Ever wonder if man says god said homosexuality is an abomination, why then did god make gays?! And if god made humans in his/our image and likeness, how could homosexuality not be innate? Just as heterosexuality is!? Maybe because the old Hebrew texts, from which christianity borrowed what are now considered their sacred book, was replete with references to sex with children being approved by god. Maybe because prohibiting a waste of seed, as in homosexual sex, would insure the ancient patriarchs blood lines continued to populate the earth. But if god made homosexuals, why does man deem his ordinance says despise them? Isn't god bigger than installing bigotry and separatism upon his human creations societies!? What does that do to serve mankind, if they see one another as adversaries, in the name of god?
This article sharing takes a whole other view and relates what many know by what is said of it already; the bible was written and compiled by men. And the fracture of society in it's name and in it's faith, is to. Love thy neighbor as thyself. How does that passage exclude homosexuals at all!?
GAYNESS AND THE BIBLE
BIBLICAL MORALITY:
Christian opposition to homosexuality
presents a good opportunity to
re-think Biblical morality per se.
Generally we can approach morality
in two ways. (1) we can blindly obey
strict orders without question, and
consider all who deviate as sinners
subject to severe punishment.
(2) We can follow the universal Golden
Rule, which urges empathy and non-
harm. We could temper that with fair
justice for harm-doers.
The former approach is appropriate for
dictators, soldiers in battle, and children
too young to judge which behavior is
harmful. The latter approach is
appropriate for free, peace-loving adults.
(See Kholberg's moral stages.) Many
Christians would spare themselves
difficult decisions by choosing blind
obedience even if they are free, mature
adults.
But the Bible itself contains the same two
approaches to morality! Hence we still
are obliged to choose and make rational
decisions wisely - despite the dictates of
certain church leaders and their flocks of
"sheep". And in order to choose wisely,
we must also know something of the
culture and times in which our chosen
passages were written.
So let us now use homosexuality as a test
case and visit the appropriate passages.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
Genesis 1:27 states humanity was made
in God's image as male and female who
should join together, be fruitful, and
multiply. This could be interpreted to mean
only males and females should join
together in order to procreate, and to not
procreate is unnatural. But we must
remember: procreation was urged at the
time of the first humans because then
the world was virtually empty of people!
Today the world is dangerously
overpopulated. Also both Jesus and Paul
themselves chose to remain celibate
(along with innumerable priests, monks,
and nuns, after them) And as far as the
strict separation of male and female goes,
Galatians 3:28 states: "There is neither
Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.
For you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Then what about Genesis 19? Were not
Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed because
of homosexuality? Most scholars are in
agreement that the capital crime
emphasized there was inhospitality and
violence to strangers. Today we might find
a worse crime in Lot's offering his two
young daughters to be ravished in place of
his guests. Similarly in Juges 19:23-29 a
virgin daughter and concubine were offered
to appease violent sodomists who raped the
concubine to death. It seems morality there
was quite lacking when it came to women.
What then of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?
Here prohibitions are proclaimed against incest,
bestiality, homosexuality, ect. under penalty of
death. But Leviticus 19:17 states: "Ye shall love
your neighbor as yourself."(!) Following up on
this statement in Luke 10:29 Jesus gave the
Samaritan as an example of the neighbor to love.
Samaritans were deviant to Judah's Jewish laws.
Moreover, Exodus 21:24 states an eye for an eye
is just punishment, signifying the death penalty is
appropriate only for murder.
Such exuberant overkill is again proclaimed by
Paul in Romans 1:24-32, who lists a string of
offenses, including boastfulness and disobedience
to parents as well as homosexuality - then claims
even those approving of such behavior are
deserving of death! Compare this extreme
pronouncement with the Golden Rule or even the
fair justice of an eye for an eye.
The Christian prohibition of homosexuality can be
seen more clearly in the light of the Greco-Roman
culture in which it took place. It was a culture of
aggressive bi-sexuality toward slaves, including
young boys, who could be homosexually raped at
will by free men with impunity.
And what of the Jew's attitude toward
homosexuality? After all they should be the best
interpreters of their own Hebrew ("Old")
Testament. Their Halakah (Traditional Law) serves
wisely to make the Law fit new understanding.
Today only Orthodox Judaism prohibits homosexual
practice, but doesn't blame anyone for his or her
sexual preference. Conservative and many Reformed
and Reconstructionist Jews endorse gay marriage
and ordination. As early as 1965 the Women of
Reformed Judaism riled against homosexual
discrimination.
A FRESH OUTLOOK:
Methodists and other mainline Christian groups
now endorse a four way interpretation of
Scripture: (1) Bible study (2)Tradition (3)
Reason (4) Experience. Here we can stay with
the Bible and the tradition of our faith, but
the interpretation must be rational and based
on ever- improving knowledge and experience.
Hopefully the cumulative knowledge of civilized
humanity has by now shown blind obedience to
draconian laws and punishments leads only to
dictatorship, bigotry, injustice, violence, even
bloody wars. Recall the medieval inquisitions,
the endless religious wars, the mass blind
obedience of Nazi Germany....and so it goes on
today.
Cumulative knowledge, empirical reason, and
empathy for humanity should tell us by now
that harmless behavior, even if different,
should be left alone regardless of preachings
by self righteous bigots and hate mongers -
especially if bigotry or violence is preached in
the name of God. On the other hand if the act
is definitely harmful, we should then deal with
it justly.
Just like straight sex, *spam filter* becomes harmful
when used for rape, child molestation,
spreading disease, or using others as mere meat.
In fact straight sex has even two more ways to do
harm: i.e. through adultery (now becoming
applicable to gays), and by creating unwanted
children.
In his volume of Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth urged
viewing scripture and tradition through the lens of
"God's Freedom" whose will cannot be predicted by
mere human beings. "God's grace is new every
morning. For we are speaking of a living God who is
vitally active today and every day."
Biblical teachings are not stilled photographs frozen in history. We have instead a living Bible which must be seen in the context of all its books and the entire story of humanity. In this light even your sexual orientation can be an important part of your calling....
But woe upon those - straight or gay - who use their sexual orientation for rape, defiling children, spreading STD, committing adultery or pursuing mindless permiscuity. For all these defy the Golden Rule. And what you sow - you will therefore reap....
