|
Author
|
Topic: The bible and homosexuality: Round 3
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 120 of 306 (123555)
07-10-2004 4:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 119 by berberry
07-10-2004 2:45 AM
|
|
Thanx for the correction.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by berberry, posted 07-10-2004 2:45 AM | | berberry has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 127 of 306 (123971)
07-12-2004 1:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by riVeRraT
07-11-2004 8:37 AM
|
|
the rat writes: REad all the history books. It is a well known fact the Jesus is a pivot point in history, and is considered the center of history by many.
We've been over this. There's no historical references of Jesus's existence. Also, christianity is considered the center of history by only people in Europe back then. Nothing to do with other parts of the world.
Then so is every doctor.
No, doctors recommend that women who have recently given birth should stay home for health issues. In other words, the reason is concerning the welfare of the women. However, you and leviticus think that women who have recently given birth are unclean and should not enter church solely because they are unclean. In other words, the women are allowed to go elsewhere and thus put themselves in danger. Therefore, leviticus has nothing to do with women's health issue. You are simply saying anything you can to defend your position, even though your comment has nothing to do with following leviticus.
Unless we are talking about slaves in the bible.
Huh? Please explain.
Big deal. I have done that. I have also predicted 20 years into the future about certain things. Others have predicted 150 years into the future. Try predicting 2000 years, then I will be impressed. Also your predictions will have to change the whole world. Don't just tell me that computers will be faster in 10 years.
Sure! I predict that 2000 years from now things will be very different from now. There.
While Jesus was alive, he had to obey the law, so they wouldn't have a valid reason to kill him. But amoung his disciples, he was changing the way people think, and paved the way for how the future would be. Do you honestly think for one second unless Jesus did this, and his disciples followed him after he died, that the world would have changed? It was the same way for 1000's of years. It is because of Jesus that you can enjoy the life you have today.
What are you talking about? First you said that he changed the law. Now, you are saying that he followed them. Can you be at least consitent about your own belief? Christianity did not destroy the roman empire. The barbarians did. However, let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
You are now forgiven of your sins through him.
.........
i.e. If you do something against God's will, and your family member is not happy with it, based on his/her religious beliefs. It is better for you not to do it.
What you just wrote isn't even a complete sentence. Please explain what this has to do with what we are talking about?
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by riVeRraT, posted 07-11-2004 8:37 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 133 of 306 (124188)
07-13-2004 5:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 3:53 PM
|
|
the rat writes: Lmao. I must have missed that one, but now because you can't find Jesus in a history book, there is no historical reference of him? Lol. I do believe there is more written text on Jesus and what he did than another figure in history, yet he is the one that is fake to you.
Base on your logic, fairies must be real, because there are more references to fairies than any real historical figure like King Kufu.
It doesn't say that, you say that, because you don't want to accept it.
Read the freaking bible again.
Truth- Women are unclean after giving birth Truth- Women should rest for 40 days, that means stay home. Untruth- Woman in Leviticus can't go to church soley because they are unclean. Untruth- They can go were ever they want.
It doesn't say that women should stay home. Here is it again.
Leviticus writes: 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.
I'm beginning to think you have a reading comprehension problem.
Where you there? Do you really know what it was like to be a slave back then that had a righteous master. Since all those things were commanded, people may have not had a problem with it. Therefor it wouldn't go against people's will. The meaning of the word slave has changed possibly over the years.
I could easily make the same claim about homosexuality, that the reason it was not percieved as ok because people didn't really love each other. If your good book is devine, it should have put the future into consideration.
I guess this statement is the pinnicle of your intelligence?
No.
Why can't you understand what I explained? Do you have a banana in your eye or something?
I am eating a lot of banans lately to replenish my potassium supply. The reason I can't understand what you are saying is because you are a hipocrit. You are picking and choosing certain parts of the bible to justify your prejudice, and I see no difference between this action and those of the KKK, southern slave owners, and every ultra-conservative in history that have tried to block possitive social changes, like women's right and civil right.
I would just normally say to go and read the bible, but from what you have demostrated, it seems you miss God's word all the time.
Considering I'm an atheist who is willing to argue on your own battle ground.... I could very easily come out and say that I don't believe in your god, therefore your moral guidance has nothing to do with me.
From the scripture, it means that if you sin, and it causes your brother to be upset about it, it is better not to sin. so if having gay sex was a sin, and it upset your brother, or other family member, it would be better to not be that way. That is the suggestion. I find nothing wrong with it.
In other words, if my brother is not upset about it, sinning is perfectly ok? Aren't you making quite a leap in your interpretation there? Can anyone else who is more literate with the bible explain this to me?
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 3:53 PM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 134 by Figgs, posted 07-15-2004 5:40 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied | | | Message 135 by Phat, posted 08-21-2004 5:52 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 139 of 306 (135959)
08-21-2004 3:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 135 by Phat
08-21-2004 5:52 AM
|
|
Re: Homosexuality and Proof of Jesus(?)
Phatboy writes: As for homosexuality, same sex attraction is a reality. The issue is whether or not society is better off condoning or condemning it.
You forgot to mention the fact that some people, like myself, are deathly afraid to be with a female. The very thought of being with a female makes them want to puke. I don't know why I'm even responding to you, because I swore a long time ago not to deal with a crackpot like you. Oh well...
