Homosexuality

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 25 2008,22:49)

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 25 2008,13:00) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 25 2008,07:14) “God is a reality” is your unsupported assertion. Stu. “God is not a reality” is your unsupported assertion. I have my proof that God exists, but you have no proof for yourself either way. You have never told anyone here your 'proof'.  Of course that is because it is all bluff.  You cannot prove gods, everyone here seems to realise that except you. I suppose with your track record on logic no one should be surprised. “God is not a reality” is my provisional scientific conclusion, based on the evidence. Stuart

The point is Stu, you condemn a view when you have no proof at all.

I use to be an atheist but God intervened in my life, at a time when I was searching. I have my proof and I chose to believe. So I have been on both sides and I know without a doubt that God exists. In addition to that, I have had quite an interesting ministry in that God has given me a number of unique experience of him that most do not profess to have had. You could say that I have tasted of the age to come and really have no excuse to not believe.  

In the end, I know and I know that this means very little to you and that is fair enough, that has never been my point.

My only point is not that you have to believe me because that would be quite silly to require this and I am not and haven't asked you to believe me. No the point I am making is that you condemn a view when you have absolutely no evidence either way.

At least if I condemn the no God view it is a view that I once held tightly to myself but changed for a reason, not because I thought it was a good idea. But Stu, you have nothing. Just a bias against God.

I repeat, you have nothing and yet you draw strong views as if you had some kind of proof.

That is bad science Stu because you have nothing and you have even said yourself that you know nothing about the cause of the cosmos.

Why don't you just admit it to yourself that your science is bad because it is based on your bias and your bias alone.

I mean it seems evident to me and probably others too, but you don't seem to be able to see your own predicament.

I could respect your opinion more if you had a death experience and were brought back and you saw nothing. Or some kind of proof to say that there was no God and therefore the cosmos came from nothing. But besides that being a big stretch to believe in, at least you had some experience to say why you believe the way you do.

But you have nothing.

[Stu]

I am not claiming there is an Imaginary Friend in the sky. I don't have to provide any evidence. Atheism is my provisional conclusion, based on all the evidence for such a god. If you have evidence for your truth claim, put it up.

Stuart

[Paladin]

Today, 7/17/09, Friday morning, I opened the newspaper to see the article named in the title of this essay.

I have seen for a long time, the unfairness of judgment practiced against homosexuality, have just the opposite effect intended by various authors of articles attempting to deal with the subject nonjudgmentally.

It is hard to do. It is harder to do and show love instead of judgment. And it is still harder to do with any degree of compassion shown in the writing of the article because of the nature of the issue.

I love my brothers in Adam, but I love my brothers in Christ much, much more. It is because I wish my brothers in Adam to become my brothers in Christ, I am moved to make this appeal.

Come ye out from among them and be ye separate from the unclean thing.

The Homosexual community has organized itself along religious lines in an alarming fashion, in that, they now make claims the the bible does not condemn Homosexuality. They now ordain Ministers and officers of every type, in most of the denominations, and the churches seem unable to refute their doctrinal claims.

Several Hebrew words should be considered in the discussion; they are numbered in accordance with Strong’s numbering system for your edification, and ease of research, in the event you wish to see for yourself.

Heb 376. eesh; a man; a male person

Heb 120. Ad-dawm; Ruddy; a human being; the race of man; mankind.

Heb 802. eesh-shaw’; fem. of Heb376 or Heb582; a woman (used in the same wide sense as Heb 582): female, wife, woman.

Heb 2145. zakar, zaw-kawr’; a male (of man or animals): him, male, man kind.

Heb 5347. nek-ay-baw’; female (from the sexual form): -female.

The BIBLE begins in the Genesis account, relating man’s sexuality, with reference to God’s plan for him.

In Exo 15:3, God refers to himself as “EESH” [376].

God also speaks of Gabriel as being an EESH in Dan 9:29.

Finally, God accomodates the language to the male and female of every species which entered the ark; EESH AND EESHAW

Gen 7:2 “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens the male (EESH))376) and his female (EESH-SHAW)(802).

ZAW-KAWR AND NEK-AY-BAW Gen 1:27 So God created man [120](Ad-dawm) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male [zaw-kawr][2145] and female [nek-ay-baw][5347] created he them.

ORIGIN OF EESH & EESH-SHAW Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man (Ad-dawm)[120], made he a woman (eesh-shaw)[802], and brought her unto the man (Ad-dawm)[120].

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (eesh-shaw)[802], because she was taken out of Man (eesh)[376].

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man (eesh)[376] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife (eesh-shaw)[802]: and they shall be one flesh.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife (eesh-shaw)[802]; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man (eesh)[376] from the LORD.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind (zaw-kawr)[2145], as with womankind (eesh-shaw)[802]: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man (eesh)[376] also lie with mankind (zaw-kawr)[2145], as he lieth with a woman (eesh-shaw)[802], both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

God plainly and unequivocally states that a man, male of the species, is to join himself sexually, and in marriage, to a woman, female of the species. He also prohibits male with male sexual cohabitation.

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE: Deuteronomy 23:17-18 These verses have been applied to homosexual behaviour because of a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The King James Version reads “whore” and “sodomite”. The Hebrew actually uses the same noun in its masculine and feminine forms, the words are best translated “temple (or cult) prostitute”. These verses have nothing directly to do with homosexual behaviour.

Cult prostitution flourished throughout the ancient world and this fact sheds important light on the other passages in this brochure. Fertility cult worship involved sexual activity in the temple, often with a sacred prostitute who was like a priest or priestess. This sacred sexual activity was believed to encourage the god(s) to bestow fertility on the earth and its creatures.

REBUTTAL: Deut 23:17 Forbids such practice, WHATEVER IT WAS, to be found among the sons and daughters of Israel.

1Kings 14:24, the people of the nations which preceded Israel were cast out of the land for such practices.

1 Kings 15:12 the king removed them from the land.

1 kings 22:46, same.

In 2 kings 23:7 the king “broke down their houses” which were adjacent to the house of God. If this was just a religious practice, why did God object to its close proximity to his own dwellingplace? The final use of the word is in Job 36:14, where it is translated “unclean” with reference to the young who were dying in such a state.

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE: Genesis 19:4-11 The sin of Sodom is clearly explained in Ezekiel 16:49-50. It was not homosexual behaviour, but for its deep and general sinfulness, the men in the story may have intended sexual abuse of the divine visitors (the translation of the verb “know” here is not clear).