Full Version: Gayness and the bible
Thats true if god created us then he created homosexuality.,
through history homosexuality was toloreated by many civlisations, so why not now,
also men married much younger women back in the day 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
even some european tribes used to arrange marrage between young boys and girls.
through history homosexuality was toloreated by many civlisations, so why not now,
also men married much younger women back in the day 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
even some european tribes used to arrange marrage between young boys and girls.
I have no tolerance for people who "hate" gays. My mom is a lesbian. It makes her no different from other moms, she still does normal things. =]]
And interestingly enough, it's not ancient history one speaks of, in that respect. There are still arranged marriages, and any number of other rites and rituals, involved in the mating ritual of humans. Phrased like that because in another thread about homosexuality and the bible, the discussion has evolved into comparative models within the animal kingdom. Isn't it interesting that of all the animals on Earth, humans are the only one's that legitimize condemning their animal nature.
It's said when discussions about homo-sexual sex ensue , in order for those involved in the discussion to relate, they subconsciously compare their sexual experience or mate, to that model topic being discussed. So discussing homo-sexual sex among straight men, causes straight men to do two things subconsciously. Imagine either personal or implied sexual acts, and themselves in both roles, because for a straight man there has to be a woman in that picture, to relate to the context of the sexual activity. So then it becomes a matter of ego, as in which one of me is the female!? Emasculating, for some. And so they react accordingly, with their attitude about the gay community and by consequence, those sexual projections, or imaginings with themselves included.
This may seem far afield, but I think not , if one recognizes the authorship of the bible were a patriarchy. (Rule of the fathers) Furthering one's seed, one's lineage, one's "line", amid the tribes of the time was paramount to survival. A father god, guiding his sons through eternity. Pretty powerful picture. Especially when it morphs into those sons sexing those sons.
It's said when discussions about homo-sexual sex ensue , in order for those involved in the discussion to relate, they subconsciously compare their sexual experience or mate, to that model topic being discussed. So discussing homo-sexual sex among straight men, causes straight men to do two things subconsciously. Imagine either personal or implied sexual acts, and themselves in both roles, because for a straight man there has to be a woman in that picture, to relate to the context of the sexual activity. So then it becomes a matter of ego, as in which one of me is the female!? Emasculating, for some. And so they react accordingly, with their attitude about the gay community and by consequence, those sexual projections, or imaginings with themselves included.
This may seem far afield, but I think not , if one recognizes the authorship of the bible were a patriarchy. (Rule of the fathers) Furthering one's seed, one's lineage, one's "line", amid the tribes of the time was paramount to survival. A father god, guiding his sons through eternity. Pretty powerful picture. Especially when it morphs into those sons sexing those sons.
I think that it can also be looked at as God didn't create homosexuality, but gave us Free Will to do so as we please.
But then, is it to do as we please, if there are judgments and punishments, from an all knowing and permissive or liberal god?
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 22 2007, 09:56 PM) [snapback]1511703[/snapback]
But then, is it to do as we please, if there are judgments and punishments, from an all knowing and permissive or liberal god?
We have electronic tagging for criminals here in the UK (don't know about the US). How it works is someone can serve either none or part of their jail sentence inside, when let on the street they get 'tagged' for the remainder of their sentence. They are allowed to do as they please within the guidlines set down by the parole office. If they break those guidelines they get punished, usually they have to carry out the rest of the original punishment for their crime. So although they have free-will to decide what they want to do, they still have to stick to the guidlines, or face the punishment.
EDIT: spelling
QUOTE
although they have free-will to decide what they want to do, they still have to stick to the guidelines, or face the punishment.
Does this program include violent offenders?
Reason I ask, given the analogy, once the crime is done, the guidelines broken, the victim(s) made, what is the punishment after!? What purpose does it serve to restore what was lost!? And what does it serve but to make paid what was already owing, by taking them off the street and putting them back in the cage they were initially sentenced to!? Now with more victim(s) in their wake, to serve what was already ordained by that higher power. (the courts, etc....) But that is all tangible. Laws and codes, that mean nothing but what we permit them to mean, or not. As the case may be. The analogy ends, in relative comparison, between that of a penal system and that of punishment for one's actions after life. Because the prison/jail, is real. Though the rules are the same, as far as right conduct, they can not make one to comply. It is truly free choice. But here, in matters of law, the penalty is tangible. But what comes after one exercises that free choice, in matters of faith, is faith to. And that's the difference.
QUOTE(micklemas @ Jan 22 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]1511789[/snapback]
We have electronic tagging for criminals here in the UK (don't know about the US). How it works is someone can serve either none or part of their jail sentence inside, when let on the street they get 'tagged' for the remainder of their sentence. They are allowed to do as they please within the guidlines set down by the parole office. If they break those guidelines they get punished, usually they have to carry out the rest of the original punishment for their crime. So although they have free-will to decide what they want to do, they still have to stick to the guidlines, or face the punishment.
EDIT: spelling
EDIT: spelling
Mickle I'm afraid GW is correct on this there is no freedom in choice, its an oxymoron.....Not to mention the choice is already been defined do or don't do and then there is a or else.......this is the definition of slavery..simple as that....I am aware that many define choice this as the greatest of freedoms but this is simply wishful freedoming...sounds good on paper but in reality its a scam......... even the construct version " The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints, seems to support there is no free will....
Good thing I've never heard of any credible "guidelines" speaking against homosexuality. 
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 22 2007, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1511805[/snapback]
Does this program include violent offenders?
Reason I ask, given the analogy, once the crime is done, the guidelines broken, the victim(s) made, what is the punishment after!? What purpose does it serve to restore what was lost!? And what does it serve but to make paid what was already owing, by taking them off the street and putting them back in the cage they were initially sentenced to!? Now with more victim(s) in their wake, to serve what was already ordained by that higher power. (the courts, etc....) But that is all tangible. Laws and codes, that mean nothing but what we permit them to mean, or not. As the case may be. The analogy ends, in relative comparison, between that of a penal system and that of punishment for one's actions after life. Because the prison/jail, is real. Though the rules are the same, as far as right conduct, they can not make one to comply. It is truly free choice. But here, in matters of law, the penalty is tangible. But what comes after one exercises that free choice, in matters of faith, is faith to. And that's the difference.
