Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 239 (21558)
11-04-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RedVento
11-04-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Oh definetly, I will not disagree with you there.
This is a strategy I highly recommend.
quote:
hmm is it bad debat form to defeat your own argument?
Bad debate form... ? Only in competition, but that is a game.
Good politics.... wait... no... bad politics....
quote:
(sarcasm)Thanks John and Schaf, because of your comments I've been forced to think out the entire argument and change my mind... (/sarcasm)
Drat....!!!
Perhaps you were trying to do this: <sarcasm>....</sarcasm>
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RedVento, posted 11-04-2002 12:41 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RedVento, posted 11-05-2002 9:00 AM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 239 (21714)
11-06-2002 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RedVento
11-04-2002 10:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Right, the number that survie to reproduce to survive. So if there are 1 million eggs, and 10% of them survive.. that is 100,000 that can go on to reproduce.
If the same survivability rate is applied to a human then one in 10 of her children will live, over 10 years. That has no bearing on the species?

I really don't understand the argument. Maybe, try again? I confused.
quote:
But since dogs and us do get our social status in the same way my point still stands.
I am confused again. Maybe you meant to say "... dogs and us DO NOT get our ....."
quote:
This is from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bbrescue.org/Articles/DogPeopleTalk.html btw.
I understand that this is the party line, but I don't completely buy it, for reasons I've stated.
Also, all respect due, that the man is a vet does not make him an authority on animal behavior, just as being a doctor does not make one understand people. I once knew a vet who threw a fit because an injured cat-- my injured cat-- scratched him... go figure.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 11-04-2002 10:16 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RedVento, posted 11-07-2002 2:22 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 239 (21792)
11-07-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RedVento
11-07-2002 2:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
What I mean is that by shear numbers alone the chances are better for insects to continue. One female = millions of offspring = good chances. One female = one offspring = chances not so good.
Back to the example i used, one female (queen bee) and no hive == 0% chance of survival. The queen depends upon the hive for food and protection, and for assistance raising the kids.
One human female without a social structure is in essentially the same boat.
quote:
quote:
I am confused again. Maybe you meant to say "... dogs and us DO NOT get our ....."
yea that is what I meant. I type too fast for my own good sometimes.

The older I get, the more humans seem like the rest of the pack. Humans are not very good at self reflection, despite the hype.
quote:
No this is true, but it prolly makes him a better authority than either of us.. this article looks do be done by someone more qualified..
http://www.petfinder.org/journalindex.cgi?path=/public/an...

Looks like it supports my case. Sexual activity to relieve tension, due to over-- ummmm--- petting, as well as dominance.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RedVento, posted 11-07-2002 2:22 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RedVento, posted 11-08-2002 10:10 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 239 (21893)
11-08-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RedVento
11-08-2002 10:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
No arugment there, but what if there is one viable male for each a bee and a human female. Which has a better chance?
Probably the human female. Humans are more versatile and a lot smarter. And after mating the male bee dies.
quote:
Perhaps the issues it that we have different definetions of homosexual. I use homosexual as two same sex people having sexual relations to fullfill both sexual and emotional desires. Not just as getting off with someone of the same sex for any particular reason.
Would you apply that definition to humans? If a man 'get's off' with another man, but not for both sexual and emotional reasons, is that not homosexual behavior?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RedVento, posted 11-08-2002 10:10 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RedVento, posted 11-11-2002 8:59 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 239 (22231)
11-11-2002 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RedVento
11-11-2002 8:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Except that the one male bee will allow the queen bee to lay thousands of eggs
You asked whether I thought one male and one female human would have a better chance of survival than one and one female bee. This is a different question than asking which has the better chance IF they survive to reproduce.
quote:
Would you apply that definition to humans? If a man 'get's off' with another man, but not for both sexual and emotional reasons, is that not homosexual behavior?
Well maybe if you can explain why a man would "get-off" for some reason other than to relieve sexual desire/tension...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Dominance.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RedVento, posted 11-11-2002 8:59 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by RedVento, posted 11-13-2002 9:08 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 239 (22485)
11-13-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by RedVento
11-13-2002 9:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
That would most likely be akin to rape
Rape pretty much is about dominance.
quote:
and not necessarily homosexual, but definetly deviant behavior.
Are you taking the position that homosexual rape isn't homosexual?
quote:
Most men I know who wish to show dominance over another man won't force them into a sexual act, they might beat them up, or verbally degrade them, or humiliate them in some other way.
On a broader scale it does happen though. Homosexual rape of defeated enemies is, or was, common in some cultures.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by RedVento, posted 11-13-2002 9:08 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RedVento, posted 11-14-2002 9:16 AM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 239 (22694)
11-14-2002 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by allen
11-14-2002 10:59 AM


