|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The bible and homosexuality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Closing statements please?
300 is our typical cut off point for threads. If you would like to continue the conversations please propose a new topic. I will be closing this one down soon. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You did tell me you had a wife. Yes, I did. She has a vagina, so I asked her.
Does that mean that you can screw me in the ear. Did you want me to? Are your ears big enough? The rest of your post doesn't really make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to me:
quote:quote: Yes, all the time. How do you think menstruation happens? It just follows the natural flow of gravity? That if women just stood on their heads, they'd never have a period? Go take that anatomy and physiology class you suggested. I think you'd be surprised at what you don't know.
quote: Incorrect. I act like the definition of "The musculature pushes out" applies equally to both the anus and the vagina.
quote: Yep, I'm an actor...but I am also a mathematician. I do live in California currently, but I'm an Air Force brat. I'm from everywhere. When was it determined that I'm gay? At least one gay person here is absolutely certain that I'm straight. "Liberal"? Ask me about my opinions on affirmative action sometime. "?religion"? What on earth does that mean? When was it determined that I'm an atheist?
quote: Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not California but rather you? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to crashfrog:
quote: It most certainly is! If the muscular contractions happen constantly and are always in a single direction, how is that not "the big squeeze tube"? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to berberry:
quote: Might it possibly be that no person who isn't threatened by homosexuality would react as those who are so described? After all, nobody who doesn't like liver tries to stop other people from enjoying it. They simply don't care. They are perfectly secure in their own gastronomical orientation that they have no qualms living in a world surrounded by people who like liver. Nobody tries to make them eat what they don't want to eat, so there is no threat. Since gay people cause no threat, to behave as if there is something horrendously wrong that needs to be stopped (or what?) is an indication of an irrational fear response. Thus, "fear of homosexuals," or "homophobia." So tell us: If gay people were not interfered with in any way, what would happen? How would your life change? Be specific. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
What was the reason for rejecting the verses in Romans about men defiling themselves with each other etc. What was the reason it was rejected. Something about what Paul said?.
Also in Timothy 1:9 we read "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" This "Defile themselves with mankind" has been translated as Sodomites. Which is homosexuals. So this is a condemnation of homosexuality. Yes?.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Zachariah asks:
quote: You may believe it is wrong and immoral yourself all you want, but when you begin speaking out and actively attempting to deny homosexuals equal rights you become a homophobe. You have an irrational fear and/or hatred of something that poses no threat to you.
quote: So, in your mind, cowardice means NOT hating and/or fearing something that poses no threat to you? That's interesting.
quote: I have no hatred or fear of heterosexuals, God, conservatives, Bush, Americans or women. I DO have some fear of Christians, but only because they are a strong voting block and certain groups of them have demonstrated a hatred/fear of gays. I am not so much afraid of them as I am afraid of what they might do to America in order to have their bigotry enshrined into the law. Therefore my fear is not irrational and thus cannot be described as a phobia. Paul is a homophobe because, if we take the word of people like you, Almeyda and truthlover, then Paul shares your irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuality. I'm still not convinced that his words refer to monogamous, loving gay relationships, but if they do then clearly Paul's fear is irrational and thus he is indeed a homophobe. Since I have been kind enough to answer your questions, may I beg that you answer one for me? Why is it that the conservative Christian faiths have always been on the wrong side of history whenever a question of equality for certain groups is raised? Why is it that things like equal rights for women and African-Americans are only supported by conservative Christians long after such rights have become the law of the land?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Rrhain apparently refers to me when he writes:
quote: Not absolutely. I lean in that direction because it's hard for me to imagine a gay person taking the view you did on the issue we were discussing at that time. It sounded like the sort of thing a straight person who is concerned with equal rights but who has no personal experience with the nature of bigotry might say. I do hope you didn't take my comments as insulting; I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. You are a very fair-minded man and if I knew you personally I feel sure we'd be friends. I rarely disagree with you, but in this one case I did and still do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
I don't believe your statement to be valid. I believe you have made a statement with no backing. Why don't you give me that proof you all are always wanting. Tell me about all the nasty conservatives that tried to get in the way of the civilrights and womens movements. The womens movements that take away from the mother figure would be blocked be Christians because it harms the family in some cases. Not saying that working mothers is a bad thing I'm saying that the groups that take away the father figure and say its not needed are bad. If I recall the democrate Bird I think is his name (not sure) was in the KKK. He's no conservative. It a typical stereotype that you have alowed yourself to get brainwashed by. The things mainstreem conservatism is agaisnt are things that harm the family unit, country, and take away from independence. I and (I would say) many others in both parties would be for civil rights and womens rights and gay rights. But not if they are going to FORCE them onto us. And I'm only