Reason I ask, given the analogy, once the crime is done, the guidelines broken, the victim(s) made, what is the punishment after!? What purpose does it serve to restore what was lost!? And what does it serve but to make paid what was already owing, by taking them off the street and putting them back in the cage they were initially sentenced to!? Now with more victim(s) in their wake, to serve what was already ordained by that higher power. (the courts, etc....) But that is all tangible. Laws and codes, that mean nothing but what we permit them to mean, or not. As the case may be. The analogy ends, in relative comparison, between that of a penal system and that of punishment for one's actions after life. Because the prison/jail, is real. Though the rules are the same, as far as right conduct, they can not make one to comply. It is truly free choice. But here, in matters of law, the penalty is tangible. But what comes after one exercises that free choice, in matters of faith, is faith to. And that's the difference.
Yes, some violent offenders are released on 'tag', by *cough*accident. Our prisons are running at about 95% capacity. Quite simply they need the room. We have had quite a bad time with the 'tagged' commiting more violent crimes.
QUOTE
14 Oct 2003 : Column 800
noble friend has tabled the amendments in order to enable Members of the Committee to consider these changes so that the Government can justify their proposals to the Committee and to the wider public.
The present arrangements for the release of fixed-term prisoners are contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. That Act provided that those prisoners serving custodial sentences of up to four years, commonly called "short-term prisoners", should serve half their sentence in prison and the remainder on licence. Since 1999, the Government's home detention curfew scheme has allowed short-term prisoners to be released on electronic tags up to three months before the half-way point. Thus, someone serving a sentence of two years could serve up to 12 months but might serve only nine months before being released on an electronic tag.
The arrangements are different for prisoners serving four years or more—long-term prisoners. Currently, they serve at least half their sentence in prison before becoming eligible for parole and are released automatically on licence after serving two-thirds. Thus, at present, someone sentenced to six years, for example, if he were refused parole, could serve up to four years before being released.
The Bill makes a fundamental alteration to these arrangements for long-term prisoners. Clause 235 abolishes the concept of parole for long-term prisoners and provides that all those serving custodial sentences of 12 months or more should be released at the half-way point. Clause 236 also extends the home detention curfew scheme by applying it to all prisoners, not just those serving fewer than four years, and increasing the extra discount that may be given to a maximum of 135 days, which is a little more than four months.
The result of all this is that any prisoners serving a sentence of four years or more can expect to spend a good deal less time in custody than they do at present. The important point is that these are almost invariably prisoners who have committed serious offences. I ask the Committee to consider the following three examples. Offender A is convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after "glassing" his victim in a drunken pub brawl. He is sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Although he could have been sentenced to imprisonment for public protection, the court is satisfied that he does not impose a significant risk to the public.
Under current arrangements, he would have to serve a minimum of three years before applying for parole and if this is denied would be released only after four years. As a long-term prisoner, he would not be eligible for home detention curfew. Under the Bill's provisions, he would be released automatically after serving three years and could be released on home detention curfew after serving two years and eight months. The potential difference made by the Bill in A's case is that he could serve up to one year four months less of his six-year sentence in custody than at present, serving two years eight months rather than four years.
noble friend has tabled the amendments in order to enable Members of the Committee to consider these changes so that the Government can justify their proposals to the Committee and to the wider public.
The present arrangements for the release of fixed-term prisoners are contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. That Act provided that those prisoners serving custodial sentences of up to four years, commonly called "short-term prisoners", should serve half their sentence in prison and the remainder on licence. Since 1999, the Government's home detention curfew scheme has allowed short-term prisoners to be released on electronic tags up to three months before the half-way point. Thus, someone serving a sentence of two years could serve up to 12 months but might serve only nine months before being released on an electronic tag.
The arrangements are different for prisoners serving four years or more—long-term prisoners. Currently, they serve at least half their sentence in prison before becoming eligible for parole and are released automatically on licence after serving two-thirds. Thus, at present, someone sentenced to six years, for example, if he were refused parole, could serve up to four years before being released.
The Bill makes a fundamental alteration to these arrangements for long-term prisoners. Clause 235 abolishes the concept of parole for long-term prisoners and provides that all those serving custodial sentences of 12 months or more should be released at the half-way point. Clause 236 also extends the home detention curfew scheme by applying it to all prisoners, not just those serving fewer than four years, and increasing the extra discount that may be given to a maximum of 135 days, which is a little more than four months.
The result of all this is that any prisoners serving a sentence of four years or more can expect to spend a good deal less time in custody than they do at present. The important point is that these are almost invariably prisoners who have committed serious offences. I ask the Committee to consider the following three examples. Offender A is convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after "glassing" his victim in a drunken pub brawl. He is sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Although he could have been sentenced to imprisonment for public protection, the court is satisfied that he does not impose a significant risk to the public.
Under current arrangements, he would have to serve a minimum of three years before applying for parole and if this is denied would be released only after four years. As a long-term prisoner, he would not be eligible for home detention curfew. Under the Bill's provisions, he would be released automatically after serving three years and could be released on home detention curfew after serving two years and eight months. The potential difference made by the Bill in A's case is that he could serve up to one year four months less of his six-year sentence in custody than at present, serving two years eight months rather than four years.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...xt/31014-12.htm
Our judges have so many different 'bills' that they sometimes downgrade what should be violent crime to non-violent 'section 5 breach of the peace' offences.
I was assaulted in December 2002, I worked as a senior conductor on the railway, I saw this chap taking drugs, smokeing (not allowed on any public transport), and flashing his penis to all the female passangers. I had a quiet word with him and asked him to leave at the next stop (Boston). When he got off he came upto me and punched me in the side of my head. I was deaf in one ear for 3 months as a result. When it got to court he was found guilty of 'Section 5; Using threatening and abusive language for the purpose of fear and intimidation, with assault'. He was given a 12 month conditional discharge. Simply a slap on the wrist, for what in the end ruined my 8 year career on the railway.
Sorry if its digressed of the subject a tad. try and get it back a bit now.
In my opinion, even if there are guidlines you still have free-will to choose to follow them or not. People end up inside for choosing not to follow the laws of the land. I couldn't say that a lawmaker is immoral for setting a law that some people don't like, or infact most people don't really care about.
QUOTE(micklemas @ Jan 22 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]1511852[/snapback]
Yes, some violent offenders are released on 'tag', by *cough*accident. Our prisons are running at about 95% capacity. Quite simply they need the room. We have had quite a bad time with the 'tagged' commiting more violent crimes.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...xt/31014-12.htm
Our judges have so many different 'bills' that they sometimes downgrade what should be violent crime to non-violent 'section 5 breach of the peace' offences.