The issue is not that the objects may have been homosexual but that it was to be abuse. This was in character with the whole of their uncaring, greedy and Godless lives.

REBUTTAL: The translation of the verb is not clear to whom? “Scholars” who desire to practice such things with impunity? It most certainly was clear to the cities of Sodom and Gommorha; it was clear to the kings of the above references, and it was clear to several thousand years of Jewish “scholars” who did not “correct” this alledged
“misunderstanding.” Whence cometh this knowledge?

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13-14 These verses are found in the “Holiness Code” which emphasized to the Israelites that they were to be set apart to God. The context is prohibition of practices found in the nearby fertility cult of Molech. “Abomination” is a translation of the Hebrew word which specifically means idolatrous practices (not necessarily sexual). The condemnation here is a reference to the fertility worship which the Israelites were to shun. The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that “to lie with a man as with a woman” violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of God. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God’s creation

REBUTTAL: “Not necessarily sexual” certainly does not mean the same thing as “Not sexual at all.” There were times when the idolatrous service included the sexual aspect, but WITH OR WITHOUT the sexual aspect, IT WAS FORBIDDEN. And to say that “the context is prohibition of practices found in the nearby fertility cult of Molech,” is to “play games” with contextual considerations.

Leviticus 18 Verse 6 begins a litany of behaviours which wre prohibitted to Israel; after being told that they were not to emulate the behaviour of the people of Egypt, nor the people of Canaan, into which they were about to enter. Fifteen verses follow; filled with sexual “defilements”, which form the “context” for the verses which contain the passages under consideration.

IN CONTEXT, God continues to pronounce upon Israel, prohibitions of practices which were found in the societies which were being replaced in the land of Canaan.

Verse 22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind…”

Verse 24 “DEFILE not your
selves in any of these things…”

“In all these things the nations are DEFILED”

“WHICH I CAST OUT before you…”

Verse 25 “And the LAND IS DEFILED…”

“THEREFORE I do visit the INIQUITY thereof upon it.”

“And the LAND ITSELF VOMMITETH OUT HER INHABITANTS.”

This whole context shows;
1st that God found the practices rampant in the land;
2nd He cast out the nations thereof BECAUSE OF SUCH PRACTICES.
3rd a follow-up study will show that God also cast out Israel from the same land for doing exactly the same things, and He DID NOT TOLERATE it in them, either.

Let us proceed to examining “The statement” made by the Homosexual community:

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE: Many people have been taught that the Bible condemns homosexuality. We believe that this is not the truth. We believe that gay and lesbian people are completely loved and accepted by God. How can there be such a difference between parts of the Christian Church over this issue?

Largely because unproven ideas have been taught for centuries about some Scripture passages. In recent times, scholars have finally begun to study these passages in depth, with the support of historical and archaeological information about biblical times.

REBUTTAL: Absurdo Redundum; Who are such brilliant men who can look at the scholarship of centuries, and declare so smugly, “look at how smart we are… we declare your work to be in error. We have formed an opinion, It represents the “new” truth. We have discovered, after several thousand years, what the writers “really” meant. We are so clever.

“Scholarship” in and of itself, is worthless. To obtain a Doctor’s degree, all you have to do, is research in a library, find a specified number of other “scholars” to whom you can appeal, and submit your conclusion for approval. You do not have to be right. There is no truth required. Only “Authority.” You are not required to “test” your conclusion against reality. Only against “what everyone knows.” Degrees attained do not make you right, do not make you smart, nor do they bring you one whit closer to truth.

Ptolemy, one of Scholarship’s greatest “Authorities,” was it’s greatest fraud. There is NO record of his youth! He had NO credentials! He appeared suddenly on the scene, among “learned” men; He attempted to “prove” the Earth to be the center of the universe by multiplying the numerical solutions of his predecessors, by decimal values which tended to verity the general concensus of opinion, (among “learned men).

For fifteen hundred years, his “findings” were accepted as “scientifically accurate,” and therefore “true.” Of course, no one thought to “verify” his work, as he was THE “Authority.” No Credentials, No history, No pedigree, just his own “authority.”

Galileo Galilei, on the other hand, was a very well trained scholar, who had all the credentials of scholarship. He held that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe. THE RELIGIOUS “Scholars” of the day, stepped into the picture, and convinced the Papal authority to send him to trial by Inquisition, found him guilty of Heresy, placed him under house arrest for life, banned his books, forbidding the
“ignorant masses” to look therein. 213 years later, in 1829, Pope Leo the XII removed them from the purged list.

Do not pretend that a mix of “scholarship” and “religion” has any merit whatsoever. They have only the authority of scripture. And I can read scripture. And when I speak, it will be with full authority of scripture, a “thus saith the Lord.” it will not be the latest mouthings of “scholars” who imagine themselves more clever than their predecessors.

The Homosexual preaching community have suggested that homosexuality is not addressed in the New Testament; but rather, the references in Paul’s writings concern idolatrous cult “temple” prostitution.

Paul addresses the issue as one of historical consequence. He tells what “they” did, and what happened to those persons who did so.

Rom 1:26-27…for even their women did change the “natural use” into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the “natural use” of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly…

Scripture plainly states that a male is not to lie with a male as with a female. To rephrase, a man is not to use a man as he would a woman. There is a natural use, between a man and woman [Rom 1:26-27], and men do NOT replace women in that “natural” arrangement ordained by God.

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE: There is no factual support for an anti-gay interpretation of Scripture, the facts are only quickly summarized here. Such brief statements cannot do justice to an interpretation of Scripture. There is a continuing and searching endeavour. But this summary is a starting place. It is an assurance that clear authority points to acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians.

RESPONSE: And Liars, Murderers, Fornicators, Adulterers, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, idolaters, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul says in 1 Cor 6:9-11, “and such were some of you, but you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified…”

Paul says they “were” such, but then tells of a change. Paul it is who also tells us of “repentance” from “dead works.” And “Godly sorrow leadeth thee to repentance.”

Yes, Christianity is for such people, but NOT IN THEIR SIN. To claim otherwise misrepresents what the scripture teaches, and “scholarship” CANNOT change that. It CANNOT make it go away. And “scholarship” mixed with “religion” will NOT change the sacred writings. They will always stand to testify of the silly little men with their silly little minds who boast such great things.

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE: 1Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10 – At issue are two words: malakee (found only in 1Corinthians) and Arsenokeeteh, which is in both verses. Tradition assumes a homosexual meaning of the words. Actual study reveals that in its use there, malakee means “morally weak” or, perhaps, “immoral persons”. (The translation “effeminate” in the King James Version was an archaic one and, in any case, did not imply homosexuality in Greek–as it does not today.)

