The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

Though he clearly makes an exception for oral sex:

quote:

---

Matthew 15:11 - Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;

---

Actually, in the context of the entire verse, his point seems to be about speech - righteousness isn't about how you keep to Levitical law (like the dietary provisions, or by extension, the sexual restrictions), it's about how you get along with your fellow humans. Righteousness is found in fellowship.

Well, yes, but he's using that as an allusion to Levitical law. He's saying that righteousness isn't about how well you follow every little Levitical detail, it's about how you treat your fellow person - with kind words or with opprobrium. No, what he states - if you're able to percieve his greater point - is that righteousness is found in how you keep your human relationships, including sexual ones. It's about how you treat your sexual partners, not following a bunch of silly rules about what positions you can take or what you can suck on.It's analogy, RR. It's pretty simple. Jesus is telling you how to live, how to conduct yourself within a human community, not what parts you can and can't put together. What a stupid Bible that would be - what would be the use of such a micromanaging savior?

No, I've read the Bible, and read Jesus's words. They're plain as day, and they don't say anything like what you say they do. All I can do is read your words as you write them. If I seem to be responding to points you're not making, then you need to stop and write a little clearer. I'm not distorting your messages in the least; I'm simply responding to your points as you've written them. If your writing isn't precise enough to get your point across, learn to be a better writer.

I know, which is what makes it so tragic - even after years of study, you can quote from memory - but you still don't understand the words. It's as plain as day but you still miss it, somehow, because you can't see past your own nature, your own hate. What on Earth have I ever "accused" you of, besides misunderstanding the words of Jesus?

You mean you're not going to substantiate claims that you have made? That's not very honest, RR. What's hard to understand is why you have such a perverted idea of what constitutes "sexual immorality." It's as clear as day that Jesus is referring to things like adultery and other things that are hurtful to your sexual partners.He's not referring to getting a little friendly oral from the missus. How could loving, reciprocal, enjoyable sexual relations be immoral? God doesn't care which position you take or what you put where. He cares about how you're treating the person you're doing it with.The way you're interpreting it simply displays a juvenile fixation on how people have sex, which is infinitely less important - you'll discover - than their relationship with the person they're doing it with.

Actually, you know what? I'll take you up on this: Two caveats: a) I get to decide if you've substantiated your claim or not, and b) if you fail to do so, you're the one that has to leave.Agreed?

No, it suggests a pretty juvenile fascination with waste elimination on the part of you and RR.Seriously why would the God who invented the life cycle - where organisms feast on our wastes, and we inhale theirs - think of elimination as an "unclean" process? God's much, much more mature than you seem to give him credit for.

So you say, but why then the insistence that God has the same fascination with the poopy holes that a 6-year-old child has?

"Militant homosexuals?"The thing about the people you seem to think are "militant" is that they're pretty sure that the Christians started it, first. After all, if rightist conservative busybodies would just butt out, there wouldn't be any problems, and everybody could get back to putting Jesus first, or whatever.But when someone's got their boot on your face, Jesus is going to understand when you set overthrowing oppressive religous tyrrany as a slightly higher priority.I don't think any "militant homosexual" would mind if religious conservatives started "putting Jesus first" and just got the hell out of other people's business, you know?

Men gave those guidelines, because men wrote the Bible.The reason they're being ignored is because many of them in fact have no relationship to health. We're supplanting those guidelines with science, and the new guidelines are better.

What could be safer than oral sex between two lesbians? So, in other words, God doesn't hate circles, just the fact that they're round.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-08-2004 12:28 AM

Well, that's certainly my view as well, but I guess you didn't read very closely, because I wasn't talking about anal sex at all, but rather, oral sex.There's nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do as well; what makes it ok when the straights do it, but not the gays? Well, I disagree that the acts are immoral, simply because of the reason that God makes people want to do them.And it's certainly not the case that the genetic basis for homosexuality is sme kind of detrimental mutation; rather, the gene (supposing it is one) appears to have significant kin selective benefit. God didn't make gay people by mistake; rather, God made gay people because in some situations it's beneficial to have a gay relative.