News Policy
 |
||
| Moderated by: VT-R, TD, Paula Ticks, mb, Lynne, kC, Jeƒƒro | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LIZSIM Member
|
WE BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT RIGHT AND CERTAINLY THE BIBLE SPEAKS PLAINLY ABOUT THIS. GOD DESTROYED A CITY BRCAUSE OF IT. I DON'T HATE THE PEOPLE BUT HATE THE ACT. GOD HELP ALL THOSE WHO ARE COMMITING THESE SINS TO CALL ON JESUS TO DELIVER THEM FROM THIS CURSE, THANKS, ELIZABETH SIMON Last edited on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 10:11 pm by LIZSIM |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member 
|
your nuts. |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
LIZSIM wrote: WE BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT RIGHT AND CERTAINLY THE BIBLE SPEAKS The new testament says that the Jews are a miserable people. do u agree with that too? |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
You need to reread the story again. God didn't destroy the city because of homosexuality. At worse, the story is about a same sex rape attempt and clearly homosexuality has nothing to do with rape. There is no same sex consensual sex in that story. Clearly the angels in this story didn't want to be raped or have sex right? Once you understand this part, you'll get the rest. This is one of those religious lies that you can stop your church from spreading by reading the story yourself and stopping your preacher when he lies about it. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Danokan Member 
|
zzpat wrote: You need to reread the story again. God didn't destroy the city because of homosexuality. At worse, the story is about a same sex rape attempt and clearly homosexuality has nothing to do with rape. There is no same sex consensual sex in that story. Clearly the angels in this story didn't want to be raped or have sex right? Once you understand this part, you'll get the rest. Ummm NO. The Bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah had MANY ABOMINATIONS. Homosexuality is later called an abomination. If you are going to talk about the Bible zz.. at least be educated in it. |
|||||||||
|
The Dane Member 
|
LIZSIM wrote: WE BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT RIGHT AND CERTAINLY THE BIBLE SPEAKS  |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Danokan wrote:zzpat wrote:You need to reread the story again. God didn't destroy the city because of homosexuality. At worse, the story is about a same sex rape attempt and clearly homosexuality has nothing to do with rape. There is no same sex consensual sex in that story. Clearly the angels in this story didn't want to be raped or have sex right? Once you understand this part, you'll get the rest. The word ABOMINATIONS is not in the story. Please read the story. Gen 19. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Danokan Member
|
zzpat wrote: Danokan wrote: There are other scriptures in the Bible about the story.. They make it crystal clear. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
The Dane wrote: Sexist. How about two cute guys?  |
|||||||||
|
Isaque Corrêa Member 
|
LIZSIM wrote: WE BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT RIGHT AND CERTAINLY THE BIBLE SPEAKS Is homosexuality a God's desire? Or is it an human invention? A devil decease(or desease, I do not know)? I am asking it because if homosexuality is not a God's desire - it is, a natural thing - , however, it exists, the fact of using clothes today is not a God's desire, too. I say that because He did not create the man and the woman with clothes, but naked. So, as homosexuality was not a God's invention - that's why He do not agree with it -, using clothes is not as well. But, if using clothesis not against divine rules (as a invention of the man), homosexuality is not as well. Isaque |
|||||||||
|
The Dane Member
|
fine by me Chicks, guys, 3 ways. sodomy, all good...... I find it hard to take any biblical arguments for any cause serious. Therefor this........ I know it'll propably put me in a bad light, but what the hell. We all need a laugh once in a while, and I know for sure that im a decent human being. think what you like..... |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Danokan wrote:[user=2210]There are other scriptures in the Bible about the story.. Yes, there are many references and none of them refer to same sex intercourse; rape or consensual. Stop believing things that are not true. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Danokan Member
|
zzpat wrote: Danokan wrote: *SIGH* they have eyes.. but do not use them The Holy Bible, King James Version Jude 1:7 (KJV) 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Isaque Corrêa wrote:LIZSIM wrote:WE BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT RIGHT AND CERTAINLY THE BIBLE SPEAKS God says nothing about gays in the 10 Commandants and nothing in the Gospels. God the Father and God the Son say nothing but men tell us what God would have said had he said something. I don't think God is forgetful. I think he chose to say nothing for a reason. (One possible reason was to test men--how would they treat one of his children if he made them different. If it is a test, many are failing.) Pat |
|||||||||
|
Danokan Member
|
zzpat wrote: God says nothing about gays in the 10 Commandants and nothing in the Gospels. God the Father and God the Son say nothing but men tell us what God would have said had he said something. I don't think God is forgetful. I think he chose to say nothing for a reason. I posted this once zz.. you may have not read it.. I will do it again. Using your "logic" when you say: God says nothing about gays in the 10 Commandants and nothing in the Gospels I therefore deduct that: 1. I can beat the crap out of my wife 2. I can rape my wife anytime I want to |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
hey Dane: Lukasevangeliet, 7:34 om bøsser: Den nat skal to mænd ligge på samme seng; den ene skal tages med, og den anden lades tilbage Lyder som om at Gud faktisk vælger den lækre dreng og efterlader den anden LOL, Gud er bøsse   |
|||||||||
|
Danokan Member
|
euthy wrote: hey Dane: Lukasevangeliet, 7:34 om bøsser: Den nat skal to mænd ligge på samme seng; den ene skal tages med, og den anden lades tilbage God and a duck? |
|||||||||
|
heatherly Member 
|
que cose? parle in englese, per favore...non ho capito la questa lingua, euthy. sono un'americana stupida qui solo parlare nel la lingua di madre. la questa posta e vecchio e noioso. grazie, pace. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Danokan *SIGH* they have eyes.. but do not use them The Holy Bible, King James Version Jude 1:7 (KJV) 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. “Strange flesh” means same sex love? Hmm, that's quite a leap of faith. How do you get from strange flesh to gay being a sin? (By way of intellectual gymnastics?) Pat |
|||||||||
|
The Dane Member
|
euthy wrote: hey Dane: Lukasevangeliet, 7:34 om bøsser: Den nat skal to mænd ligge på samme seng; den ene skal tages med, og den anden lades tilbageI dare you............... no I Double dare you, to say that out loud  |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Danokan wrote:zzpat wrote:God says nothing about gays in the 10 Commandants and nothing in the Gospels. God the Father and God the Son say nothing but men tell us what God would have said had he said something. I don't think God is forgetful. I think he chose to say nothing for a reason. Not at all, because Jesus also said, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Since I'm assuming you don't want to have the crap beat out of you, you can't beat the crap out of your wife. Since you don't want someone to rape you, you can't rape your wife either. Jesus said love everyone. Modern day conservatives Christians think he was wrong. Pat |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
The Dane wrote:euthy wrote:hey Dane: Lukasevangeliet, 7:34 om bøsser: Den nat skal to mænd ligge på samme seng; den ene skal tages med, og den anden lades tilbageI dare you............... no I Double dare you, to say that out loud  haha ok: translation from danish bible: Luke 7:34 on gays: That night shall two men lie on the same bed; one shall be taken along, and the other be left behindSounds like God actually picks the cute boy and leaves the other LOL, God is gay Last edited on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 11:46 pm by euthy |
|||||||||
|
robert stout Member 
|
I liked the part where he gave his two daughters to the crowd...Talk about being a good host...Can you true christians explain that part to me...Or was it simply Biblical pornography???![[allamerican]](/forums/themes/default/allamerican.gif) |
|||||||||
|
The Power of Perception Member
|
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Revised Standard Version: 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death… I'm not sure it gets more clear than that |
|||||||||
|
The Dane Member
|
euthy wrote: The Dane wrote:HAHa Priceless.......... try and read the theme song post...... I think I nailed it.... |
|||||||||
|
Danokan Member
|
zzpat wrote: Not at all, because Jesus also said, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Since I'm assuming you don't want to have the crap beat out of you, you can't beat the crap out of your wife. Since you don't want someone to rape you, you can't rape your wife either. Point being Pat.. you can't pick and choose parts of the Bible and use them as your reasoning.. then reject the others. Also, Omission is not Permission. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Is God gay? Let's see. 1) He didn't father his own son or maybe he did. 2) He paints the evening sky like no straight man I've ever known. 3) He's not married. 4) He had a child outside of wedlock. 5) He had sex outside of marriage (fornication) What else.... 1) He's a dead beat dad, that is he didn't help raise his son. 2) He had sex with a little girl (Mary was only about 12 or 13). I best stop before I piss people off. Pat |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Danokan wrote:zzpat wrote:Not at all, because Jesus also said, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Since I'm assuming you don't want to have the crap beat out of you, you can't beat the crap out of your wife. Since you don't want someone to rape you, you can't rape your wife either. And you do the same. The bible says gays are supposed to be killed in Leviticus and in Romans 1. If you believe in the bible you can't reject killing gays as required by the bible, yet you do. You pick and chose and so does everyone else. I know this and accept it. You're not there yet. Omission is not condemnation either. God gave us his rules and they are not anti gay. Being anti gay is anti Christ and anti God. Pat |
|||||||||
|
heatherly Member
|
The Power of Perception wrote: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 heh, which verse refers to lesbianism? or is this a plug for such action? unless only males were permitted to read this: wait, they were, weren't they? "i believe that the good book is missing some pages" tori |
|||||||||
|
Danokan Member
|
zzpat wrote: Danokan wrote: It does say that according to the Mosaic Law given to those that came out of Egypt. We are not under that law. Romans 1 does NOT say to kill homosexuals.