Allen darling,
I thought you'd left me.
quote:
Take the citys of sodom and gahmorah, God distroyed thoes cities
because of that very sin.

Myth.
quote:
And for you to say heterosexual males are in general far more abusive to wards young victims than homosexual males are, is quite a slap in anyones face just reading your wording of thought that you so unshamefully post for others to read.
How exactly is the truth a slap in the face? The studies have been done my friend. And the frequency of child rape goes way up in fundamentalist families as well.
quote:
go and lay with your same sex partner and have anal sex
OK.
quote:
and victimise little boys (or girls) to fulfill your preverse sexual desires..
Sorry, that's what fundies do. You must be confused.
quote:
The things that I can conclude that a homosexual gains after sex are, less than expected/ aids/hurt/acute lust mode/anal discomfort/loose stools/loss days from work/ multiple sex partners/and death from medical incurables.
LOL!!!!!!!!!! Rolling on the floor!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But seriously.... you are full of crap. I don't know how else to respond to this garbage.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 11-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by allen, posted 11-14-2002 10:59 AM allen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by allen, posted 11-14-2002 3:46 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 239 (22762)
11-14-2002 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by allen
11-14-2002 3:46 PM


quote:
Hi again John! Long time no speak. lol
Man you make me laugh...and from your response, I assume you are gay?

Not before I've had my coffee in the morning.
quote:
i find you tasteless in your
snide remarks you so often post in responce to my post....yes i did declair that i would accept all nice and not so nice post..so i accept your post also John... but...knowing you from the past, i find you rather hostile to my being..

Snippy... shall we review the name calling you directed my way last time you were here?
quote:
but i do remember how i had to enevitably explain myself to alphelion to you..]
You mean like this:
quote:
Some people make me laugh but, you make me laugh hysterically until I start crying and I can no longer take your stupidity any more because you have shown yourself the true rear end of a donkey and I am sickened by your lack of real intelligence. You profusely spew from your fingers words of empty reasoning and I really dont care to continue this whatever it is of a conversation in this forum so please let me depart from your blind eyes and numbing conversation you spew out at me.
quote:
..so..come to Jesus now..for your soul may be required of you as you sleep.
You are just the man to lead me there.
By the way, my girlfriend responded to the post you put on my site.
Ta ta.... hugs and kisses....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by allen, posted 11-14-2002 3:46 PM allen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by allen, posted 11-14-2002 11:43 PM John has not replied
 Message 117 by nator, posted 11-15-2002 12:12 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 239 (22863)
11-15-2002 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
11-15-2002 12:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Wow, if being a good Christian means I have to be a crazy, mean person, I'll be sure to NOT ever convert!
LOL!