I was assaulted in December 2002, I worked as a senior conductor on the railway, I saw this chap taking drugs, smokeing (not allowed on any public transport), and flashing his penis to all the female passangers. I had a quiet word with him and asked him to leave at the next stop (Boston). When he got off he came upto me and punched me in the side of my head. I was deaf in one ear for 3 months as a result. When it got to court he was found guilty of 'Section 5; Using threatening and abusive language for the purpose of fear and intimidation, with assault'. He was given a 12 month conditional discharge. Simply a slap on the wrist, for what in the end ruined my 8 year career on the railway.
Sorry if its digressed of the subject a tad. try and get it back a bit now.
In my opinion, even if there are guidlines you still have free-will to choose to follow them or not. People end up inside for choosing not to follow the laws of the land. I couldn't say that a lawmaker is immoral for setting a law that some people don't like, or infact most people don't really care about.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...xt/31014-12.htm
Our judges have so many different 'bills' that they sometimes downgrade what should be violent crime to non-violent 'section 5 breach of the peace' offences.
I was assaulted in December 2002, I worked as a senior conductor on the railway, I saw this chap taking drugs, smokeing (not allowed on any public transport), and flashing his penis to all the female passangers. I had a quiet word with him and asked him to leave at the next stop (Boston). When he got off he came upto me and punched me in the side of my head. I was deaf in one ear for 3 months as a result. When it got to court he was found guilty of 'Section 5; Using threatening and abusive language for the purpose of fear and intimidation, with assault'. He was given a 12 month conditional discharge. Simply a slap on the wrist, for what in the end ruined my 8 year career on the railway.
Sorry if its digressed of the subject a tad. try and get it back a bit now.
In my opinion, even if there are guidlines you still have free-will to choose to follow them or not. People end up inside for choosing not to follow the laws of the land. I couldn't say that a lawmaker is immoral for setting a law that some people don't like, or infact most people don't really care about.
what i find interesting mickle is that the behaviors are created by these very laws, noone does anything inappropraite given ther model of the world.......Waht would help is to encourage others to love themselves and find value and worth in themselves this cretes the core for humans who naturally do good becaseu its who they are....simply jsut tell someone they are kind , caring, unified, tolerant ,are they are goodness naturally and start this from the womb and you will ahve a very differnt human one who needs little rules......
Goddess,
I have no issue with people doing what they will do with themselves and other consenting adults. It's a personal choice (although some scientists are trying to link homosexuality in men with a reduced hypothalamus. See this link).
Taking a Devil's Advocate position, though, if I were religious I would probably say it was a 'test' from god - assuming the religion considered this act immoral. There is, I suppose, the biological argument but this presupposes that homosexuality is only about sex and, as far as I know from arguments I have heard, it is not.
As for the tagging, I think that it is mainly used for non-violent offenders but this may depend on your definition of violent. Someone, for example, who has been exhibiting anti-social behaviour up to and including assault may be issued with an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order). Basically a certificate to say 'You've been naughty. Don't do it again or you'll get in trouble.' It is meant to carry a restriction penalty either against specific behaviour or visiting certain locales (or both). This doesn't really work as the people likely to be issued these treat them as collection pieces or badges of pride. Some people who re-offend may be tagged. Even tagging has proven ineffective in some cases as it depends on how efficient the district Social Service is in keeping check on those people.
I have no issue with people doing what they will do with themselves and other consenting adults. It's a personal choice (although some scientists are trying to link homosexuality in men with a reduced hypothalamus. See this link).
Taking a Devil's Advocate position, though, if I were religious I would probably say it was a 'test' from god - assuming the religion considered this act immoral. There is, I suppose, the biological argument but this presupposes that homosexuality is only about sex and, as far as I know from arguments I have heard, it is not.
As for the tagging, I think that it is mainly used for non-violent offenders but this may depend on your definition of violent. Someone, for example, who has been exhibiting anti-social behaviour up to and including assault may be issued with an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order). Basically a certificate to say 'You've been naughty. Don't do it again or you'll get in trouble.' It is meant to carry a restriction penalty either against specific behaviour or visiting certain locales (or both). This doesn't really work as the people likely to be issued these treat them as collection pieces or badges of pride. Some people who re-offend may be tagged. Even tagging has proven ineffective in some cases as it depends on how efficient the district Social Service is in keeping check on those people.
QUOTE(Supra Sheri @ Jan 23 2007, 12:11 AM) [snapback]1511866[/snapback]
what i find interesting mickle is that the behaviors are created by these very laws, noone does anything appropraite given ther model of the world.......Waht would help is to encourage others to love themselves and find value and worth in themselves this cretes the core for humans who naturally do good becaseu its who they are....simply jsut tell someone they are kind , caring, unified, tolerant ,are they are goodness naturally and start this from the womb and you will ahve a very differnt human one who needs little rules......
Absolutely, I completly agree. The problem with english society as a whole is that we have too few people who care about others, and too many people demanding leniency for the worst criminals.
When we talk about the biblical sin of acts of homsexuality it is normally those that are not affected, either because they don't believe, or are not 'gay', that cause the most fuss. As I said in one of my other posts I know some homosexual Christians, they have come to their own decision on their faith in God for salvation and live true Christian lifestyles (maybe better than some of the 'straight' Christians). All I can say as a Christian is: I do not care what a person does in the privacy of their own home (as long as the welfare of others are not affected). They will always be members of my 'Christian family'.
Reagrding the other post about overcrowding in UK prisons: "Prison numbers pass 80,000 mark" we only have 80,377 places!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6156915.stm
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 22 2007, 04:56 PM) [snapback]1511703[/snapback]
But then, is it to do as we please, if there are judgments and punishments, from an all knowing and permissive or liberal god?
Well, yes, I suppose. We can be as sinful as we want, but dont be surprised when you suffer the consequences (ie judgement and punishment). We were given the knowledge of right and wrong. It isn't God's fault if you choose to be sinful, that lies on you alone.
Please note though, this is not my personal opinion whatsoever. I'm trying to speak from the perspective of one who fully believes everything in the Bible to be true, to answer the question.
To be literally true? The entire bible? Factual, and honest? Without prevarication or falsehood?
Inerrant?
Inerrant?
QUOTE(JMPD1 @ Jan 22 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]1512183[/snapback]
To be literally true? The entire bible? Factual, and honest? Without prevarication or falsehood?