Nice try.. but no dice. NOWHERE in the Bible does it condone homosexuality. Several places it does condemn it. When the act of marriage is talked about, it is ALWAYS heterosexual.. NEVER homosexual. Jesus even made it crystal clear when he talked about marriage/divorce that it was between a MAN AND A WOMAN. Tell ya what.. other than ambiguous scriptures like the golden rule, love everyone, etc., can you show me one scripture that specifically states that homosexuality is an ACCEPTED practice? |
|||||||||
|
heatherly Member
|
BTW, aren't these islamic terriorists guilty of misinterpreting the Koran? is it possible we are misinterpreting the Bible as well? just a thought...not that Christians could ever be terriorists...(just forget about those who attacked the abortion clinic, and those hundred years of holy war, and all those inquisitions...) |
|||||||||
|
hunter Member 
|
zzpat wrote: Is God gay? Let's see.It's too late, you already have. You are a really sick person. |
|||||||||
|
RepublicansForKerry.Com Member
|
LIZSIM wrote: WE BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT RIGHT AND CERTAINLY THE BIBLE SPEAKSHow about calling on Jesus to also deliver from the curse of adulterers, divorcers, masturbators and out of wedlock cheneyers! |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Danokan wrote:Danokan wrote: Romans 1 lists a series of sins that some say include homosexual lust. The punishment for these sins is "God's just punishment, death." Included in these sins worthy of death are children who rebel against their parents. Obviously Paul is saying some very anti-Christian things in Romans. Nice try.. but no dice. NOWHERE in the Bible does it condone homosexuality. Several places it does condemn it. When the act of marriage is talked about, it is ALWAYS heterosexual.. NEVER homosexual. Jesus even made it crystal clear when he talked about marriage/divorce that it was between a MAN AND A WOMAN. Tell ya what.. other than ambiguous scriptures like the golden rule, love everyone, etc., can you show me one scripture that specifically states that homosexuality is an ACCEPTED practice? The concept of same sex love didn't exist until the 1800's. So, obviously even the word "homosexual" can't be in a bible that was written two thousand years ago. It would be similar if I were to say homophobia is a sin and it's in the bible. We can't transport modern words and concepts back in time and say the writers of the Bible were talking about that word or concept. It's intellectual dwarfism at best. However, there was same sex intercourse and it's clearly not condemned in the New Testament. Some say Paul is condemning same sex lust in Romans 1, which, obviously isn’t the same as same as same sex love. Finally, there's no reference whatsoever to same sex love being forbidden. Pat Last edited on Thu Oct 7th, 2004 12:22 am by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
robert stout Member
|
Back to "straight" sex...What is the religious message of giving his two daughters to the horny crowd rather than his house guests??? |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
robert stout wrote: Back to "straight" sex...What is the religious message of giving his two daughters to the horny crowd rather than his house guests???depends if they're hot |
|||||||||
|
republicanalltheway Member
|
hunter wrote: zzpat wrote:I second that--very sick indeed.Is God gay? Let's see.It's too late, you already have. You are a really sick person. |
|||||||||
|
LittleLaw Member 
|
heatherly wrote: BTW, aren't these islamic terriorists guilty of misinterpreting the Koran? is it possible we are misinterpreting the Bible as well? Excellent point. We cannot take the bible literally for its norms and anecdotes. Remember, the bible was written in a context of a specific time and place. And rewritten throughout history. And rewritten again...and again. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
zzpat wrote:Danokan wrote: Your very wrong indeed. The fundament of our society and the fundament of christianity is built on homosexuality.In the ancient Greece, homosexuality was valued highly, and practiced by almost everyone within the higher classes in Athens. It was quite normal for elderly philophers/rhetoricans to take younger apprentices in and learn them about the adult life, which included homosexuality. Plato, the fathers of cristianity himself would often have sex with men. The same goes for his teacher Sokrates and his student Aristoteles, the founder of modern science and still the root from which much of our modern thinking comes from. Why the christiants adobted so much from anciant Greecem but not homosexuality is actually an interesting question. |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member 
|
Wow, man-made, organized religion doesn't seem like a good thing, does it? |
|||||||||
|
The Dane Member
|
NClib wrote: Wow, man-made, organized religion doesn't seem like a good thing, does it?If it's individual I see no trouble..... But if a leader gathers members and gets them to act on his word.... then shi* will come down..... |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member 
|
The Dane wrote: NClib wrote:Wow, man-made, organized government doesn't seem like a good thing, does it?Wow, man-made, organized religion doesn't seem like a good thing, does it?If it's individual I see no trouble..... But if a leader gathers members and gets them to act on his word.... then s*** will come down..... |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member 
|
ZZPAT..... You are a perfect example of someone with a tiny bit of scriptural knowledge that can quote scripture to your own ends, no matter it's original context. No tto mention you are so historically inaccurate that it is hilarious. Want some examples? How about this gem? The concept of same sex love didn't exist until the 1800's. So, obviously even the word "homosexual" can't be in a bible that was written two thousand years ago. Are you really so uniformed as to think this? It may not have had a name until the 1800's (hence the "love that dare not utter its name"), but it has been around far longer. The sins of Soddom and Gammorrah DID include homosexuality, along with rape. The OT (which was written around 4000 years ago)did have proscriptions against homosexuality, which were further reinforced in the NT by Paul and ther writers. I can go on if you wish...complete with references and quotes. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
euthy wrote: Your very wrong indeed. The fundament of our society and the fundament of christianity is built on homosexuality. The fundament of your society...maybe. Christianity...absolutely not! Plato, the fathers of cristianity himself would often have sex with men. Plato had nothing to do with Christianity! He was a deist, worshipping the many Greek gods. The same goes for his teacher Sokrates and his student Aristoteles, the founder of modern science and still the root from which much of our modern thinking comes from. Why the christiants adobted so much from anciant Greecem but not homosexuality is actually an interesting question. What exactly did Christianity, with it's tenets of monotheism and acceptance of the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ adopt from Aristotle, Socrates and Plato? Or from the Greek culture? |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
jailkerry wrote:euthy wrote:Your very wrong indeed. The fundament of our society and the fundament of christianity is built on homosexuality.The fundament of your society...maybe. Christianity...absolutely not!Plato, the fathers of cristianity himself would often have sex with men.Plato had nothing to do with Christianity! He was a deist, worshipping the many Greek gods.The same goes for his teacher Sokrates and his student Aristoteles, the founder of modern science and still the root from which much of our modern thinking comes from. Why the christiants adobted so much from anciant Greecem but not homosexuality is actually an interesting question.What exactly did Christianity, with it's tenets of monotheism and acceptance of the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ adopt from Aristotle, Socrates and Plato? Or from the Greek culture? In short terms? About everything. One of Platos main ideas was that reality could be split into 4 parts, each of them a level of understanding that could be reached by humans by different means. The lowest level is pictures and shadows, deflections of reality, the next level is the senses and their world. The third is abstract though and terms. The fourht is the "Idea-world", the ideal world, everything else is an image of the idea-world. The terms are images, reflections of ideas, the senses are reflections of the terms and images and shadows are reflections of the senseble world. He believed that it is imperative to ignore the senses, as they are false, and continue to search higher and higher with terms and denial of senses to finally reach the idea-world the basis of everything. It is this thought, alongside with the idea that peple must be "turned" from the tricking senses in order to come to their senses. It is a fact that all christian philosophers based their writings and thougts on the old greece, adjusting the greece thoughts whenever they came into conflict with the Bible. The scholastics with the reknown Thomas Aquinas lead this movement. Aristoteles and his Academy of science lay the ground for all other science. Aristoteles formulated with his own words the foundation of what he saw as evidence or truth, and it is these thoughts that we to this day use in almost every science. You must read him in order to understand the impact he has had upon our world. Sokrates laid the foundation for the thought that there in this world exists fundamental values and morals which everyman is under. He argumented against the more relativist sofists and lay the foundation of the rising monotheistic religions. Gays have laid the foundation of about everything which characterize the western society today. No wonder you conservatives are always angry, you live under the rules of some freakkin' fa*gots! |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
euthy wrote:
There are many errors, where do I start? First, the men of Athens were required to marry and have children, though prior to and after such duty they could have sex with other men. However, to suggest these sexual acts were homosexual is simply absurd. They were same-sex, but not same sex love. Homosexuality is same sex love, not just same gender sex. Pagans used same gender sex within their religious rituals and clearly the new Christian religion wasn't keen on that, so Paul takes this on full force in Romans 1. I don't know of any ancient text that says same sex love was accepted or cherished in any way. If you know of any, please drop me a note. One of the possible reasons why men had sex with other men in Greece is because women weren't educated and the Greeks were learned. Men became best friends and sexual partners because they were equals. Btw, Greece gave us almost every concept of our current democracy. It's the birth place of democracy itself, practiced from around 600 BC to around 600 AD (though some dispute the exact dates). My point remains the same, same sex love is a new concept. As far as I know the idea was first advanced in the mid 1800's. Pat Last edited on Thu Oct 7th, 2004 07:53 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
zzpat wrote: euthy wrote: Same sex love is not the definition of homosexuality Homosexuality: erotic activity with another of the same sex. Your whole post is BS |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
jailkerry wrote:ZZPAT..... Please cite your source for homosexual acts (consensual sex) in the story of Sodom. This is a myth and or lie. I can prove it by asking you to read the story. After reading the story give me the exact quote that refers to same sex consensual sex. You won’t find it. In Romans, Paul is referring to same sex lust, not same sex love and he says God delivered men and women up into this sin because they had false Gods. Read Romans 1 and you’ll agree with me. Again, reread the story of Sodom in Gen. 19. You'll see there was no same sex consensual sex in that story, or you can simply trust me. [the story is very, very short] Pat |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
zzpat wrote:euthy wrote: I agree almost totally. The same sex was based on the consensus that men where above woman, and therefore sex with men was also above sex with woman. Same sex love was especially cherished as you can read in Platos "Symposion" a dialog in which Sokrates discusses "Eros", which is love, with a number of otehr greek intellectuals. In this book several of the men involved in the dialog feels and claims that sex with men is indeed a matter of love. Although the concept of love was different in Greece. One of the men believes that love is between two consenting adults which fits together, in that way that only two people fit together perfectly(the concept of "the one true love which we still use today). |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Horseface wrote:
Can I correctly assume that hetrosexuality is just erotic activity with someone of the same sex? Don't be silly. http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html "Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only). Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." Pat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
zzpat wrote: jailkerry wrote: Once again you are mistaken: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
euthy wrote:
Are you referring to sexual love? Men have loved other men (obviously a father loves his son etc.) and clearly there was same gender sex, but I'm not so sure about same gender sexual love as viewed by modern scientific theory (IE: homosexuality). Pat Last edited on Thu Oct 7th, 2004 08:09 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Can I correctly assume that hetrosexuality is just erotic activity with someone of the same sex? Don't be silly. No. Heterosexuality: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
No comment on Sodom? |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Horseface wrote:Can I correctly assume that hetrosexuality is just erotic activity with someone of the same sex? Don't be silly. Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#whatis It's not just the act of sex. Perhaps I should have used the words "sexual orientation" instead of homosexuality. This is getting silly. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Horseface wrote: No comment on Sodom? |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
zzpat wrote:euthy wrote: This is Eros, which involves sexual love. The discussion does involve homosexuality, as one man starts his speach by making an example about him having sex with a young, pretty man. I have read the book and there is no doubt that when they speak of love between men it is erotic relationships. If you are willing to believe my word. I dont have the book here with me. Last edited on Thu Oct 7th, 2004 08:17 pm by euthy |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Horseface wrote: zzpat wrote:You made some big claims and I would like to hear your response, please.jailkerry wrote: |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
I just remmbered....didn't Saint Augustine love another man in his "Confessions?" Can anyone verify? Pat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Still no response? Why? In Sodom the men were screaming for Lot to give up the travelers for sex..........or homosexuality |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Horseface wrote: zzpat wrote:I assume, from the fact that you are ignoring me, that you admit Sodom was a den of homosexualsjailkerry wrote: |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Horseface wrote:Still no response? Why? The men of Sodom didn't scream for sex. They wanted to get to "know the men," which some assume means sex, but the actual Greek word doesn't refer to sex per se. But even if assuming there was a same sex rape attempt, clearly rape is wrong and gays don't rape each other. In Judges 19 (I believe) there's a story of opposite sex rape. Does that mean all opposite gender sex is wrong too? Of course not. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
zzpat wrote: Horseface wrote: The travelers were men/the ones at lots door were men/the village men wanted to rape the men travelers. The village men were homosexuals rapists. It is clear. Gays don't rape each others? Have you watched a prison documentary lately? You are lost and wrong. |
|||||||||
|
€urope2004 Member 
|
ok, the bible contains a condemn of gay rapists.. i agree.. but what about regular gays? what about those who have only cosensual relations? |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Horseface wrote:
A rapist is a rapist, not homosexual or heterosexual. Does opposite rape mean all opposite sex is wrong? Of course not. You’re being silly. Pat |
|||||||||
|
MikeG. Member
|
zzpat wrote: Horseface wrote: Sorry, watching two males rape eachother is not exactly on my Friday-Night-Movie list. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
euthy wrote:
|
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
MikeG. wrote: zzpat wrote:You miss the whole point: Sodom was not destroyed because of the one incident of rape....but because the entire town was homosexual....evidence by the men at Lt's door......Horseface wrote: |
|||||||||
|
MikeG. Member
|
Conservatives believe homosexuality is a choice. Ok, let's roll those dice. If a person chooses to be homosexual, they are not magically gonig to choose to be straight and get married. If they felt a strong enough desire to be homosexual, they would have no reason to be hetero. There are plenty of heterosexuals in society. Society is not going to die off. Homosexualism may fade away from society, but society itself is forever. Homosexuals have no affect on the length society will last, so that theory is invalid. |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Society did not die off-----God wipped the city from the face of the earth. Read all the thread and you will know what each post is in reference to----ZZpat claimed that Sodom was not a gay town...she was wrong. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: Please cite your source for homosexual acts (consensual sex) in the story of Sodom. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Gen 19: 4-5. And just who defines homosexual acts as having to be consensual? Would you not say that the NAMBLA advocates engage in homosexual acts? That is, do they have sex with other males? Can you honestly say that these are consensual acts? Consensuality, or lack thereof, is not a defining characteristic of a homosexual act. Sodomy, when forced upon one man by another, is still a homosexual ACT. It is a sexual act between 2 men. This is a myth and or lie. I can prove it by asking you to read the story. After reading the story give me the exact quote that refers to same sex consensual sex. You won’t find it. Read the whole story in context, including chapter 18 and you will see that ALL of the actions performed by the Sodomites were abhorrent to God, so much so that He determined to utterly destroy the city and all its inhabitants. This includes HOMOSEXUAL acts and rape. Jude states it thusly: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:7 Is your position that the only sexual perversion and immorrality the Sodomites were guilty of is RAPE? In Romans, Paul is referring to same sex lust, not same sex love and he says God delivered men and women up into this sin because they had false Gods. Read Romans 1 and you’ll agree with me. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Again, reread the story of Sodom in Gen. 19. You'll see there was no same sex consensual sex in that story, or you can simply trust me. Again, re-read the story in context with chapter 18, and you'll see why I don't agree with you. Notwithstanding the fact that I find your definition of homosexuality being contingent on consensuality a bit disingenuous. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: The men of Sodom didn't scream for sex. They wanted to get to "know the men," which some assume means sex, but the actual Greek word doesn't refer to sex per se. Pat, The part of the Bible that this story comes out of was NOT written in Greek! If you are saying this is a translational error, then I would put it to you that when the Old Testament was translated from its original Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, the transcription error occurred. As evidence, I refer you to the New International Version, of the Bible, which went back to the earliest existing documents to translate into modern English. The verse from Gen 19 I quoted above is from the NIV and you will see what the ORIGINAL translation is. But even if assuming there was a same sex rape attempt, clearly rape is wrong and gays don't rape each other. HUH? Isn't rape about power, not sex? SO you believe4 that ALL Gay men are imune from the desire to exert power over weaker men? In Judges 19 (I believe) there's a story of opposite sex rape. Does that mean all opposite gender sex is wrong too? Of course not. No, although all sex, exclusive of that which God ordained and blesses, is wrong!