I know. I love people like Allen. They are better arguments against Xtianity that I could ever dream up.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 11-15-2002 12:12 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-15-2002 10:45 PM John has not replied
 Message 122 by allen, posted 11-15-2002 11:08 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 239 (22908)
11-16-2002 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by allen
11-15-2002 11:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by allen:
John...why do i get the feeling you are a devil worshiper..
Allen, haven't you figured out that devil worship implies the belief in God?
quote:
i get my clue from you placing an X before anity..as in CHRISTianity...are you so afraid of the true power of jesus you cant even spell his name..
Yes, voodoo magic fills me with terror.
quote:
you have got a long way to go john..
More like, you've come a long way baby.
quote:
Please excuse me from these forums, as Jesus has been rejected, and i kick off the dust of your home from my shoes, and leave. allen
So much for that Holy War....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by allen, posted 11-15-2002 11:08 PM allen has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 239 (26919)
12-16-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by zipzip
12-16-2002 8:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.
Have you read Leviticus? I guarantee you that you don't do 90% of what God commands.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by zipzip, posted 12-16-2002 8:34 PM zipzip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 10:27 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 239 (26988)
12-17-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by zipzip
12-17-2002 1:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
...Do you like to watch gladiator movies, Tommy? Have you ever seen a grown man naked? Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
ahhhh..... classic cinema!
I said all the way from Leviticus, not I practice Levitical law.
quote:
Although Jesus said nothing would pass from the law until all was fulfilled, it is pretty clear that as Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law
Would you mind jumping into the following threads?
EvC Forum: Luke and Matthews geneologies
EvC Forum: the day the lord died
EvC Forum: Why would the apostiles have lied?
quote:
But I certainly did not live in that time, in which most of the Jews' neighbors practiced appalling forms of incest, bestiality, ritual human sacrifice, forced ritual temple male/female prostitution/rape, and child murder.
Well, there is some oddly frequent incest in the Bible.
It starts right off the bat with Adam n Eve's kids. Lot's daughters take a ride on old dad in Gen. 19:30-38. Rueben sleeps with his dad's concubine in Gen 35:22. This brings the sons of Jacob to twelve. God does, in Gen. 49:4, state that Rueben will not excel because of this; right after, in Gen 49:3, lavishing some hefty praise on him. Guess God is fickle. God God tells Onan the go in to his deceased brother's wife in Gen. 38:8-10. Tamar and her father-in-law get in on in Gen 38:27-28. One of the offspring from this union was an ancestor of Jesus.
Beastiality:
Well there is this odd giant/human mating in Gen. 6:4.
Human sacrifice:
There is one threat and one very odd verse: Ex. 22:29
Unless you count all the humans slaughtered in God's holy wars....
Rape:
Lev. 19:20-22 A very appropriate punishment for rape....
Num. 31
Duet. 20:14 Keep the women for yourselves. I guess it pays to be in God's army.
Duet. 21:11-14.
Duet. 22:28-29. Does this strike you as fair?
Judges 5:30
Judges 14:1-3
Judges 19:22-30 Probably the most vicious passage in the OT.
Child murder:
Of course there is the Flood. Lots of kids died there.
Sodom and Gomorah. Lots of kids die there too. They must have been sinful.
Exodus 12:29-30. God kills the first-born sons of Egypt. Why? Because the Pharoah wouldn't release the Isrealites. Why would he not do so? BECAUSE GOD WOULDN'T LET HIM!!!!
Exodus 21:15-17. A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. Hey! I kinda like that one.
Lev. 26:22 God threatens some more kids.
Num. 5:11-31 Does abortion count as child murder?
Num 21:35 More slaughter of innocents.
Duet. 2:34 The little ones are wiped out.
Duet 3:3-6 Same as above
Duet. 7:2-3 Same as above
Duet 13:15 More child killing
Duet 20:13 Killing of all males. If you are lucky enough to be female you get to be kidnapped, enslaved and raped !!!
Duet 20:16 Leave nothing alive that breatheth!
quote:
In this context, much of Levitical law is amazing -- modern prohibitions against rape and incest
This would be funny if it weren't so sick.
quote:
prohibitions against eating raw meat
I hate to break it to you but the Isrealites aren't the only ones who figured this out.
quote:
the idea that you *should not touch* the discharge from a gaping, festering wound in another man's body, on and on.
LOL... again. This isn't terribly spectacular.
quote:
it is the astonishing (and modern) idea that the punishment should fit the crime.
And it is mind-numbingly common for the legal systems of the time as well.
quote:
If a man steals something, make him pay it back -- don't kill him or cut off his hand.
Is this a good example? Duet. 25:11-12
quote:
God has his reasons, and I'm not going to do any handwaving.
That is the ultimate cop-out, no offense. You completely wash your hands of the issue.
quote:
But I do gain the sense that while other gods were asking for the sacrifice of firstborn children and forced rape
What do you know about the surrounding religions? Just curious. The faithful seem to be nearly universally ignorant of these things.
quote:
the God of the Bible was asking for offerings that people could make reasonably while still instilling in them a vision of the sacrifice that God promised he would make for them one day (even with compassion -- if you can't afford the sacrifice, use doves instead, if you can't afford that, use some grain -- the same as the widow's tiny sacrifice in the NT where the heart behind the sacrifice means more than the sacrifice itself). This is obvious and a keystone of both Judaism and Christianity, since the whole thing starts with Abraham and Isaac --> 'Isaac, you don't have to sacrifice your only son, I will sacrifice mine. But I want you to sacrifice some of what I give you so that you understand just a little bit of what it is I will go through when I send my son.'
I see the sacrifices as a means of income for the parasitic priestly tribe.
quote:
Looked at in that light (which really is the most reasonable way to look at it), the portion of Leviticus that deals with temple worship is an amazing picture of God's holiness and deep capacity for forgiveness.
So far you are not convincing.
quote:
I think this was a reflection of the fact that each sacrificial animal was also meant to be perfect -- this was in keeping with perfect reverence for the Lord and the perfect sacrifice he would make in Christ.
Sidestepping, of course, the obvious focus on esternal and superficial characteristics. I guess God doesn't look under the skin?
quote:
Handicapped people were cared for, loved, and treated as equals except in this regard -- elsewhere in the region they were lucky if they were not killed at birth.
Have you evidence for either assertion?
quote:
Perhaps you should marvel that the law should mention handicapped people at all, which suggests that they were commonplace. *Think on this*
Meaning? The Jews didn't kill the handicapped? That's generous.
quote:
As for the hair question -- yes it says that Jews were not to cut their sideburns or beards, so any Jew doing this would be directly disobeying that part of the Law and probably also sleeping with his aunt(!).
Right. Probably. I can see the correlation.
quote:
At the same time, aliens (who might not have beards at all) were to be loved and treated as equals, because "you were aliens in the land of Egypt".
You mean the aliens who weren't slaughtered right? The only time I see the Isrealites being magnanimous is when they are under someone's thumb.
quote:
If that is all you got out of Leviticus you need to *slow down* and ... get Hooked on Phonics! Also try to think about context.
Right. And everytime I do this, I get more pissed off.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 AM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:01 PM John has replied
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:36 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 239 (27016)
12-17-2002 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by zipzip
12-17-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
John, that stuff was in Leviticus because people were doing it.
Are we sidestepping that what I cited was commanded by or condoned by God?
quote:
And after the Law, it for the most part wasn't the Jews. That is just straightforward contextual reading and reasonably safe for any intelligent person.
I did not cite one example of the actions of people other than the Isrealites.
quote:
The problem I have with your interpretation (and I say this seriously because I see a part of myself in you) is that is 1) shallow, lacking context (spiritual and textual) and 2) assumes that God is nasty, vicious, and spiteful, which is completely out of character from the God I read about and even goes against what the Jews say about the character of their own God.
I though we were not going to hand-wave. I gave you specific examples and this is all you can come up with? The restating of your initial post? Please....
quote:
In other words, you are way off in left field and I honestly don't know how you got there except by deep internal mistrust and blindness, which is sad and needs to be fixed.
More hand-waving.
quote:
I don't have time right now to go verse by verse through your list, but I suspect it is the usual compendium of misread context.
But you feel confident in insulting me with this handwaving?
quote:
But the verses I do recognize by sight I think have reasonable contextual answers
Then lets have 'em, darling. That is why I posted.
quote:
perhaps a good thing for you to do is to get a Schofield reference text or a Life Application Bible and read the notes to start yourself out.
Perhap you should not assume what I have read and what I have considered. And perhaps you should just make your case.
quote:
Then I will go one by one if you type in the text and do a careful introductory exegesis so that I can rebut carefully and thoughtfully.
How generous of you. Alternately, you could just make your case.
quote:
In the meantime, you need to go and do what I have done and continually do 0) ask God for help with understanding 1) read the Bible through with the help of someone who is wiser than yourself 2) get an overall view of the sweep of Biblical history 3) get an overall view of the character and nature of God and his plan for humankind 4) re-read the Bible with newfound wisdom, visiting those passages that you took offense at in the first go-around and examine the context carefully 5) go talk to someone wiser than yourself about the passages that still don't jive 6) pray about it 7) don't give up until it makes sense and it all fits together, which it will.
So, read it and rationalize it until I believe it. LOL........
quote:
Based on your previous passages, I suspect you haven't done your homework
Hand waving, conveniently designed to allow you to not address the issues.
quote:
(I suspect this because these are the kinds of things I said when I was deeply ignorant and mistrustful of the Bible).
yawn..... are you going to make a case or not?
quote:
I've been doing my homework steadily for 20 years and even I have still got plenty of lessons left.
Hey, whadaya know!!!! Me too.
quote:
John, you sound as though you have been isolated from the Christian church for many years
Yes, there is a reason for that. I started to think about the garbage in the Bible.
quote:
and you note that you actively disobey/disbelieve God.
Disbelieve, not disobey. The latter requires belief.
quote:
If the Bible is true, there is *no way* you could have any sense of it or the character of God at all -- the Bible is clear on this.
What? I believe it or I don't understand it? I'd hoped you would come up with something better than this infinitely recycled and pitiful line.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:01 PM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 2:28 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 239 (27020)
12-17-2002 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by gene90
12-17-2002 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I find it odd that the opposition is bring up Leviticus and the Law of Moses when they are almost irrelevant to Christianity.
I find it odd that, this being the case, Christians don't ditch the OT. They keep it around and pick and chose what they want out of it and throw away the rest claiming that Christ fullfilled this and that. Nowhere in the NT does Jesus state exactly what is to go and what is to stay, so people pick and choose per personnal preference. It doesn't make sense.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:21 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:40 PM John has not replied
 Message 192 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 10:24 AM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 239 (27028)
12-17-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by gene90
12-17-2002 1:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
In another thread you claimed that if Israelite pracitices gave medical benefits, such killing a dove to cure diseases, this would be proof of the Judeo-Christian God.
Yeah, gene, it would be proof, IF IT WORKED. I am perfectly willing to test it.
quote:
I pointed out that you would merely wave this evidence away by suggesting that the practice had natural benefits and the Israelites merely noticed these natural benefits and incorporated them into their religion; so that your beliefs about the non-existance of God are therefore non-falsifiable.
You are really reaching for this one. Yes, I do maintain that the Isrealites would have incorporated practical knowledge into their culture. Do you maintain that they are so stupid as to not have been sensible enought to that? However, I cannot think of any observation that supports the idea that killing a dove cures leprosy. Surely you have to realize the difference between recognizing that keeping a wound covered helps prevent infection and "observing" that sticking pins in a voodoo doll cures disease. Basically, the dove slaughter is a magical cure. I dare you to provide a physical means by which dove killing can cure leprosy. I dare you to run an experiment to find out IF dove slaughter cures leprosy.
quote:
I don't understand how you, who claims to be agnostic, and therefore, by definition, you lack the evidence to know anything about God, can possibly know enough to claim that Christianity is false?
Just felt the need to bring that up again? Do you want me to define theism in such a way as to exclude you and all of christianity? I think I can peg you on the "worthy of adoration" aspect of the definition in my Encyclopedia or Philosophy. But that is just quibbling isn't it?
quote:
Actually, so far as I can tell, what Christians keep today generally is specified in the NT, and what they don't have to keep, is told in the NT. See my above reference to Acts and Romans.
I assume you mean in an earlier post. I'll look at that.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:36 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:12 PM John has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024