Arsenokeeteh means to refer directly to cult prostitution, again. Such practices were common both in Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy was). It clearly refers, in this use and later uses in other writings, to prostitutes who engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual cult practice. Neither of these words can possible be translated to mean “homosexual” or any similar distortion of their meaning.

REBUTTAL: Greek (arseen) = male, Found in Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE and female,

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them MALE and female.

Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every MALE that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (Greek = males among males) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither MALE nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Greek (arsenokoitees) A man who lies with a male, a Sodomite 1cor 6:9 1Tim 1:10

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE: Romans 1:26-27 This is the only passage in Scripture which, apparently, talks about homosexual behaviour among women as well as men. The dangerous, traditional interpretation comes from failure to relate it to the whole chapter.

Paul talks about idolatrous people who put things or concerns before their devotion to God. As an example, he refers to fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome. The homosexual activity to which he
refers is idolatrous. He implies that all of the cult worshippers engaged in it. (The interpretation that he is writing about homosexual behaviour in general would force this to say that all idolatrous people become homosexual- -an obviously spurious interpretation.)

The final sentence referring to their just reward is a reference to the venereal disease which was epidemic among such cults. This specific reference to fertility cult worship cannot be construed to condemn homosexual behaviour in general.

REBUTTAL: Let us examine the “WHOLE CHAPTER” then, and look for this connection that you stipulate is there.

I don’t see it in the first seven verses.
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don’t see it in verses 8 thru 12;
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

Still missing in verses 13 thru 15;
Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

Paul finally enters a NEW CONTEXT in which he introduces the effect of the power of God, which he calls the Gospel.
Romans 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. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

And he introduces the antithesis to the Gospel, the wrath of God.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So far, Paul forgoes idolatry and its currupting influences to focus on the real problem, EGO. 21 Because that, when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but BECAME VAIN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, they became fools,

Finally Paul mentions that which RESULTS from the sins of EGO; rather than being the CAUSE, it is the EFFECT. It is Idolatry. 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.

And when they continued to pursue their road to depravity, God gave them up. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to DISHONOUR THEIR OWN BODIES BETWEEN THEMSELVES: 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.

This “dishonoring” with their bodies, between “men among men” is NOT cult prostitution. It is SOCIETAL ABOMINATION. This does NOT describe a Worship service gone awry, it describes a society become depraved.

Romans 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: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (GREEK; MEN AMONG MEN) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who KNOWING THE JUDGMENT OF GOD, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, NOT ONLY DO THE SAME, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Thus we see that the Homosexual position is based upon a false premise; relying on false information; and resulting in lies for doctrine.

The problem continues to fester, when well meaning preachers and teachers seem to speak against homosexuality while ignoring all other types of abhorent behaviour. But the sinful community should not expect fair treatment of this nature, when the issue is so strongly supported in the religious
community of today. No one says it is all right to steal, or lie, or commit adultry, or any of a number of other things recognized by all as reason to repent. But Homosexuality is being touted as O.K. in an enlightened community of Christians. THAT CALLS FOR A RESOUNDING REBUTTAL, not an open apology for speaking to the issue.

I offer no such apology. I do offer an invitation to my brothers in Adam to join me in Christ. Give up this heinous lustful practice, and turn to him who died to make it possible.

Without Christ, and his blood sacrifice, you die in your sins.
With Christ and his blood sacrifice, you live in hope of eternal life.

[Stu]

I don't see why any gay person would be bothered with christianity. It is a miserable belief system anyway, whether or not anyone pays any attention to its ancient bigotry.

What is your fear with regards to homosexuality, Paladin?

Stuart

[Paladin]

Quote (Stu @ July 18 2009,12:22)

I don't see why any gay person would be bothered with christianity.  It is a miserable belief system anyway, whether or not anyone pays any attention to its ancient bigotry. What is your fear with regards to homosexuality, Paladin? Stuart

I have no fear regarding homosexuality. I fear for Christianity, which is supposed to “come out from among them and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing.”

This idea of homophobia is a lie developed by homosexuals to make others feel guilty for saying anything about the issue.

It is wasted on me.

[Stu]

The Abrahamic religions are brutal in their hatred for an expression of sexuality that has occurred as far as we can tell for all the time there have been species of animal capable of expressing it. It is religion that has the untenable and immoral position. Christianity will be dead long before homosexuality, and I don't think that will be a bad thing.

Stuart

[Paladin]

Quote (Stu @ July 18 2009,22:01)

The Abrahamic religions are brutal in their hatred for an expression of sexuality that has occurred as far as we can tell for all the time there have been species of animal capable of expressing it.  It is religion that has the untenable and immoral position.  Christianity will be dead long before homosexuality, and I don't think that will be a bad thing. Stuart

Why do you fear Christianity Stuart?

[Stu]

Quote (Paladin @ July 19 2009,00:07)

Quote (Stu @ July 18 2009,22:01) The Abrahamic religions are brutal in their hatred for an expression of sexuality that has occurred as far as we can tell for all the time there have been species of animal capable of expressing it.  It is religion that has the untenable and immoral position.  Christianity will be dead long before homosexuality, and I don't think that will be a bad thing. Stuart Why do you fear Christianity Stuart?

I do not fear christianity except for the crazy things it makes its followers do.

As Steven Weinberg says, good men do good and evil men do evil, but for good men to do evil takes religion.

Stuart

[Paladin]

Quote (Stu @ July 19 2009,01:21)

Quote (Paladin @ July 19 2009,00:07) Quote (Stu @ July 18 2009,22:01) The Abrahamic religions are brutal in their hatred for an expression of sexuality that has occurred as far as we can tell for all the time there have been species of animal capable of expressing it.  It is religion that has the untenable and immoral position.  Christianity will be dead long before homosexuality, and I don't think that will be a bad thing. Stuart Why do you fear Christianity Stuart? I do not fear christianity except for the crazy things it makes its followers do. As Steven Weinberg says, good men do good and evil men do evil, but for good men to do evil takes religion. Stuart

If ANY man “does evil” it is NOT because he is a good man, but he is an evil man pretending to be a good man, and hasn't been caught yet.

[Stu]

Do you think gay women are evil?