|
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
€urope2004 wrote: ok, the bible contains a condemn of gay rapists.. i agree.. but what about regular gays? what about those who have only cosensual relations? 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Horseface wrote: MikeG. wrote:No comment?zzpat wrote:You miss the whole point: Sodom was not destroyed because of the one incident of rape....but because the entire town was homosexual....evidence by the men at Lt's door......Horseface wrote: |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
MikeG. wrote: Conservatives believe homosexuality is a choice. Ok, let's roll those dice. If a person chooses to be homosexual, they are not magically gonig to choose to be straight and get married. If they felt a strong enough desire to be homosexual, they would have no reason to be hetero. There are plenty of heterosexuals in society. Society is not going to die off. Homosexualism may fade away from society, but society itself is forever. Homosexuals have no affect on the length society will last, so that theory is invalid.This is true, in that homosexuals will not in and of themselves cause the decay of any civilization. However, once a society begins to ACCEPT that which is wrong, the moral standards of the society slip. As the morality slips, the society begins to decay. This is what is meant by the statement that homosexuality will affect the lenght of any certain society. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
jailkerry wrote:They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless." Are you suggesting all gay people are all of the above. Paul also says children who rebel against their parents should be killed (in Romans 1). Surely you don't believe this too do you? Try killing your child and see if a jury buys your defense. What is the REAL sin Paul is talking about in Romans 1? Go back to the beginning of Romans 1 and read the entire section in context. What you'll find is that Paul is talking about idolatry. Note how he says "God delivered them up" to these unclean practices. Why did God make them do bad things? Because they had false god. When Paul refers to same sex, he twice uses the word "lust" and never condemns same sex love. You’re simply putting your bigotry in the Bible when it’s not there. Pat |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
jailkerry wrote:This is true, in that homosexuals will not in and of themselves cause the decay of any civilization. However, once a society begins to ACCEPT that which is wrong, the moral standards of the society slip. As the morality slips, the society begins to decay. This is what is meant by the statement that homosexuality will affect the lenght of any certain society. Look at it this way. A mass murderer can get married and so can an adulterer, a thief, a liar and cheat. In fact you can break every rule in the Bible and every civil law on our books and we still have the right to get married. But if you're gay and you fall in love it'll destroy a nation. That’s insanity. Isn’t murder worse than being gay? It is after all in the 10 Commandments and gay is not. Isn’t adultery worse than being gay, again, in the top 10. Even stealing a penny is worse than being gay because stealing is in the top 10. But where is gay? Not in the top 10 and not in the gospels. Where do you people get this stuff? Pat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
zzpat wrote: jailkerry wrote: You are so filled with lies and misinformation !! Romans 1?? It never says that children SHOULD be killed but rather that they are worthy of death-----all sin is worthy of death in God's eyes--that is the penalty of sin. It is written to show that without Jesus ( you go to hell---death! While Jesus gives ever lasting life--no death) The idolatry is that man worships the flesh and not God----Homosexuality..and God gave you free will to choose, once chosen, God lets you have what you chose--flesh, vile lust---that is what you wanted!!!!! He gave you up to your sin because you chose the flesh over his word. Please stop trying to distort the word to your likings----if you read ROMAN 1 : it says in your quoted chapter that you will turn God's truths to lies and that is EXACTLY what you have done----PROPHESY!!!! |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: Are you suggesting all gay people are all of the above. No..I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality is a result of God's decision to give men who practice idolatry( putting ANYTHING in a higher place than God), the same as the other conditions listed Paul also says children who rebel against their parents should be killed (in Romans 1). No he doesn't. he says "29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." God himself said that the wages of sin is death...way back in Genesis with Adam and Eve. Are you denying that God said this. All Paul is doing is reminding people that God has decreed that those who sin are deserving of death. He is NOT saying to go out and kill sinners! Surely you don't believe this too do you? Try killing your child and see if a jury buys your defense. There are two kinds of death brought on by the sin of Adam; physical death, which was unknown before Adam sinned, and spiritual death, that is the seperation from a relationship with God. Both have been handed down to us from Adam. This is what Paul is talking about, not that parents should kill their kids when they disobey. What is the REAL sin Paul is talking about in Romans 1? Go back to the beginning of Romans 1 and read the entire section in context. Right-o! We agree!! People who hold ANYTHING dearer than their relationship with God, be it a statue or a sin, are guilty of idolatry. If you will not give up a practice God himself has declared an abomination and a sin, and follow God, you put that sin (WHATEVER it is) ahead of your relationship with God and are thus an idolator. When Paul refers to same sex, he twice uses the word "lust" and never condemns same sex love. What he actually says it that both the mental aspecst (lust) and the physical ACT of homosexuality are wrong. "26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Notice that men were inflamed with lust (mental) and committed indecent acts with other men (physical) You’re simply putting your bigotry in the Bible when it’s not there. Nope..the condemnation of both the MENTAL and PHYSICAL aspects of homosexuality is plainly there....you are just to blinded by your personal views to see it. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Horseface wrote:
Before we go any future do you mind if we use the same bible? Since every bible says different things it's easier to discuss this if we use the same one. I suggest an online Bible. Here's Romans 1. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom001.html#top You agree the primary sin in Romans 1 is idolatry right? Lets begin there; Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. It takes 23 verses before we find out what Paul is all worked up over. It's idolatry. Right? Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: So God gave them up to vile affections because they had false gods. Do you agree? Pat Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 05:10 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Your scripture: Romans 1:25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Just wanted to thank you for fulfilling another Bible prophesy, zzpat!!! |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member 
|
jailkerry wrote: zzpat wrote:nicely contested jkAre you suggesting all gay people are all of the above.No..I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality is a result of God's decision to give men who practice idolatry( putting ANYTHING in a higher place than God), the same as the other conditions listedPaul also says children who rebel against their parents should be killed (in Romans 1).No he doesn't. he says "29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." God himself said that the wages of sin is death...way back in Genesis with Adam and Eve. Are you denying that God said this. All Paul is doing is reminding people that God has decreed that those who sin are deserving of death. He is NOT saying to go out and kill sinners! |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Gay lust and straight lust are wrong. But you think gay lust is a blanket condemnation of gay love while straight lust isn’t a blanket condemnation of straight love. Isn't it more likely true that lust is bad and love is not? Pat |
|||||||||
|
W04 Member
|
John Kerry Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter "Urging" MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage.† "We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion.† One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships.† We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner." (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02) Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment.† "Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility.† ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said."† (Susan Milligan, "Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’" The Boston Globe, 2/6/04) |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: Gay lust and straight lust are wrong. But you think gay lust is a blanket condemnation of gay love while straight lust isn’t a blanket condemnation of straight love.Noone ever said that love between two people of the same sex is wrong. I love my father, I love my brother... I love many friends. (Important point... sex is not love, ask any prostitute). |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
zzpat wrote: Horseface wrote: Glory of God turned into images of man: chose flesh over God Man served the creature: served the flesh and all their lusts God gave them up: let them turn to their fleshly desires-homosexuality False God: their desire to practice homosexuality. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
commonsense wrote:Noone ever said that love between two people of the same sex is wrong. I love my father, I love my brother... I love many friends. (Important point... sex is not love, ask any prostitute). So you agree there is good sex and bad sex. Sex that comes from lust is bad. We agree. Lust is bad, love is good and sex that comes from love is good. Finally. Pat Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 05:40 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Horseface wrote:
Now to finish you off. Paul is talking to the Greeks. The Greeks are pagans. Pagan had sex during their religious rituals. Paul is addressing why it's wrong to use sex in religion. He says the reason they do this is because they have false gods. Finally. Pat Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 05:45 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
zzpat wrote: Horseface wrote:Correct: The false God is their flesh. The desires of the flesh. Sin. Homosexuality. Finally! |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Horseface wrote:Correct: The false God is their flesh. The desires of the flesh. Sin. Homosexuality. Finally! You've defiled the word of god. "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Have you no shame? Pat Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 05:51 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: commonsense wrote: very creative... but no. As I said, sex is not love... they are two completely independent things. I love my family (the love that one has for their family is "real" love un-clouded by things like lust and sex). Sex, from my experience, is a direct result of lust... not love. It is the result of lusting after the person you love. Too many people confuse lust with love and that does alot to explain high rates of divorce. People think that the love is gone because they no longer lust after their partner. This reasoning is very flawed, consider my definition of "real" love. Consider what you said, "sex that comes from love is good." I love my family, would it be "good" for me to have sex with them because I love them? There is much more to it than love. Work on your analytical reasoning skills and then come back and discuss. |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
zzpat wrote: Horseface wrote: You are so lost in your search to justify your homosexual way of life so you can be guilt free: Several people have blown you out of the water and yet you still think you are correct: Text book fool. |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
Horseface wrote: MikeG. wrote:Still no comment on your misunderstandingzzpat wrote:You miss the whole point: Sodom was not destroyed because of the one incident of rape....but because the entire town was homosexual....evidence by the men at Lt's door......Horseface wrote: |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Horseface wrote: zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: There is nothing more pathetic in someone duscussing something and then judging someone for something they know absolutely nothing about. Unless you are gay you will NEVER understand what it means to grow up having those feelings from the youngest age you can remember, hoping throughout all of puberty that you will change because you think that as your body matures, your homosexual fellings will suddenly give way to heterosexual fellings, and then finding yourself in adulthood with a good portion of the world wanting you dead, and often feeling that you wish you were dead yourself. You can sit there and quote all of your Bible verses, your philosophical perceptions and you will still NEVER know what it is like! It is NOT a choice. It is nothing that harms straight people in ANY way, who for some reason think it is their place to tell people what is right or wrong, and what is and is NOT normal. You will NEVER UNDERSTAND it, it does no harm to you, and it is simply none of your business. There have been gay people since the beginning of time and there will be until the end of time. You can rant and rave and holler and scream and torment and belittle, but you will not change ANYTHING! |
|||||||||
|
Horseface Member
|
NClib wrote: Horseface wrote:zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: Please show me how it is medically proven that they are born that way. Until then it is a preference. A choice. I never belittled her only her interpretations of a bible that is clear on the subject. She is endlessly twisting the word for her own purpose: to be guilt free: to ignore her iniquities.... |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
NClib wrote: Horseface wrote:zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: It is most definitely a choice, as is heterosexuality. Certain people are born with violent tendencies, but it is still their choice. I am a married heterosexual male, and I find many women attractive. It is my choice to remain faithful to my wife and to curb those animalistic urges that I think all men experience, to have more than one woman (in the sexual sense). There have not been gay people since the beginning of time. How could you know such a thing? Perhaps there have been homosexuals since the beginning of recorded history. It is also interesting to note that Satan, and the freedom to choose right from wrong, have both existed since the beginning of recorded history. Keep trying to justify your actions by considering them out of your control. You know that you have the power to choose. It may be difficult, as it is difficult for an alcoholic to stop drinking, but it remains a choice. By the way, we're not trying to change you... change is left to the individual. But what happens in and is accepted by society does affect us, and we do have a say in the matter. So, "you can rant and rave and holler and scream and torment and belittle, but you will not change ANYTHING!" |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
commonsense wrote: NClib wrote:Horseface wrote:zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: Sorry, you are wrong. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
NClib wrote: commonsense wrote:Thanks for your opinion, it is noted. By the way, which part of what I said is wrong... I deduce from your lack of rebuttal that you have none.NClib wrote:Horseface wrote:zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
I can very easily prove you wrong by noting that there are numerous cases of people with homosexual tendencies CHOOSING to ignore those tendencies and to do the right thing. Obviously it is a choice. And you've made yours. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
jailkerry wrote:euthy wrote: Yes the Bible was read by Monotheists, but as i already said, the Monotheistic idea, and primarily Christianity based itself on Plato. Plato was the first dualistic philosopher, he saw the world split into two, the senseble world and the idea world. His 4 steps of revelation were placed in two world. Plato thinks that senses are wrong and deceiving, and that only by ignoring them you can achieve full understanding, as the christians say that only by igoring the senses will you get to paradise. Christianity is also dualistic. The senseble world and Paradise/Hell. The christian term to "see the light" andf to "turn" someone is proven to come directly from Platos famous cave story. 3 Persons are chained in the back of a cave so they can only see the cave wall. On the cave wall are shadows that dance. The chained persons have been chained there all their life, and therefore believe that these images are reality and life, when in fact, they are shadows that some other people are making with a fire and some figures a bit longer up the cave. The object of life and understanding is to free yourself from your chains and walk to the light outside the cave, to the real world. By this he meant that you should deny your tricking senses and instead focus on thought and acknowledgement, which he thought did not emnate from the sensable world but from an above idea-world. His theory lay the basics for the Bible and the christian religion. " Not only that, but the Bible urges people to use their senses to confirm the existence of God and his redemptive power in each and every life" You miss the point. In christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god. You ability to see, feel, hear etc and interact with the senseble world is not important, the only important thing is that you follow the commandments of god and the other world. The whole thought that there exists two seperate spheres of reality is Platos. I was being ironic about gay people. I believe gay people to be of equal worth and ability as all other people of this world. I've already explained how they were gay in ancient Greece. Wheter or not there were real homosexual people i dont know, but im pretty sure there were since somebody must have been without a wife but having sex with other men. "And have you ever wondered WHY Greek, and Roman society failed? Could the total abandonment of sexual morals have had an effect on it?" You are completely wrong. They didnt abandon their sexual morals they had different sexual morals. Condemning homosexuality is a Monotheistic, religious thing to do. As i already said the Greek upper classes valued sex with men higher that sex with women, with the argument that because men are of more worth than woman, so therefore sex between men must be of higher value as well. The fall of the ancient Greek(and the Roman) society is a result of a large number of factors, their sexual moral being none of them. To blame it all on their different sexual morale is uncorrect and has nothing on it. On the other hand i'll actually blame christianity for making sure that all scientific and philosphical activity was seized for more than a thousand years with its religious fanaticism and pursuit of free-minded spirits. Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 06:36 pm by euthy |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: Gay lust and straight lust are wrong. But you think gay lust is a blanket condemnation of gay love while straight lust isn’t a blanket condemnation of straight love. No, and I'll clarify for you. Any lust (the mental desire and fascination on sex) that does not occur between a married man and woman, which is God's plan, revealed numerous places in the Bible, is "bad". Any sex, outside that which God has ordained and blessed (marital sex between a man and woman) is "bad". Isn't it more likely true that lust is bad and love is not? No because God himself said, as I've shown you before that the homosexual lust AND the homosexual Act is "Bad".