irrational to people like you. I have no problem with the whole left alone idea. But it was the gays that brought the lifestyle to the front page not us. Mistreated by people who hated gays? Yes they have been. But now we see that the tables have turned because there are no people left with balls enough to go against them. Now whwn we have a gay man killed it is the topic of conversation for 2 weeks or more. ANd when a child is raped , tortured and murdered by two homosexuals it is back page news. Never even hear a whisper about it. You want it fare? ME TOO!!! If you want it balanced them make a stand when something like this happens show some disgust. Hell, make some anti-homosexual people aware that you think that things like that are just as bad as when it happens to one of your friends.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4089 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Well, I'm satisfied with what I've said on the whole issue, but Berberry had a well-justified objection that I need to explain:
You said it and then you tried to run away from it. You said, and I quote: "I do think cowardice is among the major sins condemned by the Scriptures". Berberry's point is that by saying this I'm lying about my statements about the Bible. I couldn't even find this quote by me. I'm sure I said it back at the beginning of this discussion, maybe three, four, or five posts ago, when I was putting a comment by Paul about effeminacy in the context I think it belongs in. In that situation, I was simply giving a context for Paul. Since then, Berberry has somehow been determined to make an issue about Genesis not saying something negative about Lot's actions in Sodom. I cannot imagine what that has to do with anything at all, much less with anything we're talking about, and that is what I have said repeatedly. Using the Scriptures in general as a context for something Paul said and trying to prove the Bible is for or against something are two completely different things in my eyes. Nor do I use Scriptures and Bible interchangeably, except when I'm talking with Christians, because they do (so sometimes I use their terminology). I don't and have not for a long time held to a "Bible" condemnation or approval of anything at all. This does not stop me from using the Scriptures in general (which to me consist of writings both in and not in the Bible) as a context for Paul or others who I believe to be the same spirit as Paul. The question of this thread, and the one I addressed, was "does the Bible condemn homosexuality explicitly anywhere." I answered that satisfactorily, in my opinion. And if Berberry doesn't feel he admitted that, then that's okay. I misinterpreted him. Because of his constant references to Paul as "homophobic," I made an assumption that he agreed. It seems bizarre to call someone homophobic and then to suggest he approved of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, but if that's what he says he's doing, then I'll grant that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah writes:
quote: Let me see if I understand your logic: Person A discriminates against Person B.Person B makes a stink about it and manages to get a significant amount of people to rail against the discrimination. This somehow means it is Person B's fault that there is now a national discussion about the issue rather than the discrimination perpetrated by Person A. You seem to be upset that you're being called to the carpet for your unconscionable behaviour...all the while never stopping to consider the possibility that it would all go away if you would simply stop.
quote: (*snort!*) You can't even remember their names, can you? Dirkhising. The little boy's name was Jesse Dirkhising. And he made national news, too. The difference between Shepard and Dirkhising is that nobody claimed that Dirkhising "brought it on himself" the way it was claimed Shepard did. Shepard's death was a hate crime which in our political atmosphere, is a national issue. It directly goes to the question of how we as a society treat an entire class of people. Shepard's killers tried to use a "gay panic" defense: The torture and murder was reasonable and acceptable because Shepard came on to them. Dirkhising's was a sex crime which, alas, is not considered a national issue. People die from sex crimes every single day. The sexual torture of children is an important issue, but nobody ever tried to say that it was justifiable. Did you know that the week before the "Central Park Jogger" was attacked, a man was viciously attacked in Central Park in much the same way? Why was his attack not a national news story but hers was? There are all sorts of reasons why some stories manage to acquire legs and others remain local news.
quote: Then you simply didn't look. And I notice that your attempt to claim that gay people are never portrayed as perpetrators of crime seems to have ignored Andrew Cunanan and Jeffery Dahmer. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Zachariah writes:
What's your point? I still don't see how you could equate pedophilia with homosexuality. Actually, there are more straight pedophiles than gay ones. The only difference is we don't hear about the straight ones as much, and people like you seem to turn a blind eye on the straight ones while sound the alarm for the gay ones. Now whwn we have a gay man killed it is the topic of conversation for 2 weeks or more. ANd when a child is raped , tortured and murdered by two homosexuals it is back page news. Never even hear a whisper about it. Talking about ignorance and hate. Hey Admins, I think this thread has taken its course. Please direct people to round 3. I'd be more interested to see people respond to the 2 passages I put in that thread. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Speaking of Jeffery Dahmer, one of my ex-prof of Law used to work at a firm that had someone defended the guy.
The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Lam,
I gotcha beat: My cousin went to high school with him. He was from La Jolla, after all...just up the road. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Wow! I need to find your cousin and laminate him/her.
The Laminator
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024