Inerrant?
Inerrant?
I know many many many people who think that way.
QUOTE(micklemas @ Jan 22 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]1511892[/snapback]
Absolutely, I completly agree. The problem with english society as a whole is that we have too few people who care about others, and too many people demanding leniency for the worst criminals.
When we talk about the biblical sin of acts of homsexuality it is normally those that are not affected, either because they don't believe, or are not 'gay', that cause the most fuss. As I said in one of my other posts I know some homosexual Christians, they have come to their own decision on their faith in God for salvation and live true Christian lifestyles (maybe better than some of the 'straight' Christians). All I can say as a Christian is: I do not care what a person does in the privacy of their own home (as long as the welfare of others are not affected). They will always be members of my 'Christian family'.
Reagrding the other post about overcrowding in UK prisons: "Prison numbers pass 80,000 mark" we only have 80,377 places!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6156915.stm
When we talk about the biblical sin of acts of homsexuality it is normally those that are not affected, either because they don't believe, or are not 'gay', that cause the most fuss. As I said in one of my other posts I know some homosexual Christians, they have come to their own decision on their faith in God for salvation and live true Christian lifestyles (maybe better than some of the 'straight' Christians). All I can say as a Christian is: I do not care what a person does in the privacy of their own home (as long as the welfare of others are not affected). They will always be members of my 'Christian family'.
Reagrding the other post about overcrowding in UK prisons: "Prison numbers pass 80,000 mark" we only have 80,377 places!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6156915.stm
well mickle you serve as a voice i think that is amazing that you allow others the right to live as they seem fit as long as it harms noone (consensual) more should be like you....
QUOTE(EmpressStarXVII @ Jan 22 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]1511680[/snapback]
I think that it can also be looked at as God didn't create homosexuality, but gave us Free Will to do so as we please.
There is no free will per the bible's definition. How is it free will when it comes with a threat?: My way or burn in hellfire for all eternity. Hmmm -- not exactly benevolent... It was some crafty cartel - eons ago - which came up with the perfect way to control the masses. The B-I-B-L-E... tortured into your heart...
Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. It's in our "nature"...
...AAnnnnd... Children have to be taught to be 'good,' and that sharing is a positive thing... Most of us are born selfish and demanding. Wonder what that means when contemplating "created in god's image."
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 22 2007, 04:56 PM) [snapback]1511703[/snapback]
But then, is it to do as we please, if there are judgments and punishments, from an all knowing and permissive or liberal god?
Should've read the page before responding...
Exactly...
This subject comes up alot. The verse everyone keeps quoting regarding homosexuality is actually in reference ONLY to SODOMY, which is practiced by hetrosexuals also. God calls SODOMY detestable. The actual relationship between man to man or women to women isn't the problem. In fact lesbianism as one Rabbi pointed out isn't mentioned once, and the Egyptians were notorious for it.
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 22 2007, 02:08 PM) [snapback]1511245[/snapback]
[color=#4B0082]Ever wonder if man says god said homosexuality is an abomination, why then did god make gays?! And if god made humans in his/our image and likeness, how could homosexuality not be innate? Just as heterosexuality is!? Maybe because the old Hebrew texts, from which christianity borrowed what are now considered their sacred book, was replete with references to sex with children being approved by god. Maybe because prohibiting a waste of seed, as in homosexual sex, would insure the ancient patriarchs blood lines continued to populate the earth. But if god made homosexuals, why does man deem his ordinance says despise them? Isn't god bigger than installing bigotry and separatism upon his human creations societies!? What does that do to serve mankind, if they see one another as adversaries, in the name of god?
God did not make homosexuals, God made people, sin made homosexuals.
God made sin.
God made the devil. God made the domain in which "it" would survive after the war in heaven, so it could instead serve as a tempter to humanity, when it at first was ordained by god to serve in a benevolent office, humankind. Hence that rebellion . And if sin made homosexuals, it sure made straights to then. Balance in all things, that's nature. That's god.
God made the devil. God made the domain in which "it" would survive after the war in heaven, so it could instead serve as a tempter to humanity, when it at first was ordained by god to serve in a benevolent office, humankind. Hence that rebellion . And if sin made homosexuals, it sure made straights to then. Balance in all things, that's nature. That's god.
You know, it probably had a scripture in it to that effect, right about the Book of Numbers. But then they took it out because that would incite discrimination and violence, and that would be a sin!
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 23 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]1512534[/snapback]
God made sin.
God made the devil. God made the domain in which "it" would survive after the war in heaven, so it could instead serve as a tempter to humanity, when it at first was ordained by god to serve in a benevolent office, humankind. Hence that rebellion . And if sin made homosexuals, it sure made straights to then. Balance in all things, that's nature. That's god.
God made the devil. God made the domain in which "it" would survive after the war in heaven, so it could instead serve as a tempter to humanity, when it at first was ordained by god to serve in a benevolent office, humankind. Hence that rebellion . And if sin made homosexuals, it sure made straights to then. Balance in all things, that's nature. That's god.
God made Lucifer....Sin made the Devil....You see when God creates he infuses life into it, and then lets nature take control...we are sinful humans which means when nature takes control sin comes it.....
QUOTE(Saint @ Jan 23 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]1512567[/snapback]
I wish to blasted HECK that all anti homosexual types be smited from this earth and burn in hellfire and brimstone.....
I don't like them either but that's a bit extereme eh?
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 23 2007, 02:37 PM) [snapback]1512577[/snapback]
You know, it probably had a scripture in it to that effect, right about the Book of Numbers. But then they took it out because that would incite discrimination and violence, and that would be a sin!
They Probably could have....but hey you never know.
Just three words for any of you:
"David and Jonathon".
"David and Jonathon".
^^^Gideon - I don't think most Christians want to face the truth about Jonathan and David. Their argument is that they were just really loving, kissing right on the mouth, man friends.
Much like they don't want to admit that King James was gay.
And, Vicera - If your god made everything, then he made nature. If sin comes from nature, sin comes from your god.
Much like they don't want to admit that King James was gay.
And, Vicera - If your god made everything, then he made nature. If sin comes from nature, sin comes from your god.
QUOTE(Vicera Cinegras @ Jan 24 2007, 03:04 AM) [snapback]1512595[/snapback]
God made Lucifer....Sin made the Devil....You see when God creates he infuses life into it, and then lets nature take control...we are sinful humans which means when nature takes control sin comes it.....