Stuart

[Paladin]

Quote (Stu @ July 19 2009,10:04)

Do you think gay women are evil? Stuart

I do not think any man or woman is evil, I think some men and some women have only evil thoughts continually. It is not because they are evil, it is because they do not maintain proper control over their thoughts. In some cases, then think evil thoughts so long they begin to enjoy the sensation that brirngs to their flesh. And they do not want to give it up. Not even for the salvation of their soul.

Evil thoughts, uncorrected, lead to evil deeds. Evil deeds, lead to people being perceived as being evil people. But God made man in his image, and his image is not evil.

But even angels who stood in the presence of God developed a taste for evil, and by evil deeds, fell. Are angels evil? I think any sentient being has the ability to become evil through unleashed practice of evil thoughts and deeds.

[Stu]

Quote (Paladin @ July 20 2009,00:46)

Quote (Stu @ July 19 2009,10:04) Do you think gay women are evil? Stuart I do not think any man or woman is evil, I think some men and some women have only evil thoughts continually. It is not because they are evil, it is because they do not maintain proper control over their thoughts. In some cases, then think evil thoughts so long they begin to enjoy the sensation that brirngs to their flesh. And they do not want to give it up. Not even for the salvation of their soul. Evil thoughts, uncorrected, lead to evil deeds. Evil deeds, lead to people being perceived as being evil people. But God made man in his image, and his image is not evil. But even angels who stood in the presence of God developed a taste for evil, and by evil deeds, fell. Are angels evil? I think any sentient being has the ability to become evil through unleashed practice of evil thoughts and deeds.

I don't really like the word 'evil' and I generally don't use it because it is a religious attempt to reduce the complexity of human motivation and behaviour into one concept of 'bad', that can then be used as a means of group control by those who want power over others, in this case through religious affiliation.

So once you have painted the world in black-and-white, it is much easier to maintain the group loyalty because you do not have to discuss the subtleties, you just persecute that which is 'bad'.

Except we are talking about families rejecting their real, breathing, loving gay adolescent children, just because their parents' brains are whacked out on their mindless religious beliefs. All the pressure of the church / belief system is brought to bear in confirming that these children are in some way lesser people.

We are also considering here those who would like to tell other people what they should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own houses because of their ancient goat-herder bigotry.

Homosexuality is part of a whole spectrum of sexual attraction, over which humans have virtually no control whatever. It is exactly the same throughout the animal kingdom. I can't actually see what difference it would make if humans could choose whatever sexual attraction they wanted. In any case, do you think adolescents would CHOOSE to be gay in a fundie household?

Christianity absolutely deserves to be shouted down on for its injustice and inhumanity on this subject.

Stuart

[Paladin]

Quote (Stu @ July 20 2009,11:53)

Quote (Paladin @ July 20 2009,00:46)

Quote (Stu @ July 19 2009,10:04) Do you think gay women are evil? Paladin I do not think any man or woman is evil, I think some men and some women have only evil thoughts continually. It is not because they are evil, it is because they do not maintain proper control over their thoughts. In some cases, then think evil thoughts so long they begin to enjoy the sensation that brirngs to their flesh. And they do not want to give it up. Not even for the salvation of their soul. Evil thoughts, uncorrected, lead to evil deeds. Evil deeds, lead to people being perceived as being evil people. But God made man in his image, and his image is not evil. But even angels who stood in the presence of God developed a taste for evil, and by evil deeds, fell. Are angels evil? I think any sentient being has the ability to become evil through unleashed practice of evil thoughts and deeds. (Stu)I don't really like the word 'evil' and I generally don't use it because it is a religious attempt to reduce the complexity of human motivation and behaviour into one concept of 'bad', that can then be used as a means of group control by those who want power over others, in this case through religious affiliation.

I use it because it is the descriptive term the translators present God as using.

Quote

So once you have painted the world in black-and-white, it is much easier to maintain the group loyalty because you do not have to discuss the subtleties, you just persecute that which is 'bad'.

WoW! THAT is a lot of judgmentantalism going into one short phrase.

1st) I did not paint the world in “black and white.” I take the world as I found it the day I was born; some good, some evil, some bewildered, some enlightened, come who care, some who don't, and some who do not know.

2nd) I do not suffer from this alleged “group loyalty” you reference. What group? Can you identify any “group” to which I belong? You know nothing about me whatsoever, other than what you can read in anything I post.

3rd) You assign a motive to me that is bordering on “bizzare.”

Quote

because you do not have to discuss the subtleties

THAT is the reason I come to the boards, is to discuss the subtleties.

4th)

Quote

you just persecute that which is 'bad'

I do? Where? When? How? I posted an essay for discussion. Or do you take the position that questioning a practice constitutes “persecution?”

Quote

Except we are talking about families rejecting their real, breathing, loving gay adolescent children, just because their parents' brains are whacked out on their mindless religious beliefs.

We are? Not in my OP. Not in responses to my OP. Not in the thread until YOU suggested it.

Quote

All the pressure of the church / belief system is brought to bear in confirming that these children are in some way lesser people.

What part of my essay addressed this issue?

Quote

We are also considering here those who would like to tell other people what they should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own houses because of their ancient goat-herder bigotry.

Ancient Goat-herders are bigots? I didn't even know that. Why would I use ancient goat-herder's bigotry for my position? Would you please point out the source for this ancient goat-herder that is a bigot? I would like to avoid him.

Quote

Homosexuality is part of a whole spectrum of sexual attraction, over which humans have virtually no control whatever. It is exactly the same throughout the animal kingdom. I can't actually see what difference it would make if humans could choose whatever sexual attraction they wanted.

Right! See a goat, pop your zipper, right? See a big ostrich, fly open?

What do you mean “humans have no control over?” Of course humans have control over their choices. That is why it is
“choice.” I think what you are really referencing is “No one has the right to tell me my choices are wrong.” Have I missed it very far?

Quote

In any case, do you think adolescents would CHOOSE to be gay in a fundie household?

In a heartbeat. ANYTHING that gets mommy's attention, anything that makes Papa climb the wall. That is why kids start smoking, begin to lie, cheat, argue over house rules, fail to do homework, experiment with kissing, drugs, bugs, snakes and toads, whatever makes mama yell and papa stomp around huffing and not knowing how to regain control. It begins with experimenting in forbidden fruit.

Quote

Christianity absolutely deserves to be shouted down on for its injustice and inhumanity on this subject. Stuart

o.k. point out the injustice and the humanity in my post and it is open for discussion. The ball is in your court, don't miss with your shot.

[KangarooJack]

Paladin said:

Quote

This idea of homophobia is a lie developed by homosexuals to make others feel guilty for saying anything about the issue.