|
|||||||||
|
RepublicansForKerry.Com Member
|
Ok, enough of this stuff. Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President dick Cheney wrote a lesbian book in her younger years. I assume she wrote it from her own experiences. Their daughter, Mary Cheney, is also a lesbian and lives in a domestic partner relationship with another lesbian. If this lifestyle is good enough for the Vice President and his family, I will not argue against their chosen FAMILY VALUES. Besides, what they do behind closed doors in the comfort of their own home is none of anybody's business but their own. |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
Horseface wrote: zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: oh I'm sorry, are you god? if not, why is it your place to judge. if god is omnipitent and he has a problem with it, let him deal with it and stop bugging everyone. |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member 
|
Christopher James wrote: Horseface wrote:zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: Democrats support homosexual activity to spread aids and cause crisis amongst the people, they believe that crisis is their only way back in power. Also: Judging someone while saying not to judge is pretty stupid of you James! |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
The Hulk wrote:Christopher James wrote:Horseface wrote:zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: It's not a matter of support. Its a matter of rights. Everbody has the right to have sex with other men. And it doesnt per definition give you aids. You might as well get it from having unprotected sex with women. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
euthy wrote:
No it isn't. The idea exists within the Old Testament which predates Plato by thousands of years. See Genesis 35:2 for example. Why do you automatically assume that Christianity took from philosophy when in reality the opposite is the case? 3 Persons are chained in the back of a cave so they can only see the cave wall. On the cave wall are shadows that dance. The chained persons have been chained there all their life, and therefore believe that these images are reality and life, when in fact, they are shadows that some other people are making with a fire and some figures a bit longer up the cave. The object of life and understanding is to free yourself from your chains and walk to the light outside the cave, to the real world. By this he meant that you should deny your tricking senses and instead focus on thought and acknowledgement, which he thought did not emnate from the sensable world but from an above idea-world. His theory lay the basics for the Bible and the christian religion. " Christianity urges us to depart from the "natural" or "carnal man"... not from our senses. Where on earth did you come up with that? Lust is not a sense, neither is pride, greed, envy... or any other natural tendency. The bible speaks of openning our ears to hear and our eyes to see, it does not suggest that we do anything to the contrary.
No, actually it isn't. Your statement "in christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god," does well to twist the truth. We need to "ignore" or more appropriately, overcome our CARNAL desires, in order to approach God. Desires and feelings are not the same. Love is a feeling, hope is a feeling, faith is a feeling... and the bible cites all requisites for salvation.
Morals are absolute and eternal, they do not change. If this was the case, nothing would be considered immoral, but merely different. God stands by those who stand with him. When we turn our back on God, we also turn our back on his graces. Yes, immorality certainly had something to do with the fall of the Greek and Roman empires. I'm going to have to correct you once again, Catholicism is responsible for what you just described. Catholicism does not encompass Christianity. I will say that mankind is better off moral and ignorant than immoral and "free-minded." Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 06:59 pm by commonsense |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: Now to finish you off. Paul is talking to the Greeks. Are you serious? The Book is ROMANS!!!!! Paul is not talking to the Greeks! He is talking to the ROMANS...hence the name of the book... The Letters of Paul to the ROMANS!!! Do you know ANYTHING about scripture but how to quote it for your own use? The Greeks are pagans. Pagan had sex during their religious rituals. Paul is addressing why it's wrong to use sex in religion. He says the reason they do this is because they have false gods. Finally. Wrong..see my analysis above, since you think Paul is talking to GREEKS! |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
euthy wrote: The Hulk wrote:Thanks to Democrat support of "feel good, do it" and bisexuality |
|||||||||
|
Idaho-Navy Member 
|
It is a waste of time trying to convince a homosexual or lesbian that they are wrong, as it is a drug addict, alcoholic or a young person in lust who is heterosexual. None can obtain wisdom, or accept wisdom when such wisdom opposes their lust or appeal towards their personal self-gradification. What is not natural has to be manufactured, convinced and perpetrated as truth which is a fallacy, for only the real truth can stand on its on. For them to correct their self-destruction, they whether it be homosexuals, lesbians, alcoholics, drug addicts or rebellious youth, must fall to the absolute low before they can regain what is right. The question is, will they survive the long trip back home? |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
Idaho-Navy wrote: It is a waste of time trying to convince a homosexual or lesbian that they are wrong, as it is a drug addict, alcoholic or a young person in lust who is heterosexual. None can obtain wisdom, or accept wisdom when such wisdom opposes their lust or appeal towards their personal self-gradification.Buon viaggio! well said neighbor. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: Look at it this way. A mass murderer can get married and so can an adulterer, a thief, a liar and cheat. In fact you can break every rule in the Bible and every civil law on our books and we still have the right to get married. But if you're gay and you fall in love it'll destroy a nation. Once again, you are missing the whole point of the debate over gay marriage. The US is a republic. We elect a representative government to make laws for the populace. Homosexual marriage proponents know that they are a minority and stand virtually no chance of convincing enough of their countrymen to accept and support their chosen lifestyle. This is because a MAJORITY of people in the US think Homosexuality is WRONG, and therefore do not wish to share the civil and spiritual sacntion of marriage with gay people. They are therefore trying to use judicial activism to get what the electorate will not give them. That’s insanity. Where is being gay. Ok I'll play your little game. Leviticus 18
From the Bible. You should actually READ it! |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
commonsense wrote:
Scientific evidence says sexual orientation is not chosen. Without choice, there can be no sin. You say a person can choose to be gay. Ok, do it. Become gay for a day, a week, a month or a year. Meet someone of the same sex, fall in love and have wild passionate sex. I bet you can’t. The bible has been used through out history to keep blacks and women in their place. Those who use the bible to harm others are not only misguided but their immortal souls are endangered. Anyone who knows the bible knows it contains two basic concepts in both the New and Old Testaments and they are 1) love god and 2) love each other. The dark side will always use the Bible to divide, judge and hate those whom they disagree with. This is how we know they’re from the dark side. Pat Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 07:18 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
The Bible mixed with Star Wars. Now I know that you speak the truth!!!!! |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
RepublicansForKerry.Com wrote: Ok, enough of this stuff.I would agree with that, if that's where it ended. Each person has to decide for themselves whether or not they want to obey the Word of God, and accept the ETERNAL consequences of their decision. Unfortunately, homosexuals want the recognition, acceptance and legitimacy offered by the institution of Marriage. Since 1996, marriage has been defined by law as an instituion between one man and one woman. Homosexual advocates seek to bypass the normal legislative process, because they lack the support of a majority of their countrymen, and obtain by judicial fiat that which they cannot obtain by legitimate means. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
The Hulk wrote:The Bible mixed with Star Wars. Now I know that you speak the truth!!!!! I just saw a show on how they made the movie. It must has stuck in my mind. It works though.Pat |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
Are you gay? And is Pat a man or woman? |
|||||||||
|
W04 Member
|
euthy wrote: hey Dane: Lukasevangeliet, 7:34 om bøsser: Den nat skal to mænd ligge på samme seng; den ene skal tages med, og den anden lades tilbage Question for euthy: Does your Queen of Denmark receive an income from the government? Just curious. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
euthy wrote: It's not a matter of support. Its a matter of rights. Everbody has the right to have sex with other men. While I agree that everyone can and do have the right to choose their sexual partners, neither the government nor the citizenry are obligated to legitimize or accept these choices. That's what the homosexual activists are angling for...acceptance and legitimacy for their chosen lifestyle; neither of which the MAJORITY of Americans wish to grant them. And it doesnt per definition give you aids. You might as well get it from having unprotected sex with women. True, if that woman was engaged in high risk behavior, such as IV drug use, having unprotected sex with men who either had same-sex encounters or were IV drug users. You don't get HIV from a woman who has not engaged in a high-risk behavior. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
commonsense wrote: euthy wrote:
No it isn't. The idea exists within the Old Testament which predates Plato by thousands of years. See Genesis 35:2 for example. Why do you automatically assume that Christianity took from philosophy when in reality the opposite is the case? 3 Persons are chained in the back of a cave so they can only see the cave wall. On the cave wall are shadows that dance. The chained persons have been chained there all their life, and therefore believe that these images are reality and life, when in fact, they are shadows that some other people are making with a fire and some figures a bit longer up the cave. The object of life and understanding is to free yourself from your chains and walk to the light outside the cave, to the real world. By this he meant that you should deny your tricking senses and instead focus on thought and acknowledgement, which he thought did not emnate from the sensable world but from an above idea-world. His theory lay the basics for the Bible and the christian religion. " Christianity urges us to depart from the "natural" or "carnal man"... not from our senses. Where on earth did you come up with that? Lust is not a sense, neither is pride, greed, envy... or any other natural tendency. The bible speaks of openning our ears to hear and our eyes to see, it does not suggest that we do anything to the contrary.
No, actually it isn't. Your statement "in christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god," does well to twist the truth. We need to "ignore" or more appropriately, overcome our CARNAL desires, in order to approach God. Desires and feelings are not the same. Love is a feeling, hope is a feeling, faith is a feeling... and the bible cites all requisites for salvation.
Morals are absolute and eternal, they do not change. If this was the case, nothing would be considered immoral, but merely different. God stands by those who stand with him. When we turn our back on God, we also turn our back on his graces. Yes, immorality certainly had something to do with the fall of the Greek and Roman empires.
I'm going to have to correct you once again, Catholicism is responsible for what you just described. Catholicism does not encompass Christianity. I will say that mankind is better off moral and ignorant than immoral and "free-minded." Well presented Commonsense! |
|||||||||
|
Idaho-Navy Member
|
During my undergraduate degree I listen to the scientific bull that homo's are genetically fabricated. However, their models were flawed, and tainted towards their objective, which was to get society to accept homosexuality as an acceptable life style. Understand that homosexuality was considered a mentality ill sickness, but base on Freud, they did away with that theory. You know who Freud is? He was a homosexual... |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
jailkerry wrote:Homosexual advocates seek to bypass the normal legislative process, because they lack the support of a majority of their countrymen, and obtain by judicial fiat that which they cannot obtain by legitimate means. The courts overturned generations of "separate but equal" in Brown vs. Board of Education. The Courts also overturned laws that made gay sex a crime. The Courts have no choice but to knock down laws that are unconstitutional. It is after all their job. The Congress and the States don't have the power to give or take rights away from any of us. If you don't understand this concept you'll have a hard time understanding why your side is so wrong. In the world of conservative politics, the government gets to decide which rights we have or don’t have. In the world of liberal politics, we get to decide. Pat |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Idaho-Navy wrote:During my undergraduate degree I listen to the scientific bull that homo's are genetically fabricated. However, their models were flawed, and tainted towards their objective, which was to get society to accept homosexuality as an acceptable life style. Understand that homosexuality was considered a mentality ill sickness, but base on Freud, they did away with that theory. You know who Freud is? He was a homosexual... "genetically fabricated?" Hmmm! Pat |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member 
|
commonsense wrote: I can very easily prove you wrong by noting that there are numerous cases of people with homosexual tendencies CHOOSING to ignore those tendencies and to do the right thing. Obviously it is a choice. And you've made yours. So, they are choosing to ignore their naturally derived desires. They choose to be with a person of the opposite gender, simply because this is the societal norm, even though their natural desire is to be with someone of the same sex. This may be a choice of action, but their desire is not chosen, iy is naturally derived. As a hetrosexual, I did not "choose" to find woman sexually arousing, it is in may nature. I am attracted to them. I suppose I could "choose" to go against my nature and have sex with another man, but I would not, as I am not naturally attracted to men. While the act itself may, arguably, be a choice, the naturally derived attraction to either the opposite or the same gender is not choice. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: commonsense wrote:
We have a choice in every matter. I do not argue that there may or may not be physiological reasons for homosexual tendencies. However, there are also physiological reasons that explain violent behavior. Both remain a choice regardless.