I don't like them either but that's a bit extreme eh?
They Probably could have....but hey you never know.
I don't like them either but that's a bit extreme eh?
They Probably could have....but hey you never know.
God made lucifer, the first and most beautiful angel. God made sin as a curse upon all generations, after the apple eating contest in the paradise garden. God made nature, god is nature. God is all things and all things are of god, so says the faith. If there's a devil, it be god in the guise. If there be sin, it be gods creation for Eve and Adam being newborn, thus un-wise. But when god is omniscient, and their creator, that was no surprise. But it is a damnable reason to hold to unreason and ask for something that damned us, to save us from ourselves. Because we believe sin is there, to be saved from, which was gods free will to put sin upon us, for the first of our kind being new and unaware. If ignorance would have retained our place in paradise, and knowledge has made our life of sin, what is that paradise of heaven offering, those select few that shall see it!? And where do those not so fortunate go, if the word of salvation is truly believed to be meant for only an elite few!? Even if they're "good" when alive!? Saved, when free to make the choice. If heaven is exclusive, why is gods word meant for everyone to obey!?
QUOTE(RachelM @ Jan 23 2007, 03:36 PM) [snapback]1512617[/snapback]
And, Vicera - If your god made everything, then he made nature. If sin comes from nature, sin comes from your god.
hmm....maybe he did make sin.... God made beings with free will that means that though they did not know that another option was available it was still possible to choose it....I guess he did......which could be looked at either way, but it's all apart of the unanswerable questions that I choose not to take part in.
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ Jan 23 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]1512626[/snapback]
God made lucifer, the first and most beautiful angel. God made sin as a curse upon all generations, after the apple eating contest in the paradise garden. God made nature, god is nature. God is all things and all things are of god, so says the faith. If there's a devil, it be god in the guise. If there be sin, it be gods creation for Eve and Adam being newborn, thus un-wise.
God is not all things.....and all things are not God.
[quote But when god is omniscient, and their creator, that was no surprise. But it is a damnable reason to hold to unreason and ask for something that damned us, to save us from ourselves. Because we believe sin is there, to be saved from, which was gods free will to put sin upon us, for the first of our kind being new and unaware. If ignorance would have retained our place in paradise, and knowledge has made our life of sin, what is that paradise of heaven offering, those select few that shall see it!? And where do those not so fortunate go, if the word of salvation is truly believed to be meant for only an elite few!? Even if they're "good" when alive!? Saved, when free to make the choice. If heaven is exclusive, why is gods word meant for everyone to obey!?
It sounds to me like you Like the idea of God's love/grace/mercy, but don't understand it.
What is God's Word? Answer that for me first..... here's a hint it's NOT the Bible. Who can tell me what God's Word is....
^^^
once that is answered more will come into view. You don't jump into Truth, you ease into....so play along, and let's ease into Truth together ok Goddess?
QUOTE
"Most men would kill the Truth, if the truth would kill their religion. " Lemuel K. Washburn
QUOTE(Vicera Cinegras @ Jan 24 2007, 04:45 AM) [snapback]1512655[/snapback]
hmm....maybe he did make sin.... God made beings with free will that means that though they did not know that another option was available it was still possible to choose it....I guess he did......which could be looked at either way, but it's all apart of the unanswerable questions that I choose not to take part in.
So because you can't answer them, you choose to believe the parts that you are willing to accept. And that is suppose to give you a complete enough answer in your search for god, that you not only live by it, but think you can assist others to find the truth of it!? But what if they see the answers you don't, in those unanswerable questions you choose not to take part in?! How then, with you at that deficit, are you equal much less ordained to tell anyone else, anything!? It's your faith, you're the only one responsible to live up to it. Regardless of what some say jesus said about going forth into all the world and telling everyone that lives, if they don't follow the new testament, they're all wrong and damned! That's certainly altruism and a good bit of news! Full of parts that are unanswerable, but must be obeyed regardless to insure eternal salvation. In the company of that which made it all holey possible. QUOTE
God is not all things.....and all things are not God.
So your god isn't immanent/omnipresent. Well then, omnipotent is certainly out of the picture as well then. QUOTE
It sounds to me like you Like the idea of God's love/grace/mercy, but don't understand it. What is God's Word? Answer that for me first..... here's a hint it's NOT the Bible. Who can tell me what God's Word is....
^^^
once that is answered more will come into view. You don't jump into Truth, you ease into....so play along, and let's ease into Truth together ok Goddess?
Atheist. I've never subscribed to fables, as truth. But of your book, I know what I read. And if it's gods word, I'm certain he can say what he means, without needing anyone to translate it on his behalf. After all, didn't god say his word is inscribed on the heart, the very essence, of his human creation?^^^
once that is answered more will come into view. You don't jump into Truth, you ease into....so play along, and let's ease into Truth together ok Goddess?
"Christ is the end of the law" (Romans 10:4)
2 Corinthians 3:3-6 (Young's Literal Translation)
3manifested that ye are a letter of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in the tablets of stone, but in fleshy tablets of the heart, and such trust we have through the Christ toward God, not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency [is] of God, who also made us sufficient [to be] ministrants of a new covenant, not of letter, but of spirit; for the letter doth kill, and the spirit doth make alive.
Being Christian is a sin, an abomination, my god thinks it is detestable. I dont think Christians should be allowed to get married, being a Christian is a choice they make, they arent born Chirsitians, they choose their life of sin. Though I dont think people should be Christians I wont force them not to be Christians, my god gave them free will but I hope they are prepared for the consequences, if they believe a short life of sin is worth an eternity of seperation from god so be it. God loves us too much to let Chrsitians go unpunished.
Being Jewish is a sin, I read a book that said the book of God says that being Jewish is wrong and they will go to Hell. Its their choice, they can very easily give up who they are to be saved but they dont, so like a father discplining his child they require eternal punishment to think about what they have done. Though they will never get a chance to make it up, they will eventually see this is done out of the purest most blissful, running through a field of flowers after taking an allergy pill like Claritin, sort of love. For God is an all-loving God if you believe what you read he says. I hear they even circumsize their penises, such barbarity in this part of the world, in this age, not even in the animal kingdom will you see such barbarity. Sure God said it was good in the first book but that was a long time ago, I think know God changed his mind about that cause I dont like it. Jews could go to a Christian Church and accept Jesus, they can still be Jewish as long as they dont act on their Jewish urges, being Jewish isnt a sin but acting Jewish is. Sure we are all sinners but Jews theyre the going to Hell kind of sinners, not like us.