Paladin,
For once I heartily agree with you. The term “homophobe” is meant to belittle Christians and is no different from the labels pagans have given Christians from the beginning.

thinker

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ July 21 2009,05:33)

Paladin said: Quote This idea of homophobia is a lie developed by homosexuals to make others feel guilty for saying anything about the issue. Paladin, For once I heartily agree with you. The term “homophobe” is meant to belittle Christians and is no different from the labels pagans have given Christians from the beginning. thinker

Thank you for your input.

[Stu]

Paladin

Stu: So once you have painted the world in black-and-white, it is much easier to maintain the group loyalty because you do not have to discuss the subtleties, you just persecute that which is 'bad'.

Quote

WoW! THAT is a lot of judgmentantalism going into one short phrase. 1st) I did not paint the world in “black and white.” I take the world as I found it the day I was born; some good, some evil, some bewildered, some enlightened, come who care, some who don't, and some who do not know.

You have just written a list that divides people into two groups in each case. You demonstrate my point perfectly.

Quote

2nd) I do not suffer from this alleged “group loyalty” you reference. What group? Can you identify any “group” to which I belong? You know nothing about me whatsoever, other than what you can read in anything I post.

Look at the site you are posting in, and consider your interaction with thethinker on this very page. I think by calling yourself christian you have placed yourself in the group about which I was writing. Consider the effort that Paul makes to require believers to follow what he says, and the amount of scorn he pours on those who do not believe the way he does. He immunises the group against questioning the beliefs. Those are all characteristics exposed in your writing.

Quote

3rd) You assign a motive to me that is bordering on “bizzare.” Actually I think the psychology and dynamics of christian belief are pretty well analysed and documented along the lines of what I posted. It SHOULD seem bizarre to you, the effect of christianity is to stop you from thinking in those terms. Stu: because you do not have to discuss the subtleties THAT is the reason I come to the boards, is to discuss the subtleties.

OK. Your subject is The subtleties of sexual attraction. Go.

Stu: you just persecute that which is 'bad'

Quote

I do? Where? When? How? I posted an essay for discussion. Or do you take the position that questioning a practice constitutes “persecution?”

I think persecution is a mild name to use for preaching from a book that promises death for homosexuals and a range of others. Unless you don’t advocate a biblical view. But that is not the impression I got from your initial biblical rant. I wasn’t too impressed with “uncaring godless lives” either. Once again you paint the world in black and white.

Quote
Except we are talking about families rejecting their real, breathing, loving gay adolescent children, just because their parents' brains are whacked out on their mindless religious beliefs.

We are? Not in my OP. Not in responses to my OP. Not in the thread until YOU suggested it.

How are we not? You characterise homosexuality as a ‘heinous lustful practice’. Do you exclude adolescents from that?

Stu: We are also considering here those who would like to tell other people what they should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own houses because of their ancient goat-herder bigotry.

Quote

Ancient Goat-herders are bigots? I didn't even know that. Why would I use ancient goat-herder's bigotry for my position? Would you please point out the source for this ancient goat-herder that is a bigot? I would like to avoid him.

Tear up your bible then.

Stu: Homosexuality is part of a whole spectrum of sexual attraction, over which humans have virtually no control whatever. It is exactly the same throughout the animal kingdom. I can't actually see what difference it would make if humans could choose whatever sexual attraction they wanted.

Quote

Right! See a goat, pop your zipper, right? See a big ostrich, fly open?

I think you are confusing this with the ethics of consent.

Quote

What do you mean “humans have no control over?” Of course humans have control over their choices. That is why it is “choice.” I think what you are really referencing is “No one has the right to tell me my choices are wrong.” Have I missed it very far?

You have missed the point altogether. Humans have control over their choices, but THIS ISNT ONE OF THEM! Don’t get carried away with the nonsense religious concept of ‘free will’. I put it to you that you have NO control whatever over the sexual attractions you do or don’t feel. If you advocate people feeling those attractions but not acting on them well then you are either a closet homosexual or a straight hypocrite, or maybe you sit somewhere else on the spectrum.

Stu: In any case, do you think adolescents would CHOOSE to be gay in a fundie household?

Quote

In a heartbeat. ANYTHING that gets mommy's attention, anything that makes Papa climb the wall. That is why kids start smoking, begin to lie, cheat, argue over house rules, fail to do homework, experiment with kissing, drugs, bugs, snakes and toads, whatever makes mama yell and papa stomp around huffing and not knowing how to regain control. It begins with experimenting in forbidden fruit.

Well I don’t think you know swat about it then. Just like scripture, you seem to have no idea why adolescents do these things. There is an element of rebellion but that is not all by any stretch. Your miserable characterisation of young people is sad.

It is only religious bigots that make sexuality into ‘forbidden fruit’ anyway. Your OT imagery demonstrates the point.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (thethinker @ July 21 2009,05:33)

Paladin said: Quote This idea of homophobia is a lie developed by homosexuals to make others feel guilty for saying anything about the issue. Paladin, For once I heartily agree with you. The term “homophobe” is meant to belittle Christians and is no different from the labels pagans have given Christians from the beginning. thinker

My dictionary defines a homophobia as a fear or hatred of homosexuals.

If it is not fear, then why do christians go on about it so much? If you are against homosexuality then remember it is not compulsory! The evidence of fear is in the obsession with others who are gay. Is fear not the only credible motive for persecuting others?

Strictly I suppose christians claim to 'love the homosexual but hate the homsexuality'. So it is hatred of the act not the person. I feel the same about christians. Love the person, oppose the nasty set of religious beliefs that has parasitised his brain.

I think christians should feel ashamed to expose their ignorance and one-dimensional view of the world that is evident in their homophobia. It is not as if christianity has anything constructive to add to our understanding of human sexuality. It is all brutal morals written in brutal times by people quite happy to brutalise others.

Stuart

[Paladin]

Quote (Stu @ July 21 2009,11:55)

[/quote] (Stu) Quote So once you have painted the world in black-and-white, it is much easier to maintain the group loyalty because you do not have to discuss the subtleties, you just persecute that which is 'bad'.   (P) WoW! THAT is a lot of judgmentantalism going into one short phrase. 1st) I did not paint the world in “black and white.” I take the world as I found it the day I was born; some good, some evil, some bewildered, some enlightened, some who care, some who don't, and some who do not know.   (Stu) You have just written a list that divides people into two groups in each case.  You demonstrate my point perfectly.

O.K. I see part of the problem now, you can't adequately analyse what you read.