I have absolutely no desire to do any of the above mentioned. I consider homosexuality sin. I CHOOSE not to mock God. And what is this "falling in love" mumbo jumbo anyway. We should love everyone. "Falling in love" is just a romantic way for saying that your love is accompanied by passion and lust. Once again, love and lust are unrelated.
I'm curious, how am I using the Bible to harm another. The Bible teaches right and wrong, it teaches the will of God. The only way that a person could be harmed by this is if they in fact know that the Bible is the word of God and that their chosen life-style is contrary to the will of God. If you are referring to moral society's attempts to constitutionally define marriage, the same argument could be used against people who don't accept the Bible and who try to force their preferences onto us. Governments exist because the people consent to their authority. If the government fails to act in behalf of the people, the government loses credibility and ultimately power. So, the more and more you push your liberal agenda, the less and less power this government will have to enforce your liberal agenda. Our country is nearly invincible vs. enemies from without. The enemies within are the ones that will be the end of this great nation.
Loving God necessarily means that we accept him as our omniscient Father and that we heed his perfect council. If we love God, we obey his commandments. It has been repeated often, and i'll repeat it again. You can love the sinner without loving the sin. We are all sinners, no exceptions. Some just refuse to acknowledge God's council and prefer to live in their sins.
Pat, the plan of God was never meant to be all-inclusive. It is divisive by nature, it divides good from bad, sinner from saint, humble follower from "free-minded spirit." The dark side would lead you to believe the old adage, "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with God," or the other version of the same, "eat, drink, and be merry and in the end God will punish with a few stripes and then all shall be well." Sorry Pat, both adages are authored by the devil. Mortality is a probationary period, a time to prepare to meet God. The spirit that we carry to the grave is the same spirit that will be with us when we stand before God to be judged for our use of the time he has allowed us. I believe a paradigm shift is in order Pat.Commonsense. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
.No, actually it isn't. Your statement "in christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god," does well to twist the truth. We need to "ignore" or more appropriately, overcome our CARNAL desires, in order to approach God. Desires and feelings are not the same. Love is a feeling, hope is a feeling, faith is a feeling... and the bible cites all requisites for salvation.
Morals are absolute and eternal, they do not change. If this was the case, nothing would be considered immoral, but merely different. God stands by those who stand with him. When we turn our back on God, we also turn our back on his graces. Yes, immorality certainly had something to do with the fall of the Greek and Roman empires.
|
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
"love and lust are unrelated." A perfect example of the Plato-inspired duality in christian thinking. Lust is from the senseble world, love the religious world. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: Scientific evidence says sexual orientation is not chosen. Prove this. I will warn you though that the jury is definately out on this one...for every study you can cite that proves it, I can cite one that disproves it. Without choice, there can be no sin. The Bible itself argues against this stance. When Paul says ( to the ROMANS)that because of their sin, God gave men over to a depraved mind, it is obvious that because men make a choice to turn away from God, they are then given over to a depraved mind. Obviously if the men had not chosen to disobey, they wouldn't have recieved this penalty. You say a person can choose to be gay. Ok, do it. Become gay for a day, a week, a month or a year. Meet someone of the same sex, fall in love and have wild passionate sex. I bet you can’t. I can't because I won't. That's like telling someone to prove that they believe in reincarnation by killing themselves and coming back. The bible has been used through out history to keep blacks and women in their place. Those who use the bible to harm others are not only misguided but their immortal souls are endangered. Please tell me you are not comparing a lifesyle choice to the color of ones skin or their gender! I will not argue that the Bible has been mis-interpreted to espouse those points, especially when Bible readership was frowned upon by certain sects, but you cannot seriously think that just because some less than honest men and women have misquoted scripture for their own ends, means that ALL of scripture is wrong, or that anything condemned in scripture is faulty. Tell me this, how do you interpret this verse? " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. '" Lev. 20:13 Anyone who knows the bible knows it contains two basic concepts in both the New and Old Testaments and they are 1) love god and 2) love each other. And what does love God mean but to devote your life to him and follow his path? Is it loving each other for me to let you wallow in your sin, never pointing out the error of your ways and allow you to suffer eternal damnation? How is that loving?
Actually Jesus said that you would know the false prophets by the message they preach...if it went against his teaching, it was false.
|
|||||||||
|
Idaho-Navy Member
|
Zpat's analogy of the courts and discrimination is conjecture. One could say that just because one has a lust for something, it does not necessarily mean that it is a consitutional right. Polgamist, Pedophiles, Beastiality could also use the same argument. If such decisions of the courts are based on homosexual rights, then the others can use the same precedence. Regardless what the left has to say this country and its constitution was based on the principles of a supreme being, and such beliefs, unnatural actions were not considered protected. It is the objective of the homosexual movement, to take power over the courts through the progressive movement. They (homosexuals) will try to persuade not only you, but themselves that their way of life is natural. Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 07:43 pm by Idaho-Navy |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
Great White wrote: commonsense wrote: I can very easily prove you wrong by noting that there are numerous cases of people with homosexual tendencies CHOOSING to ignore those tendencies and to do the right thing. Obviously it is a choice. And you've made yours.
No, they do not choose to do this because it is "the societal norm" they make the choice based upon their knowledge and understand of God and the purpose of life. I believe that the proper terminology would be physiological desire, not "natural desire." Natural implies normal and good. Their desire is the result of chemical imbalances if you are referring to scientific evidence. It is also a result of temptation and more importantly temptation that defeats will and becomes that will. Again, my point isn't to say that gays do not experience certain tendencies that persons such as yourself do not. My point is that there are many tendencies that people experience, such as violent tendencies, that are universally unacceptable. So to try to justify homosexuality based on certain chemical imbalances is extremely flawed logic. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
Idaho-Navy wrote:Zpat's analogy of the courts and discrimination is conjecture. One could say that just because one has a lust for something, it does not necessarily mean that it is a consitutional right. Polgamist, Pedophiles, Beastiality could also use the same argument. If such decisions of the courts are based on homosexual rights, then the others can use the same precedence. Regardless what the left has to say this country and its constitution was based on the principles of a supreme being, and such beliefs, unnatural actions were not considered protected. It is the objective of the homosexual movement, to take power over the courts through the progressive movement. They (homosexuals) will try to persuade not only you, but themselves that their way of life is natural. your country was most of all based on the liberal ideas that were common at that time. It was a rebellion against feudalism and for liberalism. The constitution more that anything else bases itself on the same liberal thought that secular revolution France also was based on. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
It is natural for a certain percentage of the population to be abnormal. It is natural for some people to be born blind, cripple, or mentally retarded. They themselves are not normal, but it is natural to have a percentage of the popluation that are abnormal |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
euthy wrote:. No, actually it isn't. Your statement "in christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god," does well to twist the truth. We need to "ignore" or more appropriately, overcome our CARNAL desires, in order to approach God. Desires and feelings are not the same. Love is a feeling, hope is a feeling, faith is a feeling... and the bible cites all requisites for salvation.
Morals are absolute and eternal, they do not change. If this was the case, nothing would be considered immoral, but merely different. God stands by those who stand with him. When we turn our back on God, we also turn our back on his graces. Yes, immorality certainly had something to do with the fall of the Greek and Roman empires.
bump |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
euthy, Christianity comes from Christ, who was a Jew. All of the laws he lived up to were Jewish. He came to save the Jew. The Jewish culture is indeed, far older that Plato. It was out of this culture, the Jewish mono-theistic messianic culture that Christianity sprang up. As I have said before, the bible was un-influenced by greek tradition and culture, as it was largely composed by JEWISH writers. I realize from reading your posts that you think you hold the sophisticated opinion of the "enlightened". I ask you, which "culture" has lasted longer, the Greek of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates or the Judeo-Christian culture? |
|||||||||
|
Bescheuert Member 
|
euthy wrote: "love and lust are unrelated." Lust is bodily attraction without any real commitment. There is nothing Platonic abuot that, although I admit it has really gone in that direction, with Monastism and all. Love includes bodily attraction however there is real commitment there from the heart, therefore lust, which does not include commitment, is not related to love. There is duality there. |
|||||||||
|
Idaho-Navy Member
|
Do not fall victim to the words of the foolish. For homosexuality is not natural, and such actions are perpetuated by those who lust of flesh, and to listen to such nonsense makes you the listener the fool. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
Great White wrote: It is natural for a certain percentage of the population to be abnormal. It is natural for some people to be born blind, cripple, or mentally retarded. They themselves are not normal, but it is natural to have a percentage of the popluation that are abnormal Absolutely! Hi again GW! Again my point...should we (the majority) be forced to accept as "normal" those who by their actions place themselves in the "abnormal" category? |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
euthy wrote: your country was most of all based on the liberal ideas that were common at that time. It was a rebellion against feudalism and for liberalism. The constitution more that anything else bases itself on the same liberal thought that secular revolution France also was based on. So why all the references to God? Our constitution was a statement against any type of government where the populace was ruled without representation. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
Bescheuert wrote:euthy wrote:"love and lust are unrelated." ok i admit that the duality that is the foundation of both christianity and Plato is one that exists in all societes. The duality being between the individual, physical desires and then the requirements to the individua set out by society. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
jailkerry wrote:euthy wrote:your country was most of all based on the liberal ideas that were common at that time. It was a rebellion against feudalism and for liberalism. The constitution more that anything else bases itself on the same liberal thought that secular revolution France also was based on.So why all the references to God? Our constitution was a statement against any type of government where the populace was ruled without representation. The references to God were there because the writers were christians. But so where the feudal Britain. They didnt have a constitution like that. What seperates the constitution from the prevailing thought in Europe are the individuel, liberal rights written into it. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
jailkerry wrote: Great White wrote:It is natural for a certain percentage of the population to be abnormal. It is natural for some people to be born blind, cripple, or mentally retarded. They themselves are not normal, but it is natural to have a percentage of the popluation that are abnormalAbsolutely! Hi again GW! Again my point...should we (the majority) be forced to accept as "normal" those who by their actions place themselves in the "abnormal" category? Hi, Personally I have mixed feelings. I find the act repulsive, and I really do not want my children growing up thinking it is normal. Conversely, I am a strong believer in individual rights and have a real problem with stripping people of the their right to individual freedoms, especially as I do not buy into the argument that it is a choice. I think there needs to be a balance between allowing them their freedoms and rights while not infringing on the rights of the majority. Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 07:58 pm by Great White |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
euthy wrote: . No, actually it isn't. Your statement "in christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god," does well to twist the truth. We need to "ignore" or more appropriately, overcome our CARNAL desires, in order to approach God. Desires and feelings are not the same. Love is a feeling, hope is a feeling, faith is a feeling... and the bible cites all requisites for salvation.
Morals are absolute and eternal, they do not change. If this was the case, nothing would be considered immoral, but merely different. God stands by those who stand with him. When we turn our back on God, we also turn our back on his graces. Yes, immorality certainly had something to do with the fall of the Greek and Roman empires.
You are once again wrong. That is called a circular argument. You are doing nothing more than mislabeling a group of accepted norms. you can even see it by comparing to groups of people in our society. Groups develop internal social codes, signals and views etc. It is how society works. Take an example. Some of the tribes of indians from the United States practiced intensive torture towards any unlucky victims they might encounter, believing that it was right and that nothing was wrong with it. This does not deal with morality, it deals with socially accepted behavior, norms... the two are not the same. An indian from that society couldnt care less about christian laws, he liked the way he lived. The aztecs sacrificed thousands of people to the sun god each year, because they believed it to be neccesary in order to survive. Every society belives that THIER values are the right and eternal ones and that all others are wrong. You're right, every society does believe that it's set of norms are right. This does not in any way, shape, or form prove that morality is not absolute. There is a set of morals that define right and wrong for all. A given society or group within a society can choose to accept these morals or not, but their acceptance or lack thereof does nothing to change the eternal nature of those morals.