God did not make gays. He gave humans free will.
Say What? The Jews are going to hell? Where did you get that from? Mel Gibson?
QUOTE(Moondoggy @ Jan 23 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]1512926[/snapback]
Say What? The Jews are going to hell? Where did you get that from? Mel Gibson?
You must accept the glory of Jesus or you will not go to Heaven, eternal seperation from their own God is their punishment. They can very easily choose to accept Jesus but they dont. I know a few Jews that go to Church, some of the best Christians I know, they can still be of Jewish descent but they have stopped their sinful nature of acting like Jews. Sure they had to abandon who they were but that is the right thing to do, to be saved by Jesus.
No I didnt get this from Mel Gibson, the Bible says the only way to the Father is through Jesus, Jews arent going through Jesus so they dont go to the Father, Mel Gibson is only trying to save them, is that so wrong? Mel like God is only trying to show them where they have gone wrong, so if you think Mel is an ****** then you think God is an ***xx, now you are going to Hell for comparing Mel to God(God doesnt even make good movies), should we stop here, have you dug yourself deep enough yet? Is the risk of Hell enough to may you change your ways? God gave you free will to do as he says, you best listen.
Ele are you really a christian is disguise?
QUOTE(dougadam @ Jan 24 2007, 08:30 AM) [snapback]1512915[/snapback]
God did not make gays. He gave humans free will.
That would also have to be a statement that includes bi-sexuals and heterosexuals. Is free will another word for libido!?
QUOTE(Moondoggy @ Jan 23 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]1512983[/snapback]
Ele are you really a christian is disguise?
Arent we all Christians in God's eyes? Some just havent accepted it yet, but they will when the glory of Christ is revealed to them. Like myself, I spent so long fighting the inevitable but Jesus came to me in the night and touched me like I've never been touched before. The hand of God has a firm grip once it gets a hold of you theres no point in struggling, its best to just give in, relax and enjoy it. I saw angels blowing their horns and cherubs flying with their flutes firmly in hand, it was glorrrrious! OK I think I puked a little in my mouth there. I's just kidding, God can blow his own horn and kiss my ***!
QUOTE(Eleleth 4/4 @ Jan 23 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]1512951[/snapback]
You must accept the glory of Jesus or you will not go to Heaven, eternal seperation from their own God is their punishment. They can very easily choose to accept Jesus but they dont. I know a few Jews that go to Church, some of the best Christians I know, they can still be of Jewish descent but they have stopped their sinful nature of acting like Jews. Sure they had to abandon who they were but that is the right thing to do, to be saved by Jesus.
No I didnt get this from Mel Gibson, the Bible says the only way to the Father is through Jesus, Jews arent going through Jesus so they dont go to the Father, Mel Gibson is only trying to save them, is that so wrong? Mel like God is only trying to show them where they have gone wrong, so if you think Mel is an ****** then you think God is an ***xx, now you are going to Hell for comparing Mel to God(God doesnt even make good movies), should we stop here, have you dug yourself deep enough yet? Is the risk of Hell enough to may you change your ways? God gave you free will to do as he says, you best listen.
No I didnt get this from Mel Gibson, the Bible says the only way to the Father is through Jesus, Jews arent going through Jesus so they dont go to the Father, Mel Gibson is only trying to save them, is that so wrong? Mel like God is only trying to show them where they have gone wrong, so if you think Mel is an ****** then you think God is an ***xx, now you are going to Hell for comparing Mel to God(God doesnt even make good movies), should we stop here, have you dug yourself deep enough yet? Is the risk of Hell enough to may you change your ways? God gave you free will to do as he says, you best listen.
I like digging I may be a mole in the next life. I do not believe in hell, so it is not a motive for my belief system. I do not see what is sinful about acting like a Jew? How does a Jew act? I think I may have seen you before. Were you goatboy on SNL?
QUOTE(Moondoggy @ Jan 23 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]1513059[/snapback]
I like digging I may be a mole in the next life. I do not believe in hell, so it is not a motive for my belief system. I do not see what is sinful about acting like a Jew? How does a Jew act? I think I may have seen you before. Were you goatboy on SNL?
I dunno how do homosexuals act? Prolly minding their own business until someone gets in their face and pushes their own beliefs and issues onto them. If you hadnt noticed I was poking a little fun at some comments made by Christians about homosexuals here, like its ok to be a homosexual just dont act on it, not much of a homosexual then are they? Problem solved lol.
PS yes that was me on SNL, no it wasnt makeup and yes if I could get ahold of you I'd love to stain your jeans.
Cool Ele, hey I am gonna do some hunting in Canada, so when I come up if you want to do some hunting, let me know. I could use your skinning skills once we bag some game.
QUOTE(Eleleth 4/4 @ Jan 23 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]1513133[/snapback]
I dunno how do homosexuals act? Prolly minding their own business until someone gets in their face and pushes their own beliefs and issues onto them. If you hadnt noticed I was poking a little fun at some comments made by Christians about homosexuals here, like its ok to be a homosexual just dont act on it, not much of a homosexual then are they? Problem solved lol.
PS yes that was me on SNL, no it wasnt makeup and yes if I could get ahold of you I'd love to stain your jeans.
PS yes that was me on SNL, no it wasnt makeup and yes if I could get ahold of you I'd love to stain your jeans.
Hey! Wait a second, "stain my jeans?" I must revoke my hunting trip offer. I would hate to be in the woods with some nutty guy who has prison beeeatch experience.
QUOTE(Eleleth 4/4 @ Jan 24 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]1513133[/snapback]
I dunno how do homosexuals act? Prolly minding their own business until someone gets in their face and pushes their own beliefs and issues onto them. If you hadnt noticed I was poking a little fun at some comments made by Christians about homosexuals here, like its ok to be a homosexual just dont act on it, not much of a homosexual then are they? Problem solved lol.
PS yes that was me on SNL, no it wasnt makeup and yes if I could get ahold of you I'd love to stain your jeans.
PS yes that was me on SNL, no it wasnt makeup and yes if I could get ahold of you I'd love to stain your jeans.