“Some good, some evil, some bewildered,” is THREE groups, not two.

“Some enlightened” is one group.

Some who care, some who don't, and some who do not know” is three groups.

Perhaps I am to blame for not putting them on separate lines. Sorry 'bout that.

(P)

Quote

2nd) I do not suffer from this alleged “group loyalty” you reference. What group? Can you identify any “group” to which I belong? You know nothing about me whatsoever, other than what you can read in anything I post.   (Stu) Look at the site you are posting in, and consider your interaction with thethinker on this very page.

So you place thinker and I in a “group?” Whatever will WJ say? If “interaction” is the standard for grouping, then YOU and I are a group, for we have “interacted” much more than anyone else on this thread. I think you really need to readjust your thinking on this one.

(Stu)

Quote

I think by calling yourself christian you have placed yourself in the group about which I was writing.

 

That is wild. I thought the group “about which you were writing” was the homosexal adolescent. Imagine my surprise. (!!!)

(Stu)

Quote

Consider the effort that Paul makes to require believers to follow what he says, and the amount of scorn he pours on those who do not believe the way he does.  He immunises the group against questioning the beliefs.  Those are all characteristics exposed in your writing.

 

I don't think so. It was Paul who said we should “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5]

Paul did NOT say, “I will examine you whether your faith meets my standard.” Paul did NOT say, “I will prove you to determine whether I appove you.” Paul did NOT say “I will determine whether Christ is in you.” No, Paul never expected people to blindly follow his thinking. He always geve them references for his scriptural applications and reasons for his admonitions. Then he expected them to examine themselves, whether THEY considered themselves to be in the faith.

(P)

Quote

3rd) You assign a motive to me that is bordering on “bizzare.” (Stu) Actually I think the psychology and dynamics of christian belief are pretty well analysed and documented along the lines of what I posted.  It SHOULD seem bizarre to you, the effect of christianity is to stop you from thinking in those terms.

Analysed and documented by WHOM? In WHAT publication? I think you are practicing psychology without any training.

(Stu)

Quote

because you do not have to discuss the subtleties (P)THAT is the reason I come to the boards, is to discuss the subtleties. (Stu) OK. Your subject is The subtleties of sexual attraction.  Go.

WRONG! That is YOUR subject. MY subject was whether homosexuality is scriptural or not. Nice try at switching subjects though. I told you the ball is in your court, and insted of lobbing the ball back into my court, you try to change courts.

(Stu)

Quote

you just persecute that which is 'bad'   (P) I do? Where? When? How? I posted an essay for discussion. Or do you take the position that questioning a practice constitutes “persecution?”   (Stu) I think persecution is a mild name to use for preaching from a book that promises death for homosexuals and a range of others.  Unless you don’t advocate a biblical view.  But that is not the impression I got from your initial biblical rant.  I wasn’t too impressed with “uncaring godless lives” either.  Once again you paint the world in black and white.

 

Did you ever consider that some of us preach from the scriptures to warn our fellow man of God's wrath on the unbelieving? Did you ever consider the loss we will feel if any single son of Adam is allowed to fall through my own failure to try to warn?

Have you considered that if you have a son, and at age three he wants to dart into traffic to retrieve a ball, and you don't allow him to he might take that as “Persecuting” him?

If at age four, he tries to touch the hot grid on a stove, and if you don't let him do what he wants to do will he accuse you of persecuting him?

Much of life's decisions are based on wrong information. Some turn out good, some turn out badly. Is it the decision or the circumstance that is to be blamed? I do not know. I only know what I try to do with those circumstances and decisions that turn out badly. I try to rectify them. I don't accuse others of persecution when they try to advise me or encourage me to attempt to learn from a source I dissaproved of yesterday.

As for those things by which I am sorely tempted, some I fall for, some I overcome. Some are delicious going down only to make me sick in the digesting. I learn by those experiences not to always trust the taste of sugar, nor to flee the taste of medicine. There are times and circumstances that pertain to all such experiences, and trials of my judgmental abilities. Sometimes I appear as the judge, sometimes I appear as the accused, but ALWAYS I serve as the seeker of experience.

I strive to be fair with those with whom I disagree. Sometimes I even fail at that. Does that make me bigotted? No, it makes me cautious. I want to impress every reader with my wisdom and fairness, and what do I exhibit? Sometimes anger and frustration. BECAUSE I am as clay in the potter's hands. He does not want me to become proud from victories on the internet, he w
ants me to humbly present his love through applying myself in his stead, so that it is not I who express myself, but it is himself expressed through me.

Is Jesus a bigot? He looked out over the city of Jerusalem and cried. He wept. He said “O Jeruslaem, Jerusalem, how often I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks, under her wing, and you would not.” Does that represent a biggotted point of view? Or does it represent one who cares, and is frustrated by “Jerusalem, who would not?”

I developed an essay on homosexuality after debating the issue with a preacher from the UFMCC (Metroploitan Community Church) in California, who claimed that Christians had perverted the scriptures to condemn homosexuality. I studied the issue before I responded to “his application of truth.”

Because I hate homosexuals? No. Because I love my brothers under Adam, and want to share with them that freedom I exercise in Christ. Freedom from my previous life in sin and temptation, and guilt of practicing those things that are better left alone.

(Stu)

Quote

Except we are talking about families rejecting their real, breathing, loving gay adolescent children, just because their parents' brains are whacked out on their mindless religious beliefs. (P)We are? Not in my OP. Not in responses to my OP. Not in the thread until YOU suggested it. How are we not?  You characterise homosexuality as a ‘heinous lustful practice’.  Do you exclude adolescents from that?

Indeed I do. Even God excluded adolescents forom the guilt of rebellion when his people rejected him in their trek from Egypt to Canaan. He rejected every one from twenty years old and upward, because that was established to be the “age of accountability” by God's declaration of destruction upon a generaton that failed to follow him.

There are times that even “adolescents” must feel the consequences of their choices and actions. But I am not the one who makes the decision about that. I only issue warnings as I perceive them from God's word, to a dying, and denying world.

It was not “I” who described homosexual behaviour as “abomination,” But I will not hesitate to inform the one practicing such behaviour, that God hates the practice, for it was HE who so designated it.

(Stu)

Quote

We are also considering here those who would like to tell other people what they should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own houses because of their ancient goat-herder bigotry. (P) Ancient Goat-herders are bigots? I didn't even know that. Why would I use ancient goat-herder's bigotry for my position? Would you please point out the source for this ancient goat-herder that is a bigot? I would like to avoid him.   (Stu) Tear up your bible then.

