhaps you should try and learn some of that patience also.

Unseul


Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2004 1:13 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-30-2004 12:09 PM Unseul has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 05-01-2004 5:48 AM Unseul has responded

Prev12
3
456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018