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by Phat, posted 08-21-2004 5:52 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 140 by Phat, posted 08-21-2004 5:22 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 141 of 306 (135996)
08-21-2004 7:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by Phat
08-21-2004 5:22 PM
|
|
Re: Same sex attraction discussed......
Phatboy writes: Were you ever hurt by anyone when you were younger? Molested? Did you connect much easier with women and in a sense identify with them? Perhaps internally, you think on a feminine level.
Um... no, no, no, and no. Let just say that I am very masculine and that people, even gay ones, have trouble telling or believing that I'm gay.
I don't want them to marry a man, however. Call me uncertain.
No, I'd call you a bigot.
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by Phat, posted 08-21-2004 5:22 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 142 by Phat, posted 08-22-2004 4:02 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 146 of 306 (136104)
08-22-2004 12:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
08-22-2004 4:02 AM
|
|
Re: Same sex attraction discussed......
See, this is the reason why I (1) think you're a crackpot and (2) don't like to talk to you. Until you grow up, I doubt that you even have a clue how illogical and closed-minded your message really is. In fact, you're even worse than the rat, who at least tried to make some effort to not sound like a complete idiot. Other people can point out your idiocy, but I'm done with you.
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Phat, posted 08-22-2004 4:02 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: sorry...but wrong
Let's get back to the subject. Some people tried to evade the subject by saying how unhealthy and all that crap about homosexuality. Either directly quote from the bible or go away.
Hate world. Revenge soon!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 153 by Phat, posted 11-08-2004 2:48 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 154 of 306 (157145)
11-08-2004 3:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 153 by Phat
11-08-2004 2:48 AM
|
|
Re: sorry...but wrong
And this has what to do with what we are talking about?
Hate world. Revenge soon!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 153 by Phat, posted 11-08-2004 2:48 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Please
J_f writes: 1st Cor. 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Read Message 6.
Rom. 1:26-28: For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.
Read Message 10.
Leviticus 18:22 states, "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
Can this be any more clear?
Read this thread. Now that you know your verses have been refuted before, what else do you have?
Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: okay...one more time
svonnah_la_fay writes: As for the circle remark, God allows that sometimes mistakes happen in the transcripting of DNA, and he might even have made it that way, but that does not give people the right to engage in immoral sexual acts.
You are totally missing the point. The point isn't if it is moral or not. We already know that people like you think it's immoral. The point is why you think it is immoral. Stop saying that it is immoral and actually give us reasons why from your holy book.
Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 173 of 306 (157517)
11-09-2004 12:49 AM
|
|
|
AM writes: And I certainly hope that this is the last homosexuality and the Bible topic you ever start - Give it a rest.
(1) You've already made sure that I won't be starting any topic in the future. (2) I am a "tolerant left", not a pacifist. We have shown again and again in the past that there is no bible passage that can be used to condemn homosexuality without contradicting oneself. Yet, gay bashers on this forum continue to say "the bible says blah blah blah". It is like topics like transitional fossils and direct observance of new traits. The question is do you, or the other people that think this topic should be lay to rest, think that we should just say nothing the next time a creationist says "there is no transitional fossils... evolution has never been observed... evolution sucks..."? Why isn't this post in suggestion & question section? I want to make sure that the gay bashers here realize that I aim to show them, with threads like this, that they are (1) ignorant of their own holy book, (2) damn liars, or (3) too blinded by their bigotry to see that the bible does not condemn homosexuality or say that it is a sin. Again, the question is am I suppose to sit around and let people like phatboy, paisano, buzsaw, and other damn liars continue to bash gay people using their holy book even though their holy book either says no such thing or makes no sense?
Hate world. Revenge soon!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 174 by berberry, posted 11-09-2004 12:56 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied | | | Message 175 by Phat, posted 11-09-2004 7:42 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Why are some admins so upset about this?
I beg to differ. Personally, I have no problem with people being bigots as long as they stay out of my way. What I have a problem with are these self-proclaim christians who claim the bible supports their side yet they can't even come up with a single bible passage that isn't questionable to support their side. Yet, people like paisano keeps saying "the bible blah blah blah..." This is a black and white matter. So far, George is the only person who actually brought up a somewhat valid biblical point regarding Adam and Eve. However, even then it is a bit of stretch to think that the particular bible passage is referring to homosexuals. And where the hell is paisano? He was the one that made the bold statement about homosexuality and the bible.
Hate world. Revenge soon!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 187 by AdminHambre, posted 11-09-2004 12:54 PM | | AdminHambre has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 190 of 306 (157656)
11-09-2004 1:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 185 by MonkeyBoy
11-09-2004 12:31 PM
|
|
Re: It does
the monkey writes: Lam and Berberry you have exercised extreme patience;I am a bit of a hot head, and if I were gay, I'd most likely be incarcerated by now for assault.
Believe you me, if there is a device that allows me to physically injure somebody over the internet...
Hate world. Revenge soon!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 185 by MonkeyBoy, posted 11-09-2004 12:31 PM | | MonkeyBoy has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Okay
Why am I reminded of when the catholic church published these books telling people of moral and immoral sex positions? These were written by people that were supposed to not know anything about sex.
Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Please
p_s writes: This is "blaming the victim" taken to the most disgusting extreme.
Perhaps he's trying to justify something he did in the past?
Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
™ Version 4.2