I really hope you do not consider that an adequate response. “Sophomoric” is the term that come to my mind when I see that kind of response. “Immature” also vies for top billing. “Bible” is not a reference. It lacks specificity. If you tell me which author, where in his book, or what chapter and verse, whatever constitutes a source reference, but “bible” just doesn't get it.

(Stu)

Quote

Homosexuality is part of a whole spectrum of sexual attraction, over which humans have virtually no control whatever.  It is exactly the same throughout the animal kingdom.  I can't actually see what difference it would make if humans could choose whatever sexual attraction they wanted.   (P) Right! See a goat, pop your zipper, right? See a big ostrich, fly open?   (Stu) I think you are confusing this with the ethics of consent.

Nope! Responding to YOUR comments. It was YOU who went from “spectrum of sexual attraction” to “animal kingdom” as being “exactly the same.”

Look, NO ONE can control what thoughts or temptations pop into their head at any given moment. But you CAN choose what do do with the image it creates in your mind. You can choose to enjoy it and build a fancy memorial to it, or you can simply let it fester for a while, stewing until it become a poison to the system, or you can “flee temptation” and go to immediate prayer to God, who will replace any temptaton that bothers anyone, with solace.

Consider for a moment;
Look at a modern day example, for understanding. Suppose I work in a bank, as a teller at the window. One thing I notice on a regualr basis, is my fellow banker at the adjoining window, who has a bad habit. When a particular woman brings her weekly deposit to his window, he becomes distracted by her appearance, and lays her deposit down on the counter, and turns away momentarily, to converse with her.

Upon an occasion, my wife tells me our child is sick, and requires expensive treatment. On my teller's salary, this is not possible. I then remember the habit of my fellow-teller, when he places the deposit on the counter, and turns away from it, being distracted. I begin to conjur in my mind, the steps necessary to make it mine, without getting caught.

When he turns away, it will take only a minimal effort on my part to purloin the packet of money, and make off with it at lunch time. He will not notice it is missing till closing, by which time, I will be with it, off the premises.

But, when I think about what I have planned, my brother in the Lord notices a change in my demeanor, and being knowledgable of my need for money, realizes I am up to something of a questionable nature.

He prays for me, and admonishes me. God will give him life for me, prevent me from bringing the sin to fruition, at the moment I turn from the planned theft. He will strengthen my resolve, and save me from my weakness of faith.

If I continued in the plan, and took the money, it would have been a “sin unto death,” that is, death would have been the fruit of my folly. But when I interrupted my plan with repentance, it was still sin, but not ending in death, for all unrighteousness is sin, but there is a sin not unto death.

Look at how James and John describe it –
John addresses the issue of intercessary prayer on behalf of a brother who sins a sin which is not unto death: “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.”

And James explains sin that is “unto death” -“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:” [James 1:12-13]

Sin is a process, which can be turned at several points prior to fruition: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. [James 1:14-15]

I truly am my brother's keeper. As surely as Jesus died for us all. He “kept” us all.

This is why we are told to “come out from among them;” precisely because a brother in Christ will pray with you when you are tempted, while a brother homosexual will put his hand on your leg and encourage you to sin. And you think it is the “Christian” who “hates you?”

(P)

Quote

What do you mean “humans have no control over?” Of course humans have control over their choices. That is why it is “choice.” I think what you are really referencing is “No one has the right to tell me my choices are wrong.” Have I missed it very far?   (Stu) You have missed the point altogether.  Humans have control over their choices, but THIS ISNT ONE OF THEM!  Don’t get carried away with the nonsense religious concept of ‘free will’.  I put it to you that you have NO control whatever over the sexual attractions you do or don’t feel.

Agreed! But WHAT YOU DO  ABOUT THOSE FEELINGS IS YOUR CHOICE. A beautiful woman walks into my view in a public store, I immediately remember the last time I enjoyed the favors of me wife. Does that make me evil? Not unless I attempt to feed on the temptation with this stranger who reminds me of my wife. If I immediately remind myself of who I am, a child of God, a brother to Jesus, and pray for release from this temptation, I have done what I should do when tempted.

If instead, I feed the temptaton, fantasize possibilities beyond reality, and enjoy the feelings I generate through an overactive imagination, I damage my soul, and place myself in jeopardy. Humans do not have control over their temptations, HUMANS HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR REACTION TO TEMPTATIONS.

(Stu)

Quote

If you advocate people feeling those attractions but not acting on them well then you are either a closet homosexual or a straight hypocrite, or maybe you sit somewhere else on the spectrum.

OR, I am on to something You need to consider.

(Stu)

Quote

In any case, do you think adolescents would CHOOSE to be gay in a fundie household?   (P) In a heartbeat. ANYTHING that gets mommy's attention, anything that makes Papa climb the wall. That is why kids start smoking, begin to lie, cheat, argue over house rules, fail to do homework, experiment with kissing, drugs, bugs, snakes and toads, whatever makes mama yell and papa stomp around huffing and not knowing how to regain control. It begins with experimenting in forbidden fruit.   (Stu) Well I don’t think you know swat about it then.  Just like scripture, you seem to have no idea why adolescents do these things.  There is an element of rebellion but that is not all by any stretch.  Your miserable characterisation of young people is sad.

Well I DO remember my own days as an adolescent. I wanted very much to please my parents, but there certainly were times when THEY didn't think so. I never attacked the rules they made, I just invented loopholes. Got caught almost every time, but once the theme was developed, it just would not go away. They spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to word their rules so there was no room for loopholes. I think I taught them more than they taught me. Except they were bigger and could hit harder. Oh the Wonders of adolescence. I never miss it.

(Stu)

Quote

It is only religious bigots that make sexuality into ‘forbidden fruit’ anyway.  Your OT imagery demonstrates the point.  Stuart

“MY OT IMAGERY?” Perhaps you mean “The O.T?” It is not MY imagery. I did not write the old testament. And it is certainly condemned in the new testament. So why limit yourslef to accusations against the old testament. Or did you miss that part in the OP?

Look, my brother, at the scriptures themselves if you doubt me, or if you truly think it is made up by men. God has issued imperatives. He has prepared vessels of clay and entrusted them with the task of warning their fellow sons of Adam, and gives us each one lifetime to react.

He gives us no promise of how long a lifetime we have. But we all have exactly that, a lifetime. How will you spend yours? In hate and expressions of hate? Or will you compare the OP with scripture and decide by what you find? There is hope. But hope must be colored with the color of the blood of Christ. Please consider what I have said.