Your lack of religious believe is very apparent. Mankind has always possessed the ability to speak. Perhaps other species existed on our planet prior to us who did not, but we as a species have always been able to. Ture religion is neither created nor destroyed, it encompasses all that is true. Denominations have been created to legitimize power, to function as compromises, to justify behavior. But God and his plan are eternal, they are not debatable. Neither are his commandments.Your facts are simply wrong. It is pointless to argue this with you if you believe that the period 300-400 BC predates 1000-4000 BC. You manipulate the argument by calling senses (which include sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing) the same as desire and feelings. They are nowhere near the same. I could be mistaken by it seems to me that you are implying by the following statment, "It is love to god, love to the "idea", it is not feeling and desires of the "real" world, but only terms, without religion they wouldnt exist," that the non-religious are incapable of love because "without religion (it) wouldnt exist". You've got to be kidding me. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
jailkerry wrote:[user=2210] Paul is not talking to the Greeks! He is talking to the ROMANS...hence the name of the book... The Letters of Paul to the ROMANS!!! Do you know ANYTHING about scripture but how to quote it for your own use? I missed your response. Paul is writing to the "Greek church at Rome." I should have been more clear. Perhaps you'd like to do your own research on this. If you need some help drop me a note. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ? |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: jailkerry wrote:That makes absolutely no sense Pat. The Epistle to the Romans, was written from Corinth toward the end of the stay recorded in Acts 20:3. Paul was then contemplating a visit to Jerusalem, which was certain to be dangerous. If he escaped with his life he hoped afterwards to visit Rome. The letter was meant in part to prepare the Church there to receive him when he came. It may also be regarded as containing a statement of those doctrines which had been in dispute with the Judaizing Christians, and which Paul now regarded as finally established. Why would there be a "Greek church at Rome?" And regardless of what you choose to call the church in Rome, it is nonetheless in Rome. And therefore, attended by Romans. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
Great White wrote: If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
commonsense wrote: Great White wrote:If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. I understand the point, I just disagree. What is immoral for one group, may not be for another |
|||||||||
|
Bescheuert Member
|
I'm missing your point GW. You are saying there is no ideal moral standard, it is all relative, and yet you want to change America's moral stance so there is perfect individual freedom for all. But wouldn't that be a perfect civil code, which is the definition of morality? |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Idaho-Navy wrote:Zpat's analogy of the courts and discrimination is conjecture. One could say that just because one has a lust for something, it does not necessarily mean that it is a consitutional right. Polgamist, Pedophiles, Beastiality could also use the same argument. If such decisions of the courts are based on homosexual rights, then the others can use the same precedence. Since children and animals can't give concept, the "Pedophiles Bestiality" argument is bogus. A known murderer has more rights in the US than a gay person. A murderer can get married but a gay person can’t. Btw, your rights end where mine begin. You don’t have the right or the power to deny rights to others. It’s this kind of thinking that let slavery take hold in a so-called Christian nation. You also presuppose that gays are incapable of love. Like all forms of prejudice this too will pass. Pat |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
Great White wrote: commonsense wrote:You do not understand the point. I agree that what is right for one group, may not be for another. I have stated that repeatedly. The principles of right and wrong, however, are just like any other truth. There is an absolute whether or not you choose to accept it. This absolute truth in no way infringes upon your ability or right to a different opinion.Great White wrote:If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
jailkerry wrote:euthy, Yet the bible was written in Greek. Besides, we don't know who wrote the Gospels. We know it wasn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So, it’s possible the Greeks wrote the Bible, though not likely. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Bescheuert Member
|
zzpat wrote: Idaho-Navy wrote: Even if gays are capable of love, they are not capable of procreation, which marriage is an institution for raising families. By perverting the definition of marriage, family as an institution is perverted and moved away from the ideal. Therefore, the moral rights of the majority are taken away. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
Bescheuert wrote: I'm missing your point GW. You are saying there is no ideal moral standard, it is all relative, and yet you want to change America's moral stance so there is perfect individual freedom for all. But wouldn't that be a perfect civil code, which is the definition of morality? It was really two different trains of thought, I was not really trying to tie them together, but hey, why not? For the record I am not trying to change America's anything, just having a discussion. I don't believe that a perfect civil code would equate to morality. A perfect civil code, were it to exist, would, likely allow people the freedom to do things that others considered imoral. For example, it would be immoral to cheat on your wife, but should it be illegal? If people were thrown in jail for adultury, we would need more prisons. And yes I think it is relative, one man's morals may not be the same as another's, and by the seperation of church and state, the church, or it's followers is not allowed to force their definition of morality on others. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
Bescheuert wrote:
What rights are being removed from the majority? |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Idaho-Navy wrote:[b3]Do not fall victim to the words of the foolish. For homosexuality is not natural, and such actions are perpetuated by those who lust of flesh, and to listen to such nonsense makes you the listener the fool. You've confused two concepts, unnatural and immoral. Wearing glasses can be considered unnatural, but no one would say it's immoral, while having sex with children is both unnatural and immoral. On the other hand, stealing is immoral but not unnatural. If homosexuality is unnatural and immoral you need to prove it. Pat |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
"No, actually it isn't. Your statement "in christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god," does well to twist the truth. We need to "ignore" or more appropriately, overcome our CARNAL desires, in order to approach God. Desires and feelings are not the same. Love is a feeling, hope is a feeling, faith is a feeling... and the bible cites all requisites for salvation." "that the non-religious are incapable of love because "without religion (it) wouldnt exist". You've got to be kidding me" Yeah i know that, i already said that i was wrong about Plato and that the foundation of both Plato and christiany is the duality of the human psyche. The duality being on one side, our inner animal, our individual desires, and on the other hand, society and its requirements to us. Love is a phenomenon created by society, as is religion. Christianity focuses very strongly on this duality, building foundation on foundation of the social human psyche and inspired by Plato. "Your facts are simply wrong. It is pointless to argue this with you if you believe that the period 300-400 BC predates 1000-4000 BC." Christianity came with Jesus which is after 0 BC. Christian culture is inspired by Plato. "You manipulate the argument by calling senses (which include sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing) the same as desire and feelings. They are nowhere near the same." They are all something of the bodily world which christianity rejects, while they seek the truthfullness of God and Christ, or the "idea-world". While Plato may not be the complete foundation, he is the first to formulate the duality of the human mind and have inspired christians all the way up through the centuries. The christian philosophers and "scientists", like Aquinas, have then interpreted the bible with Platos words in mind, only correcting him when he came into conflict with the bible. And their interpretations have become the prevailing ones we today use, heavily based on the ideas of plato. I dont manipulate. I try to get you to understand the duality of christian thought, in which the bodily world is fake, decaying, not eternal, while the Godly world, the soul and paradise are eternal. The senses are bound to the body and thus the bodily world. Dont say i manipulate cause i dont. Please refer from degrading yourself to name-calling. "You are once again wrong. That is called a circular argument. You are doing nothing more than mislabeling a group of accepted norms." What are you talking about? Please argument instead of hurling accusations against me. There is no difference between morality and norms. Both of them differ from society to society. What is morally right to do in a western society might not be considered morally right to do in a society 2000 years ago or today on Papua Ny Guinea. Why should morality be any different? It is easy to see that perceptions of morality also varies from culture to culture. The Coran says to stone women if they cheat. That would be consideren immoral in a modern wester society. Even when you compare two groups within our society, no matter what gruops you pick, you will find different norms and social behavior. "This does not deal with morality, it deals with socially accepted behavior, norms... the two are not the same." Yes they are. Morality like "it is not right to kill another person", might become "only kill another person if he have stolen something from you". "You're right, every society does believe that it's set of norms are right. This does not in any way, shape, or form prove that morality is not absolute. There is a set of morals that define right and wrong for all. A given society or group within a society can choose to accept these morals or not, but their acceptance or lack thereof does nothing to change the eternal nature of those morals." morality isnt "presented" to a society, it is constructed in a society. When 5 people meet to kill a bear in order to survive, they must agree not to kill each other, no matter what happens. Values were constructed out of need, but later as generation passed by they became such an ingerated part of society that people felt it as natural. You only believe what you do because you have been told what is right and wrong by your parents, teachers and other members of society. You are what you are raised to become. The only choice is the choice between different, constructed views upon the world. "Your lack of religious believe is very apparent. Mankind has always possessed the ability to speak. Perhaps other species existed on our planet prior to us who did not, but we as a species have always been able to. Ture religion is neither created nor destroyed, it encompasses all that is true. Denominations have been created to legitimize power, to function as compromises, to justify behavior. But God and his plan are eternal, they are not debatable. Neither are his commandments." What is wrong in not being religious? I see religion as something that clouds the mind. "Religion is opium for the People". Well it all comes down to how you define humans. We were monkeys, then we began to stand on our feet, and finally the most important happened, we gained the ability to speak. Religion is taught, not chosen. Would you be religous if no one had told you about it? no. It is a human construction. God doesnt exist. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
Bescheuert wrote:
Moral rights or prejudice? So you’re saying a person who can't have children or chooses not to have children or is too old to have children can’t get married. You'll have a hard time getting that one to fly. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Bescheuert Member
|
Well ok, but the seperation of Church and state is not the seperation of REligion or morality and state. Whatever standard of values the majority is at, is where the nation should be at. However, I agree with CS, that there is an ideal moral standard, and that individual liberties must be sacrificed to let that happen. Every nation that has fallen has had low moral standards. If everyone in America is a jerk, then we will probably fall too. Therefore there needs to be some sort of obligation in law to encourage good morals. THe ideal family situation is a wife and husband with a kid. That's why there should, I think, be penalties for anything that doesn't encourage this. Now of course we can't penalize a woman for being a single parent because it's not her fault, and with aldultry there are too many circumstances to place a law penalizing all adulterers. But gay marriage is absolute, they cannot reproduce with each other. That's why the law needs to discourage it. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: jailkerry wrote: Parts of the New Testament were written in Greek, others in Aramaic. The Old Testament was written almost entirely in Hebrew. To say that "the bible was written in Greek," is very misleading. Greek was the language common to the area known as Israel during the time period of topic. Just as English is spoken outside of England, Greek was spoken in places outside of Greece. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
commonsense wrote:Great White wrote:commonsense wrote:You do not understand the point. I agree that what is right for one group, may not be for another. I have stated that repeatedly. The principles of right and wrong, however, are just like any other truth. There is an absolute whether or not you choose to accept it. This absolute truth in no way infringes upon your ability or right to a different opinion.Great White wrote:If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. There is no choice. Morality is constructed by one society, choice only comes if two or more societies interfer. |
|||||||||
|
Bescheuert Member
|
euthy wrote: commonsense wrote:No, I'm sure there are moral people in Denmark. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
Bescheuert wrote: Well ok, but the seperation of Church and state is not the seperation of REligion or morality and state. Whatever standard of values the majority is at, is where the nation should be at. However, I agree with CS, that there is an ideal moral standard, and that individual liberties must be sacrificed to let that happen. Every nation that has fallen has had low moral standards. If everyone in America is a jerk, then we will probably fall too. Therefore there needs to be some sort of obligation in law to encourage good morals. I suspect you believe is an absolute morality, as you belive in the same bible as Commonsense, however other's draw their morals from other sources, and they are not nescessarily immoral. My understanding was that Liberty was one of the pillars of American society, and the restritions on Liberty are to be implemeted only if an absolute requirement, which I cannot belive this is. Regarding the fall of other nations. Every other nation if all of history has fallen from power, Greece, Rome, Mongolia, The Hun Empire, Spain, France, Portugal, The British Empire, the USSR. Nations rise and fall. Nothing lasts forever. One day American dominance will fade, regardless of morality. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
The greek and Roman societes where overpowered militarily. Empires and cultures fall and are replaced by new ones, the world and history is in constant change. The western world have prevailed historically because of the economic and military benefits that protestantic morality brought with it. For more info read works like "The Capital" by Karl Marx or even better Max Weber "The spirit of Capitalism and the ethics of protestantism". The wester culture first really developed with protestantism, and after that the importance of religion in society where eliminated more and more which made our society the most effective. Without any illusions of eternal morality we are rational and thus capable of defeating any society of a religious nature. And btw history is a lot more than just a story of a battle between cultures/powers. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
commonsense wrote:That makes absolutely no sense Pat. The Epistle to the Romans, was written from Corinth toward the end of the stay recorded in Acts 20:3. Paul was then contemplating a visit to Jerusalem, which was certain to be dangerous. If he escaped with his life he hoped afterwards to visit Rome. The letter was meant in part to prepare the Church there to receive him when he came. It may also be regarded as containing a statement of those doctrines which had been in dispute with the Judaizing Christians, and which Paul now regarded as finally established. Why would there be a "Greek church at Rome?" And regardless of what you choose to call the church in Rome, it is nonetheless in Rome. And therefore, attended by Romans. I can give you a link if that helps. But first I had to find it again...I read this awhile back. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch06.html "There is something very impressive about Paul as we see him in Romans. To the eye, he may have seemed just a Jewish artisan, wandering from one Mediterranean port to another. But what great concerns were occupying his mind! Carrying a conciliatory gift to the Jewish believers of the East with one hand, with the other he dispatches westward a masterly account of the Christian faith in a letter to the new Greek church at Rome; heroically striving to bring East and West, Jew and Greek, together in the Kingdom of God. Such is the giant figure that shines through the pages of the Letter to the Romans." Regardless, Paul was writing to Pagans (who have many gods) instead of Jews who had only one God. So, that's why Romans 1 was written the way it was. Pat |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
euthy wrote: "No, actually it isn't. Your statement "in christianity you need to ignore all your feelings and desires in order to work towards god," does well to twist the truth. We need to "ignore" or more appropriately, overcome our CARNAL desires, in order to approach God. Desires and feelings are not the same. Love is a feeling, hope is a feeling, faith is a feeling... and the bible cites all requisites for salvation." Obiously your avoidance of religion has not served you in the way that you desire. You have paid attention to nothing I have said. You are closed minded. The argument I have presented is simple and logical, you just continue to spew the same old philosophical rhetoric. You haven't even begun to think. Explain for me how the basic ideas of God and his plan have occurred in every society since the beginning of recorded history with very little variation. You refuse to accept what you cannot see, it appears that you are stuck in that Platonic cave that you talk about. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
"No, I'm sure there are moral people in Denmark." Erm, yes, if you understood my chain of arguments you would see that i have the opinion that society is based on behavioural norms and values / morality. I can function in a society only because i follow the norms/morality of that particular society. That doesnt change the fact that both morality and norms are relative. There exists other societies aside the american, you know. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
commonsense wrote:others in Aramaic. Which parts were written in Aramaic. Acts? Pat |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: commonsense wrote:That's nice Pat, I already presumed that you had read it somewhere. Why you believe everything you read, I do not know. Neither do I know why you deduct from the statement that the Epistle to the Romans was in fact written to a colony of Greek Christians in Rome. Paul was written to the CHURCH at Rome, he was writing to believers "at Rome". They were not pagans. You simply refuse to understand and to admit that your wrong. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
euthy wrote: "No, I'm sure there are moral people in Denmark." Now you're just talking nonsense |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: commonsense wrote:Couldn't tell you Pat, no orginal manuscripts are known to exist. There is a lot of speculation as to the authors and languages of the New Testament. What is known, is that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the surrounding area spoke Aramaic and Greek. |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
The Hulk wrote: Christopher James wrote:Horseface wrote:zzpat wrote:Horseface wrote: You know what's really stupid? aside from naming yourself after an exceptionally crappy comic book character, claiming that democrats are the only one's supporting homosexuality while president bush appointed an open homosexual, michael guest, as ambassador to Romania. you stupid, stupid man. Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 09:02 pm by Christopher James |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
zzpat wrote: jailkerry wrote: it was written in latin |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
commonsense wrote:Paul was written to the CHURCH at Rome, he was writing to believers "at Rome". They were not pagans. You simply refuse to understand and to admit that your wrong. They were new Christians who still practiced pagan religious rituals, which included same gender intercourse usually with boy prostitutes. Pat |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
euthy wrote: commonsense wrote:If I learned one thing in Philosophy 101, its that philosophers know absolutely nothing and most will admit to the fact. Morality IS absolute. Norms differ from morals, this is why they are called norms. They are the group of behaviors accepted as "normal" within a given society. Accept it or not, it is absolute. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
"Interesting, so who told the first person about religion? How exactly did that first person learn of God and religion if noone told them about it? Brilliant, just brilliant." As i already said, Religion is a construct of a group of people used by the people to understand the world around them. Its nature is often based on speculation and is far from reality, because the religions where made at a time where there was no science. It is an invention. Like the Aztecs and their idea of a sun-god, the Greeks, Romans and Vikings with theyr polytheistic religion etc. They are all fundamentally the same. An at that time, usable way of explaining the world, and a basis for keeping the society together. Christianity could for example also be seen as an excuse for keeping up a society where some are slaves and some are masters. "If you just hang on till you die, you will get in heaven", or "yeah sure im using you as dogs, but remember, i dont go to heaven, you do!". Today however, its out of date and science has proven it wrong. Ok i admit discusing it can still be interesting, but only of the christian is willing to put himself into the idea that god doesnt exist, instead of just rejecting the thought. How can you be sure God is real if you have never questioned his existance? Its like beliving fanatically in the words of Osama Bin Laden, you have never questioned them, so you have no actual sense of wheter they are true or not. "Obiously your avoidance of religion has not served you in the way that you desire. You have paid attention to nothing I have said. You are closed minded. The argument I have presented is simple and logical, you just continue to spew the same old philosophical rhetoric. You haven't even begun to think. ." I perfectly understand all of your arguments. The way you avoid mine and instead begin to attack me personally howver makes me doubt wheter you understand mine. "Explain for me how the basic ideas of God and his plan have occurred in every society since the beginning of recorded history with very little variation. You refuse to accept what you cannot see, it appears that you are stuck in that Platonic cave that you talk about" They havent. Each society constructs its own religion. God and his plan didnt occur in any society that havent been in contact with the western society. When Colombus came to America the indians werent christians. There are recorded history before Christ that speaks nothing of one God. The only similarity is one there is within all religions, the belief in some kind of over-human force. The way this is expalined however, differs totally from religion to religion. Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism etc. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: commonsense wrote:No they weren't, seriously... where do you come up with this nonsense? |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
commonsense wrote: If I learned one thing in Philosophy 101, its that philosophers know absolutely nothing and most will admit to the fact. Morality IS absolute. Norms differ from morals, this is why they are called norms. They are the group of behaviors accepted as "normal" within a given society. Accept it or not, it is absolute. You said that, but what evidence do you have to support that it is absolute. Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 09:09 pm by Great White |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
commonsense wrote: zzpat wrote:Liberals have been rewriting history to fit their own needs for a long time nowcommonsense wrote:No they weren't, seriously... where do you come up with this nonsense? |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
"If I learned one thing in Philosophy 101, its that philosophers know absolutely nothing and most will admit to the fact. Morality IS absolute. Norms differ from morals, this is why they are called norms. They are the group of behaviors accepted as "normal" within a given society. Accept it or not, it is absolute." erm, no. Norms are the individuel codes of behavious. Morality and ethics are the big and major codes of life and the society as a whole. Norms is a term frequently used in Social Science while morality/ethics is a matter for philosophy, "the big picture". |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: I missed your response. Paul is writing to the "Greek church at Rome." I should have been more clear. Perhaps you'd like to do your own research on this. If you need some help drop me a note. The Greek church at Rome....how about the CHristian Church at Rome, since there was no Greek othodoxy, hence no Greekchurch when Paul wrote it. He was writing to Christians who lived in Rome. The original recipients of this letter were the people of the church at Rome, who were predominantly Gentile. There was also probably a substantial portion of the church at Rome who were Jewish. Greek and Gentile are not interchangeable terms, gentile simply means Non-Jew. You can start by losing the condescending attitude! |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
euthy wrote: "Interesting, so who told the first person about religion? How exactly did that first person learn of God and religion if noone told them about it? Brilliant, just brilliant." No, you said, "How would you have known about religion if noone had told you about it." Which very clearly implies that religion is something that one has to be taught. Its nature is often based on speculation and is far from reality, because the religions where made at a time where there was no science. Again, you're mistaken. Science has always existed. It is common for non-believers to accept this misconception. They convince themselves that early believers were simply incapable of rational thinking. "They were not advanced as we are." It is an invention. Like the Aztecs and their idea of a sun-god, the Greeks, Romans and Vikings with theyr polytheistic religion etc. They are all fundamentally the same. An at that time, usable way of explaining the world, and a basis for keeping the society together. Christianity could for example also be seen as an excuse for keeping up a society where some are slaves and some are masters. "If you just hang on till you die, you will get in heaven", or "yeah sure im using you as dogs, but remember, i dont go to heaven, you do!". Today however, its out of date and science has proven it wrong. Give me one piece of evidence proving the non-existence of God and I will retract everything that I have said and admit that everything you have said is right. Here's your chance. Ok i admit discusing it can still be interesting, but only of the christian is willing to put himself into the idea that god doesnt exist, instead of just rejecting the thought. How can you be sure God is real if you have never questioned his existance? Its like beliving fanatically in the words of Osama Bin Laden, you have never questioned them, so you have no actual sense of wheter they are true or not. You mistakenly assume that I have not questioned the existence of God. The evidence is overwhelmingly in His favor. Another misconception of non-believers. If they believe, they must not question. Have you truly questioned your unbelief?
I never once attacked you. I say your wrong, you say I'm wrong. I consider neither a personal attack, just part of debate. I question your evidence, again, not a personal attack. You exemplify the liberal victim's mentality. I have not avoided your arguments. I answered them, but you refuse to answer my counter arguments, instead you repeat yourself. Again, your wrong. Eastern religions share many similarities with those of western societies. As do Native American religions. It is debatable whether or not Christianity is monotheistic or polytheistic, and the debate is real. Either there are three Gods or one, but the difference in number does not change the basic principles of Christianity. It is also debatable within Christianity whether God is nothing more than an essence or a force as embodied in pantheism, or whether God is an actual being. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
commonsense wrote: Great White wrote:Also GW, Mormonism is a "cult" outside Christianity, since it holds that Jesus was a prophet, same as it's founder, who by the way, was a polygamist! A look into te doctrine of mormonism shows just how outside the Christian mainstream they are.If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
Great White wrote: commonsense wrote:Everything has its opposite. The opposite of right, is wrong. That there proves it. Your argument is that 2+2 can equal 4 in one society, 3 in another and "n" in still another. Your liberal mentality convinces you that everyone should be allowed to say and do as they please and that they are "right" in doing so. The nature of truth tells a different story.If I learned one thing in Philosophy 101, its that philosophers know absolutely nothing and most will admit to the fact. Morality IS absolute. Norms differ from morals, this is why they are called norms. They are the group of behaviors accepted as "normal" within a given society. Accept it or not, it is absolute. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
"No, you said, "How would you have known about religion if noone had told you about it." Which very clearly implies that religion is something that one has to be taught." That remark was directed to you, commonsense. "How would you, commonsense, have known about religion if noone had told you, commonsense, about it" Not flaming you btw. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
euthy wrote: "If I learned one thing in Philosophy 101, its that philosophers know absolutely nothing and most will admit to the fact. Morality IS absolute. Norms differ from morals, this is why they are called norms. They are the group of behaviors accepted as "normal" within a given society. Accept it or not, it is absolute."How the hell does what you just said contradict what I said? It is becoming more and more apparent that debating you is impossible. You make sh.. up. And try to correct my arguments be restating the same exact thing. |
|||||||||
|
Great White Member
|
jailkerry wrote: commonsense wrote:Great White wrote:Also GW, Mormonism is a "cult" outside Christianity, since it holds that Jesus was a prophet, same as it's founder, who by the way, was a polygamist! A look into te doctrine of mormonism shows just how outside the Christian mainstream they are.If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. Hi, I do understand that, I was more wondering, what take CS,as a Mormon, would have on that. As an aside, my thoughts.... In the 1800's Mormonism would have been a cult, but given the scope it now has I don't think it could really be considered a cult any longer. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
jailkerry wrote: commonsense wrote:Jailkerry, I suggest you keep your mouth and fingers quiet on the subject of Mormonism. You obviously know nothing about it. Look up cult in the dictionary, it simply means religion. It is a label used by the mainstream to discredit religions and groups that are misunderstood. Mormons do not "hold that Jesus was a prophet, same as its founder." Mormons hold Jesus Christ as the literal son of God, Savior of the world, Redeemer of mankind. We hold the church's founder as a prophet, same as Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, and the like. You do realize that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all polygamists don't you. All three were prophets of God. Abraham is one of the most revered prophets of the Bible, the blessings promised him by God are unequaled. A look at the doctrine of Mormonism shows just how wrong the rest of the denominations that claim to be Christian really are.Great White wrote:Also GW, Mormonism is a "cult" outside Christianity, since it holds that Jesus was a prophet, same as it's founder, who by the way, was a polygamist! A look into te doctrine of mormonism shows just how outside the Christian mainstream they are.If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: Since children and animals can't give concept, the "Pedophiles Bestiality" argument is bogus. So is the argument that homosexuality needs consent to occur. I've pointed out before that homosexual ACTS can, and do, occur where no consent is given, (homosexual rape, NAMBLA, etc.) A homosexual act is simply any sex ACT that occurs between 2 members of the same sex. A known murderer has more rights in the US than a gay person. A murderer can get married but a gay person can’t. That is because marriage as a social and legal institution is defined by law as being between one man and one woman. If you don't like this, work to get a new law passed! Btw, your rights end where mine begin. And yours end where mine begin. Since I have a right to think as I choose and teach my children the moral code that I chose, YOU have no right to insist that I violate my rights to encompass your wish to have your choice of lifestyle normalized, You don’t have the right or the power to deny rights to others. Really? So why is it legal for us to deny minors all sorts of rights? Why is it legal for us to deny non-citizens all sorts of legal protections? Marriage is NOT a "right", it is a social and legal sanction of a relationship. In a Majority-run country, the majority determines who gets the benefits of sanction and who doesn't. It’s this kind of thinking that let slavery take hold in a so-called Christian nation. Again, comparing an immoral life style CHOICE to racial equality is reprehesible. Try telling that to a black person who went through the Civil Rights struggle! |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
euthy wrote: "No, you said, "How would you have known about religion if noone had told you about it." Which very clearly implies that religion is something that one has to be taught."Why do you classify me as different from others who supposedly figured it out for themselves without being "told"? |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
The Hulk wrote: commonsense wrote:go away hulk, we already established what an idiot you are.zzpat wrote:Liberals have been rewriting history to fit their own needs for a long time nowcommonsense wrote:No they weren't, seriously... where do you come up with this nonsense? |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
commonsense wrote: euthy wrote:Man has twisted truth in forming his different takes on what is real and true. Man has created thousands of different religions (meaning denominations). But man does not create truth, man did not create God... quite the contrary."No, you said, "How would you have known about religion if noone had told you about it." Which very clearly implies that religion is something that one has to be taught."Why do you classify me as different from others who supposedly figured it out for themselves without being "told"? |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: jailkerry wrote: Pat, please quit showing your biblical ignorance on here! The Bible, particularly the OT was NOT written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew and Aramaic! The NT was written in Greek, but again, just because it was written in a language, that does not mean that the writers necessarily were influenced by that culture, especially when it contradicted their cultural beliefs. And who told you the Gospels were not written by Mark, Luke and John. Most reputable scholars admit that the gospels were indeed authored by either the men for whom they were named, or an "apostle" of that man. |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
commonsense wrote:zzpat wrote:commonsense wrote:No they weren't, seriously... where do you come up with this nonsense? "It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek: bullet About the words "vile affections:" The Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as: bullet "vile affections and degrading passions" (Amplified Bible) "dishonorable passions" (English Standard Version) "degrading passions" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version) "shameful lusts" (New International Version) "shameful desires" (New Living Translation) "evil things" (Living Bible) "shameful affections" (Rheims New Testament) "immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English) In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." 2 It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. 4 Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private. Pat Last edited on Fri Oct 8th, 2004 09:40 pm by zzpat |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
Hate to interrupt but I have a question to commonsense: Abraham is one of the most revered prophets of the Bible, the blessings promised him by God are unequaled Since God is not a respecter of persons, are not the same promises and blessings that God gave Abraham promised to me ( being a child of God )? Just asking for my knowledge. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
jailkerry wrote: zzpat wrote:There were no apostles named Mark or Luke.jailkerry wrote: |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
Christopher James wrote: The Hulk wrote:Nah, I like bother youcommonsense wrote:go away hulk, we already established what an idiot you are.zzpat wrote:Liberals have been rewriting history to fit their own needs for a long time nowcommonsense wrote:No they weren't, seriously... where do you come up with this nonsense? |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
Christopher James wrote: zzpat wrote:jailkerry wrote: |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
zzpat wrote: commonsense wrote:Pat you are really confused here. The Church located in Corinth had to deal with the "temple prostitution" attendant to the worship of Aphrodite, Not Rome. |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
zzpat wrote: commonsense wrote:The verses you refer to are speaking of the unrighteous in general, the accusations were not made in reference to the members of the Church at Rome. |
|||||||||
|
Adam Member
|
The Power of Perception wrote: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 how does one go about doing that? Then I'd have to find a guy with breasts and a vagina. I don't think the bible has that much imagination. Adam |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
The Hulk wrote: Hate to interrupt but I have a question to commonsense:Yep. However the blessings awarded Abraham were sure, he had demonstrated his obedience. God did not say the blessing were his if and only if he discontinued the practice of polygamy. Obviously polygamy was not contrary to the will of God. I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain that you have not received the same assurance as Abraham. I'm pretty sure that you have yet to prove your obedience. You misunderstood the intention of my post, but your question was a good one. |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
jailkerry wrote: Christopher James wrote:well, you said biblezzpat wrote:jailkerry wrote: |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
Adam wrote: The Power of Perception wrote:Pay no attention to Adam, he was surfing for porn and stumbled across this site.Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
commonsense wrote: The Hulk wrote:Do you mean because I intentionally aggravate liberals, like C. James?? Hahahhaaaa!!!!Hate to interrupt but I have a question to commonsense:Yep. However the blessings awarded Abraham were sure, he had demonstrated his obedience. God did not say the blessing were his if and only if he discontinued the practice of polygamy. Obviously polygamy was not contrary to the will of God. I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain that you have not received the same assurance as Abraham. I'm pretty sure that you have yet to prove your obedience. You misunderstood the intention of my post, but your question was a good one. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
commonsense wrote: jailkerry wrote:commonsense wrote:Jailkerry, I suggest you keep your mouth and fingers quiet on the subject of Mormonism. You obviously know nothing about it. Look up cult in the dictionary, it simply means religion. It is a label used by the mainstream to discredit religions and groups that are misunderstood. Mormons do not "hold that Jesus was a prophet, same as its founder." Mormons hold Jesus Christ as the literal son of God, Savior of the world, Redeemer of mankind. We hold the church's founder as a prophet, same as Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, and the like. You do realize that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all polygamists don't you. All three were prophets of God. Abraham is one of the most revered prophets of the Bible, the blessings promised him by God are unequaled. A look at the doctrine of Mormonism shows just how wrong the rest of the denominations that claim to be Christian really are.Great White wrote:Also GW, Mormonism is a "cult" outside Christianity, since it holds that Jesus was a prophet, same as it's founder, who by the way, was a polygamist! A look into te doctrine of mormonism shows just how outside the Christian mainstream they are.If morals are absolute than why do "normal" Christians consider polygamy immoral whilst Mormons do not (or did not) ?You're still missing the point. You can accept morality or not, this does not change its absolute nature. It matters not the size of the group that disagrees with absolute morality. AH yes, you are correct that the OT prophets were polygamists, and for some time it puzzled me why that was ok, but the Church clearly taught AGAINST polygamy and FOR monogamy. Then I actually studied the story of Abraham. You are referring, I assume, to Sarah's handmaiden? Does not the bible make it clear that when Abraham gave in to Sarah's scheme, and took her handmaiden to beget a son, that this was NOT the plan God had for him? That by taking matters into his own hands (so to speak) that way he did not trust the Lord? I will, however, retract my calling mormonism a cult. Rather it is a sect of christianity. Truce? |
|||||||||
|
zzpat Member
|
jailkerry wrote:Pat, please quit showing your biblical ignorance on here! The Bible, particularly the OT was NOT written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew and Aramaic! The NT was written in Greek, but again, just because it was written in a language, that does not mean that the writers necessarily were influenced by that culture, especially when it contradicted their cultural beliefs. And who told you the Gospels were not written by Mark, Luke and John. Most reputable scholars admit that the gospels were indeed authored by either the men for whom they were named, or an "apostle" of that man. I usually don't respond to self-righteous people. Tone it down a little. By your own admission you don't know who wrote the Gospels. Either an 'unnamed' apostle or the original author but you don't know for sure. Instead of doing a put down, look it up and get back to me. If you know which parts of the bible were written in Aramaic tell us which, or look it up, then get back to me. Pat |
|||||||||
|
Christopher James Member
|
The Hulk wrote: commonsense wrote:why do u have so many accounts. just stick to rodack, or ho chi,The Hulk wrote:Do you mean because I intentionally aggravate liberals, like C. James?? Hahahhaaaa!!!!Hate to interrupt but I have a question to commonsense:Yep. However the blessings awarded Abraham were sure, he had demonstrated his obedience. God did not say the blessing were his if and only if he discontinued the practice of polygamy. Obviously polygamy was not contrary to the will of God. I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain that you have not received the same assurance as Abraham. I'm pretty sure that you have yet to prove your obedience. You misunderstood the intention of my post, but your question was a good one. |
|||||||||
|
jailkerry Member
|
C James...what was meant was that the ORIGINAL document was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It has been translated into many languages, including Latin! |
|||||||||
|
The Hulk Member
|
Christopher James wrote: The Hulk wrote:Liberal paranoia?commonsense wrote:why do u have so many accounts. just stick to rodack, or ho chi,The Hulk wrote:Do you mean because I intentionally aggravate liberals, like C. James?? Hahahhaaaa!!!!Hate to interrupt but I have a question to commonsense:Yep. However the blessings awarded Abraham were sure, he had demonstrated his obedience. God did not say the blessing were his if and only if he discontinued the practice of polygamy. Obviously polygamy was not contrary to the will of God. I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain that you have not received the same assurance as Abraham. I'm pretty sure that you have yet to prove your obedience. You misunderstood the intention of my post, but your question was a good one. |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Why is it that all the Bible Scholars are in Internet Forums? |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
"Again, you're mistaken. Science has always existed. It is common for non-believers to accept this misconception. They convince themselves that early believers were simply incapable of rational thinking. "They were not advanced as we are."" Science, as it is today, is a product of the work of a lot of thinkers through time. I is in constant development where it at all times questions its own evidence and methods, constanntly expanding knowledge. Religion and christianity holds on on to the same thoughts withou questioning them. While science at all times use arguments and question how it has gotten its proof, christianity just says "why is is true? It is the will of god" Completely irrational. "Give me one piece of evidence proving the non-existence of God and I will retract everything that I have said and admit that everything you have said is right. Here's your chance" Ok i admit, you cant prove it wrong, in the same way that you cant prove any theory wrong, you can however point out that it is highly unlikely, which i think that science has done. The rationality of so many philosophers and scientists is simply much more, how can i say, rational and makes more sense that christiantiy. More arguments as well. "You mistakenly assume that I have not questioned the existence of God. The evidence is overwhelmingly in His favor. Another misconception of non-believers. If they believe, they must not question. Have you truly questioned your unbelief?" Yes i have. I have gone through the whole proces of questioning everything: "What is true and what false?" "what is reality?", "what am I?", "how can i know anything?" etc. Actually its a process im still going through. "I never once attacked you. I say your wrong, you say I'm wrong. I consider neither a personal attack, just part of debate. I question your evidence, again, not a personal attack. You exemplify the liberal victim's mentality. I have not avoided your arguments. I answered them, but you refuse to answer my counter arguments, instead you repeat yourself." I have answered every single of your arguments, as you have tried to do with mine. You howeverm keep on attack me, "liberal victim" is a perfect example of that. I dont repeat myself more than you do. Why do you see the splint in your brothers eye, but not the log in your own?" "Again, your wrong. Eastern religions share many similarities with those of western societies. As do Native American religions. It is debatable whether or not Christianity is monotheistic or polytheistic, and the debate is real. Either there are three Gods or one, but the difference in number does not change the basic principles of Christianity. It is also debatable within Christianity whether God is nothing more than an essence or a force as embodied in pantheism, or whether God is an actual being." The differences are very fundamental. In some african societies, private property dont exist. In the indian religions, they saw nature as one entity in which they belonged, and they saw history as a cycle. In indian religion an indian is equal with a buffalo. In christianity, history in linear and animals and nature is the property of humans. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Some would say that this was polytheism, but still, there are fundamental differences. In Pantheism, the force flows through all, all living is equal. In christianity, God is the supreme power, and under him is humans, and all other living is the property of humans. In Pantheism there is no God that commands morality, only a force and respect for its balance. The only thing common all religions have is the concept of an over-human force. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
commonsense wrote:euthy wrote:"If I learned one thing in Philosophy 101, its that philosophers know absolutely nothing and most will admit to the fact. Morality IS absolute. Norms differ from morals, this is why they are called norms. They are the group of behaviors accepted as "normal" within a given society. Accept it or not, it is absolute."How the hell does what you just said contradict what I said? It is becoming more and more apparent that debating you is impossible. You make sh.. up. And try to correct my arguments be restating the same exact thing. Sorry i misunderstood you, i thought you meant that morality was eternal simply because it was another term than norms. Its not impossible to debate with me, it is merely difficult. I dont make shi* up. And no i dont do that. I misunderstood you here. Please stop harrasing me and calling me thing that arent true. Stick to arguing. |
|||||||||
|
euthy Member
|
NClib wrote:Why is it that all the Bible Scholars are in Internet Forums? lol |
|||||||||
|
commonsense Member
|
jailkerry wrote: | |||||||||