Have you heard of the new up coming bible translation Eleleth??? Not many people do, I happen to have a friend who is helping write it and he says that this will be the final translation and will contain the absolute word of God without any errors. Shall I give you a preview?????? You would like that wouldn't you? So would most christians in here. Anyway here are some pieces of the new translation:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and Great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour except homosexuals as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets." ----Jesus Christ
Love your enemies except homosexuals, do good to them which hate you except homosxuals, and pray for them which despitefully use you except homosexuals. ---Jesus Christ
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you except homosexuals in which you have all the right of God's permission to discriminate, persecute and judge. ---Jesus Christ
Judge not except against homosexuals that ye be not judged except by other homosexuals but anyway because they are so sinful and evil you shouldn't really care whether they judge you or not. ---Jesus Christ
It is more blessed to give than to recieve except when it comes to homosexuals because they don't deserve anything the godless abominations that should rot in hell because of their chosen sexuality. ---Jesus Christ
John20: 29 Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed but if you are gay please please do not believe and find a different religion in which you will not defile our religion which we have worked so hard to keep pure. --Jesus Christ
Didn't Jesus have such a lovely message of love, peace and respect for all people in the world that we can share regardless of ethnicity except of course for those damned homosexuals? To tell the truth I am really looking forward to the new bible translation. It will be great to have some true scripture from all the lies and propaganda we have to put up with in this day and age.
Jews should burn in hell? WTF?
QUOTE(Moondoggy @ Jan 23 2007, 11:10 PM) [snapback]1513557[/snapback]
Hey! Wait a second, "stain my jeans?" I must revoke my hunting trip offer. I would hate to be in the woods with some nutty guy who has prison beeeatch experience.
Have you ever wondered why the two common things men come out of prison with is 1. God and 2. Homosexual urges?
Well anyways enjoy your hunting trip, I hear Brokeback Mountain has some good "hunting" these days.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 23 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]1513568[/snapback]
Sounds like it'll be a hit, the official edition of theocratic rule! It'll sure help clarify the true position Jesus took on homosexuality, seeing as how he never mentioned it, I'm sure it just slipped his mind.
QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child @ Jan 24 2007, 01:42 AM) [snapback]1513642[/snapback]
Jews should burn in hell? WTF?
Dont argue with God! Jesus is their salvation, blasphemer!
QUOTE
God does not hate homosexuals and neither do true Christians. The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22), and God hates the sin, not the sinner. All sin is equal in God's eyes. God views homosexuality the same as adultery or stealing.
God does not condemn anyone to anyone to hell. He offers us a choice. Through Christ dying on the cross, God offered us forgiveness for all our sins. Each of us has an opportunity to take or reject that offering. God cares and loves everyone. He is not just some figure sitting somewhere far away passing judgment on humanity, but He is a God that loves us and wants all of us to go to heaven. (Acts 2:21) He does not tolerate sin, and considers our sin as a rejection of His offer, and will reject the entrance to heaven to those who reject Him. It's like if you are hanging, by a few fingers, from falling off a cliff to your death and someone offers to pull you up. If you reject that offer, that person did not condemn you to death, but you condemned yourself. (Romans 10:13)
http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php?mo...p;story_id=3720
God does not condemn anyone to anyone to hell. He offers us a choice. Through Christ dying on the cross, God offered us forgiveness for all our sins. Each of us has an opportunity to take or reject that offering. God cares and loves everyone. He is not just some figure sitting somewhere far away passing judgment on humanity, but He is a God that loves us and wants all of us to go to heaven. (Acts 2:21) He does not tolerate sin, and considers our sin as a rejection of His offer, and will reject the entrance to heaven to those who reject Him. It's like if you are hanging, by a few fingers, from falling off a cliff to your death and someone offers to pull you up. If you reject that offer, that person did not condemn you to death, but you condemned yourself. (Romans 10:13)
http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php?mo...p;story_id=3720
As you can see Ashley, Jews have not accepted their offer to pull them up from the cliff, Jews have condemned themselves to Hell! Unlike homosexuals, who have accepted Jesus and stopped their sinful ways, Jews are going to Hell.
QUOTE(Eleleth 4/4 @ Jan 24 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]1514143[/snapback]
Have you ever wondered why the two common things men come out of prison with is 1. God and 2. Homosexual urges?
Well anyways enjoy your hunting trip, I hear Brokeback Mountain has some good "hunting" these days.
Well anyways enjoy your hunting trip, I hear Brokeback Mountain has some good "hunting" these days.
LOL. I enjoy your posts. If you are not a comedian, you should give it a shot. But, I cannot figure out some of these posts. In one you seem to be pro Christian, then Anti-Christian. Brokeback mountain? Is that in BC or Alberta? I'm gonna hunt me some Mooseknuckle up there for sure! Yeah, I agree with you on the prison thing, it is odd what people do when their backsides are up against the wall.
QUOTE(RachelM @ Jan 23 2007, 10:36 AM) [snapback]1512617[/snapback]
^^^Gideon - I don't think most Christians want to face the truth about Jonathan and David. Their argument is that they were just really loving, kissing right on the mouth, man friends.
Much like they don't want to admit that King James was gay.
And, Vicera - If your god made everything, then he made nature. If sin comes from nature, sin comes from your god.
Much like they don't want to admit that King James was gay.
And, Vicera - If your god made everything, then he made nature. If sin comes from nature, sin comes from your god.
Well... to be fair "gay" and "homosexual" -- let alone "queer" -- are terms that describe a modern construct of male/male sexual desire, neither of which dates back before the 1880s or 1890s. To describe someone from before then as such is a dangerous exercise in obviating tangible histoircal differences. Nothing would make me happier than writing an article called "Christopher Marlowe: Elizabethan Fag", but academic honesty forbids it.
-- Jaylemurph
Ummm, the above of which is meant to go on to say:
be careful about what you say about Jonathan and David (great single from Belle and Sebastian, BTW) and King James... after all, King James was married and had kids, so he couldn't have minded the occassional dip in... well, can't finish that and be polite. But he had kids. And we all know how you get those. And, speaking as a modern homo, we can't do that sort of thing and still be called a homo.
-- Jaylemurph
be careful about what you say about Jonathan and David (great single from Belle and Sebastian, BTW) and King James... after all, King James was married and had kids, so he couldn't have minded the occassional dip in... well, can't finish that and be polite. But he had kids. And we all know how you get those. And, speaking as a modern homo, we can't do that sort of thing and still be called a homo.
-- Jaylemurph