[Paladin]

Stu,July wrote:

[/quote]
(Stu)

Quote

My dictionary defines a homophobia as a fear or hatred of homosexuals. If it is not fear, then why do christians go on about it so much?  If you are against homosexuality then remember it is not compulsory!  The evidence of fear is in the obsession with others who are gay.  Is fear not the only credible motive for persecuting others?

Absolutely NOT. If you are knowledgable in the Old Testament, you know of all the nations God displaced in the land of Canaan, when he gave the land to Israel. Every one of those nations were put out for idolatry and homosexuality. God does not tollerate it in his people. He put Israel out of the same land and sent them into captivity over the same issues.

God destroys nations, not over the practice of homosexuality, but over the issue of a nation ACCEPTING the practice as “not evil.” Homosexuality is NEVER the starting place in a society. It is almost always the “last straw” just before God destroys a nation in judgment.

Look at Sodom and the three cities with her;
Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Look at the United States in comparison;
“Pride” – consider such things as “gay pride” which is being touted as “good” by many, and “acceptable” by many more.

“Fulness of bread” is a term describing people who do not have to struggle to feed their families because God has blessed them so much they almost stumble over his bounty.

“Abundance of idleness” expresses societies' response to helping those in need, they just can't be bothered with helping “them.” They would rather waste their time in the exercise of their free time doing what they want to feed their own appetites.

“Neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy” tells us what we SHOULD be about. Instead of helping the needy, we as a nation have decided to “COUNT THEM.” They will be listed in the next census with a numerical value, instead of being helped.

“They were haughty” certainly describes what this nation has become. Arrogant and self-satisfied.

“and committed abomination before me” describes the depth of depravity to which a society sinks, while declaring “Oh, come on now, little white lying isn't so bad; stealing a little bit can't be enough to destroy a nation; committing just a little bit of fornication is not sufficient reason to destroy nations, look at (name any nation) and you will see “everybody's doing it.”

This nation has not only accepted homosexuality, and “gay marriages” are more “accepted” every year, but the really bad thing that will overthrow this nation is the fact we now use Abortion as a birth control method.

We have slaughtered millions of innocents, so women can be somehow perceived as “equal” to men. Free to express themselves in sexual perversity without consequences. Other than the destruction of their nation, that is.

And you wonder at the motive for trying to clean up this nation's act?

(Stu)

Quote

Strictly I suppose christians claim to 'love the homosexual but hate the homsexuality'.  So it is hatred of the act not the person.  I feel the same about christians.  Love the person, oppose the nasty set of religious beliefs that has parasitised his brain.

Agreed! It is just that you are handling it the wrong way. Have you considered researching for the truth and teaching them?

(Stu)

Quote

I think christians should feel ashamed to expose their ignorance and one-dimensional view of the world that is evident in their homophobia.  It is not as if christianity has anything constructive to add to our understanding of human sexuality.  It is all brutal morals written in brutal times by people quite happy to brutalise others. Stuart

Then you have missed the point of the OP. Christianity is not involved with instructing the world on “the understanding of human sexuality.” It is charged with practicing and teaching that “new and living way” that leads to life, instead of death.

[Stu]

Paladin (1)

Quote

So you place thinker and I in a “group?” Whatever will WJ say? If “interaction” is the standard for grouping, then YOU and I are a group, for we have “interacted” much more than anyone else on this thread. I think you really need to readjust your thinking on this one.

Well in your little black-and-white world it might be that you think I mean the number of interactions, but it is the nature of the interactions that I mean. We are fundamentally disagreeing while you and thethinker are exchanging confirmations of your belief system.

Quote

It was Paul who said we should “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5] Paul did NOT say, “I will examine you whether your faith meets my standard.” Paul did NOT say, “I will prove you to determine whether I appove you.” Paul did NOT say “I will determine whether Christ is in you.” No, Paul never expected people to blindly follow his thinking. He always geve them references for his scriptural applications and reasons for his admonitions. Then he expected them to examine themselves, whether THEY considered themselves to be in the faith.

That is exactly what I mean. He poured scorn on those who did not believe the way he did. Those who did not preach what he did were ‘accursed’. There is no indication here that Paul expected people to examine their own faith, he was doing all the judging for them. So much for Jesus.

Just sticking with Romans, Paul judges:

Romans1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:

And judges:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

And judges against his own preaching:

Romans 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Those without Paul’s faith are damned:

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Those who do not agree with Paul deserve to be outcasts:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Stu: Actually I think the psychology and dynamics of christian belief are pretty well analysed and documented along the lines of what I posted. It SHOULD seem bizarre to you, the effect of christianity is to stop you from thinking in those terms.

Quote

Analysed and documented by WHOM? In WHAT publication? I think you are practicing psychology without any training.

Not an easy point to answer, try these ideas for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….eligion

Some examples of how it works in practise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church
(How might we compare the claims of Saul of Tarsus with those of Mun Yong-myong? Is there any objective difference?)

These are obvious examples, on which christians might agree. The same ideas apply to their own beliefs though: christianity of all kinds requires that you believe patently absurd tenets. The more bizarre the dogma, the more committed you have to be.

Quote

WRONG! That is YOUR subject. MY subject was whether homosexuality is scriptural or not. Nice try at switching subjects though. I told you the ball is in your court, and insted of lobbing the ball back into my court, you try to change courts.

OK, so you are NOT here to discuss subtleties, you are here to discuss your book of mythology. You preach the doctrine of unsubtle ignorance. Can you find a single quote that is specific evidence that scripture has any understanding of human sexuality at all? Anything that points to the spectrum of attraction or the nature of the genetic and environmental factors that determine such attraction? Otherwise you are just spouting doctrines that should sway no one with a critical facility.

Quote

Did you ever consider that some of us preach from the scriptures to warn our fellow man of God's wrath on the unbelieving? Did you ever consider the loss we will feel if any single son of Adam is allowed to fall through my own failure to try to warn?

Did you ever consider whether the damage you do in preaching your bile might not be justified? Had you thought for a moment that actually your beliefs system might be completely wrong? How about you do some thinking before you blindly follow the political writings that you deem beyond question, playing your part in perpetuating nasty threats of myths that just do not stand up to even the mildest analysis? People take their own lives because of this, it is not trivial, but the claims you are making do not stack up against reality. How about you actually justify your view in universal terms. Tell us about the unquestionable damage that homosexuality does, that so outweighs the right of gay people to personal freedom from persecution of the kind you are advocating.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts