NationStates Jolt Archive

Nah you just need to read the bible and you'll be cured

A book cannot "cure" homosexuality. And no thanks, I'm existentialist atheist. The bible has no meaning to me.

I'm bisexual. I've read the Bible. Want to explain that?

What chapter are you up to?

Guys, let it go with Mesa. He has a habit of responding more on emotion than rationalism on certain subjects, and then refuses to back down or admit he misread/misinterpreted the original post. Three of us understand what was originally said, I think that's enough. ;)

[edit - never mind, I just read Mesa's last post, let's just drop it]

What chapter are you up to?

I finished. Genesis to Revelations. Still as bisexual as I was beforehand.

A book cannot "cure" homosexuality. And no thanks, I'm existentialist atheist. The bible has no meaning to me.

Well I'm sure you'll have fun discussing existential athiesm in the firey pits of hell

Guys, let it go with Mesa. He has a habit of responding more on emotion than rationalism on certain subjects, and then refuses to back down or admit he misread/misinterpreted the original post. Three of us understand what was originally said, I think that's enough. ;)

I don't think so. I apologized for that misinterpretation. So you have a habit of lying. :) And anyways, I'm very objective and rational in this subject.

Well I'm sure you'll have fun discussing existential athiesm in the firey pits of hell

Hell doesn't exist. So no.

I finished. Genesis to Revelations. Still as bisexual as I was beforehand.

Hmmm. Try reading it again. And this time REALLY concentrate

Hmmm. Try reading it again. And this time REALLY concentrate

Hahahah.. thanks for the laugh tonight.. you sure you aren't a comedian?

Hell doesn't exist. So no.

You're in for one hell of a suprise. Hope you're not vegetarian too, cos you're going to a a looooong barbeque

Hmmm. Try reading it again. And this time REALLY concentrate

Dear, while I do need to reread it, reading a book will not help me be straight. I do not believe in the Bible. I believe it is an interesting read, however tedious, but it has no bearing for me on my morals or my beliefs.

You're in for one hell of a suprise. Hope you're not vegetarian too, cos you're going to a a looooong barbeque

You can't prove hell, or heaven, or god, or religion. So no surprise..

I read that bible from them catholics and I can't remember nothin' bout them homo - sexuals?

You can't prove hell, or heaven, or god, or religion. So no surprise..

Yes I can it's in the bible

Then there was an obvious misunderstanding, and i'm sure we can move ahead pass this..
This is not the first time you have incorrectly drawn the conclusion that a poster was intending some biggotted attack. As an example, consider your treatment of those that proffessed a belief in 'mixed cause' homosexuality (i.e. neither exclusively caused by genetics or nuture/socialisation) in an earlier thread. Anyone who even suggested that genetics might not (by and of themselves) determine sexuality was attacked by you as being a bigot and espousing views simply to stigmatize homosexual people, yet today you yourself have joined their ranks and now insist that you only believe that genetics are the main cause.

Is there some reason why you wish to insult and harrangue people who have no ill-will towards you, have no negative feelings about homosexuality, and are simply communicating their understanding of things? I can see no reason, so I have to suppose that you are not doing so deliberately. I can understand why you would feel strongly about the issue, but surely that is a good reason to slow down and consider what is being said and what is meant rather than responding to your own assumption 'they saying gays are teh suxor'.

Plenty of people consider they have their hands full managing their own sex/romantic life, without running around attempting to control other peoples'. Those people may just be common than you realise.

So how many of you are actually gay or know of gay people personally? :rolleyes:

Ok, then there was a big misunderstanding and I apologize on my part. And yes, you are not understanding me because I never said you didn't know those things. I simply pointed some things out. I accused you of not knowing that gay guys use protection? where did I do this?

I think this was more of a mutual misunderstanding.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. You actually plainly said I didn't know those things.

AIDS is not a gay disease. Get that out of your head.

You plainly say above that I believe AIDS is a gay disease.

Heterosexuals do anal sex too you know.

Looks like you're claiming I don't know heterosexuals engage in anal sex.

And I take those precautions. Again you need to get your head out of the sand. All you need to do is take precautions.

Above you said I don't know about protection preventing the spread.

I think your accusations were clear. I was NOT misinterpreting your posts.

So how many of you are actually gay or know of gay people personally? :rolleyes:

My friend Matt is a homosexual. He's a nice bloke, but he's still going to hell to burn for his sins. It makes me really sad

Isn't the poin't of that sex thing to make babies? If the man use condoms, he cant make no babies. Don't that seem weird?

So how many of you are actually gay or know of gay people personally? :rolleyes:

I am bisexual, I have many homosexual and bisexual friends and acquantainces.

Be gone spammy puppet!

I don't think so. I apologized for that misinterpretation. So you have a habit of lying. :) And anyways, I'm very objective and rational in this subject.
I hadn't read that post at the point when I posted. But sorry, you really aren't all that objective when it comes to this subject - you have repeatedly insulted people with little or no provaction; assumed that innocent or even supportive posts are anti-homosexual; and one one notable occasion, accused me of being a religious bigot when I am in fact atheistic and unbigoted. And then you are the one who consistently runs to the mod claiming flame/flame-baiting.

As numerous people have said to you in the past week or so, you really need to get a thicker skin, and try not to be so overly emotional when debating this particular topic. So you are gay? I'm sorry, but that doesn't give you cart blanche to act like a child having a tantrum when debating this topic.

You can have your final quip on the topic - I'm outta here. I keep meaning not to respond to your posts, but keep failing. Unofrtunately, your type of rhetoric goads me into replying. :(

Ladies and gentlemens,

There is, at least, one obvious troll in the thread. Ignore them and they go away.

This is not the first time you have incorrectly drawn the conclusion that a poster was intending some biggotted attack. As an example, consider your treatment of those that proffessed a belief in 'mixed cause' homosexuality (i.e. neither exclusively caused by genetics or nuture/socialisation) in an earlier thread. Anyone who even suggested that genetics might not (by and of themselves) determine sexuality was attacked by you as being a bigot and espousing views simply to stigmatize homosexual people, yet today you yourself have joined their ranks and now insist that you only believe that genetics are the main cause.

You're not one to speak because I know your bias against me. I've gone after people vigorously to clear up their ambigious statements. Mixed cause argument is still pretty weak, as genetics is the primary cause. I presented the evidence and the facts.


Is there some reason why you wish to insult and harrangue people who have no ill-will towards you, have no negative feelings about homosexuality, and are simply communicating their understanding of things? I can see no reason, so I have to suppose that you are not doing so deliberately. I can understand why you would feel strongly about the issue, but surely that is a good reason to slow down and consider what is being said and what is meant rather than responding to your own assumption 'they saying gays are teh suxor'.

You're nothing more then a cold-hearted liar. And why I say that? Well, I'm not insulting people who wish no ill-will to me. I call people up for ambigious statements and clear them. If you want to lie more about me, great go ahead and do so. I know what the truth is, and it isn't what you are saying.

Jocabia:

"Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. You actually plainly said I didn't know those things. "

You want to be a rotten person, fine. Don't accept my apology. And you know what? I'm putting you on block.

Isn't it weird that the Greek side of Christianity in the time of Constatine (not the Keanu Reeve's character) decided to, how should we say, alter the word of God through his version of the Bible?

Isn't the poin't of that sex thing to make babies? If the man use condoms, he cant make no babies. Don't that seem weird?

Spam alert

Now listen here boyo, that God gave us man-folk our "tool-box" not to play around, but to be making them babies.

I hadn't read that post at the point when I posted. But sorry, you really aren't all that objective when it comes to this subject - you have repeatedly insulted people with little or no provaction; assumed that innocent or even supportive posts are anti-homosexual; and one one notable occasion, accused me of being a religious bigot when I am in fact atheistic and unbigoted. And then you are the one who consistently runs to the mod claiming flame/flame-baiting.

HELL NO! I'm very objective and very rational when it comes to this subject and I attack those who question my views. I will do that because that is in my right. I am very strong in this argument because I have evidence behind me. Go ahead and accuse me of that BS fine.. not like I care.. all you are is a troll.

As numerous people have said to you in the past week or so, you really need to get a thicker skin, and try not to be so overly emotional when debating this particular topic. So you are gay? I'm sorry, but that doesn't give you cart blanche to act like a child having a tantrum when debating this topic.

Thicker skin? You don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what I have had to put up with my life, so don't you dare talk about thicker skin... man... I think you need to grow up.

I have evidence. I have facts. I'm coldly precise.

I've been trying to figure this out for awhile now. What is a troll?

Sorry I mispelt Conctantine in my previous post :D

Ooops I meant Constantine :rolleyes:

I've been trying to figure this out for awhile now. What is a troll?


This is trolling:

Thicker skin? You don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what I have had to put up with my life, so don't you dare talk about thicker skin... man... I think you need to grow up.

I have evidence. I have facts. I'm coldly precise.

Trolling is posting inflammatory words or phrases intended to provoke a flame war.

This is trolling:



Trolling is posting inflammatory words or phrases intended to provoke a flame war.

Incorrect

This is trolling:

"I'm sorry, but that doesn't give you cart blanche to act like a child having a tantrum when debating this topic. "

This is trolling:



Trolling is posting inflammatory words or phrases intended to provoke a flame war.

Thank you very much.

Mesatecala, what are you so irate about? :confused:

Had one of them Trollls try to steal my cattle the other week. Didnt stay long after my and my boys rounded up one and shot it.

I've been trying to figure this out for awhile now. What is a troll?


The look something like this...
http://www.gypsygirlshop.com/items/deviltroll_1.jpg

Yeah! I've had pesky troll problems too :mad:

Mesatecala, what are you so irate about? :confused:

Oh.. just people trashing my apologies..

What are you apologising for?

You're not one to speak because I know your bias against me. I've gone after people vigorously to clear up their ambigious statements. Mixed cause argument is still pretty weak, as genetics is the primary cause. I presented the evidence and the facts.
Well I'm glad that of the two of us, you are aware of the bias, it'd just be silly if neither of us knew about it...

Mixed cause is weak because of the more than one causes involved, genetics is the primary cause...would you like to reconsider that statement perhaps?

You're nothing more then a cold-hearted liar.
I know you cannot back up the heart business, so lets keep this simple and simply go after the lying. Prove it, show me a single instance where I have lied.

And why I say that? Well, I'm not insulting people who wish no ill-will to me.
Untrue. Telling someone they have issues is in my mind insulting them, and of the two of us I am the only one who can truefully state whether or not I had any ill-will towards you when you posted the comment. I didnt, case closed.

I call people up for ambigious statements and clear them.
In some cases you do, in other cases you misinterpret, and in still other cases you draw wild conclusions that simply do not follow from the comments you are replying to.

If you want to lie more about me, great go ahead and do so. I know what the truth is, and it isn't what you are saying.
I have never told a lie about you, really I do not see why I would bother to do so.

Got the local minister to get some of that holy water and make the ranch holy. that seemed to get them critters away, dont reckon they much care for christianity

Yes I can it's in the bible

Did you know that hobbits exist? I can prove it, it is in the Lord of the Rings books...

Not that convincing, is it? Please come back when you have a real proof.

--
"If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?"
Justin Brown

You're not one to speak because I know your bias against me. I've gone after people vigorously to clear up their ambigious statements. Mixed cause argument is still pretty weak, as genetics is the primary cause. I presented the evidence and the facts.



You're nothing more then a cold-hearted liar. And why I say that? Well, I'm not insulting people who wish no ill-will to me. I call people up for ambigious statements and clear them. If you want to lie more about me, great go ahead and do so. I know what the truth is, and it isn't what you are saying.

Jocabia:

"Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. You actually plainly said I didn't know those things. "

You want to be a rotten person, fine. Don't accept my apology. And you know what? I'm putting you on block.

You flamed Zagat for what is a reasonable response to what you're doing.

As far as blocking me, you're welcome to do so. I posted reasonable and informative posts and you responded by accusing me of hate-speech and general ignorance. I try to make my posts reasonable and informative and many of them strive to make the points you, yourself, are trying to make. If you wish to ignore them than be my guest. You made another spurious claim that you didn't make those statements and they were a result of my misunderstanding and I corrected you (I was not rejecting your apology, however). I can see why this would bother you and deal with it as you may.

Well I'm glad that of the two of us, you are aware of the bias, it'd just be silly if neither of us knew about it...

Mixed cause is weak because of the more than one causes involved, genetics is the primary cause...would you like to reconsider that statement perhaps?


I know you cannot back up the heart business, so lets keep this simple and simply go after the lying. Prove it, show me a single instance where I have lied.

You lied to me in the post I responded to, where you accused me of several things.

Genetics is the primary cause. I'm not reconsidering that statement.

I think you are another person going to go on my block list because your arguments are incoherent.

You flamed Zagat for what is a reasonable response to what you're doing.

As far as blocking me, you're welcome to do so. I posted reasonable and informative posts and you responded by accusing me of hate-speech and general ignorance. I try to make my posts reasonable and informative and many of them strive to make the points you, yourself, are trying to make. If you wish to ignore them than be my guest. You made another spurious claim that you didn't make those statements and they were a result of my misunderstanding and I corrected you (I was not rejecting your apology, however). I can see why this would bother you and deal with it as you may.

You trashed my apology. So what am I supposed to do? I admitted of making a mistake.

You lied to me in the post I responded to, where you accused me of several things.
I did not lie, in the first place I believed every word I typed, thus if any comment I made were untrue, then I would be mistaken as opposed to lying. As it happens I do not believe any of my comments were untrue, can you specify any that are untrue or can we expect another
"I already told you and I backed it up with evidence so you are a gay hator" type comment? Mes, people can very easily read back through the posts, I fully believe if someone had misinterpreted you as insistently (and insultingly) as you misinterpreted Jocabia, you would not accept the apology. In fact given your over the top response to mildest absence of provocations, I shudder to even think...

Genetics is the primary cause. I'm not reconsidering that statement.
Primary cause suggests more than one cause, yet you were very veminous to anyone who suggested that there could be more than one cause (in an earlier thread).

I think you are another person going to go on my block list because your arguments are incoherent.
Aha, name a single incoherent post I have made...

The problem with constantly making unjustified accusations while accusing everyone else of doing as much, and calling them liers to boot, is that it doesnt distract people from the truth. The evidence is clearly here in this and other threads. Is there some reason you believe you are helping yourself or your cause by making enemies out of as many people as you can? :confused:

Again believe what you want. I'm not moving and as it is very late here, I"m going to go to bed very soon. I'm tired of fighting with someone who has very little to back himself (or herself) on. You are the one making unjustified accusations against me.

So therefore good night.

Edit: "The evidence is clearly here in this and other threads. Is there some reason you believe you are helping yourself or your cause by making enemies out of as many people as you can?"

And that's a fucking lie and you know it. The evidence is on my side. I agreed numerous times with other people.

HELL NO! I'm very objective and very rational when it comes to this subject and I attack those who question my views. I will do that because that is in my right. I am very strong in this argument because I have evidence behind me. Go ahead and accuse me of that BS fine.. not like I care.. all you are is a troll.
An objective and rational person doesn't constantly resort to namecalling and personal attacks as you have. Sorry. No BS, but the facts of what you have posted. When I get a spare hour or so, I'll dredge up your personal best "gems" of namecalling and pointless insults.
Thicker skin? You don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what I have had to put up with my life, so don't you dare talk about thicker skin... man... I think you need to grow up.
Surprise surprise, another personal attack. :rolleyes: You DO need to grow a thicker skin if you want to be taken as any kind of serious debater. How many people who are not even opposing your point of view have you alienated through bullheadedness and unwarranted angry responses? Not the best way to get your point accross...
I have evidence. I have facts. I'm coldly precise.
Rubbish. Yes, you have presented links to one or two studies. Great. Others have also presented sources that back up their own views. So nothing special there. And "coldly" implies a lack of emotion - basically the exact opposite of what you have been exhibiting.

While I have a certain respect for your opinions, I have very little respect for your debating skills. You have eroded any confidence I had in you with emotional outbursts and petty namecalling...

Again believe what you want. I'm not moving and as it is very late here, I"m going to go to bed very soon. I'm tired of fighting with someone who has very little to back himself (or herself) on. You are the one making unjustified accusations against me.

So therefore good night.


Every thread Ive seen you in, for the last week ends like this.

I give you a week before you get deleted for flaming.

I already stated why you aren't addressing me properly.... you aren't addressing my points.
Your last point (before you stopped being capable of understanding me) was that you were in the gene pool because of sperm banks. Unfortunately this has no effects on the current genepool that was developed without these technologies. If there was another point you wanted to make please do so. Or was that too fast for you?

You trashed my apology. So what am I supposed to do? I admitted of making a mistake.

I should have accepted your apology before debating the part where you suggesting I misunderstood you when I said you plainly accused me of saying some things and not knowing others.

I accept your apology and I apologize for not making that clear. I will not accept though that I ever misinterpreted your posts or replied to anything other than what you plainly said.

For the record, however, I've asked the moderators to close the thread as I think it's gotten completely out of control.

Backwoods, I'm not going to get deleted.


[quote]Surprise surprise, another personal attack. :rolleyes: You DO need to grow a thicker skin if you want to be taken as any kind of serious debater. How many people who are not even opposing your point of view have you alienated through bullheadedness and unwarranted angry responses? Not the best way to get your point accross...

No personal attack. In fact I do have thicker skin. I'm wondering how the hell do you come to those assumptions?

Rubbish. Yes, you have presented links to one or two studies. Great. Others have also presented sources that back up their own views. So nothing special there. And "coldly" implies a lack of emotion - basically the exact opposite of what you have been exhibiting.

I have presented many more then just one or two studies. Dozens of websites. And yes I do have a lack of emotion when dealing with people. That does not mean I don't deal with them harshly.

While I have a certain respect for your opinions, I have very little respect for your debating skills. You have eroded any confidence I had in you with emotional outbursts and petty namecalling...

My debating skills are pretty good. And you are lying about me again.

So how many of you are actually gay or know of gay people personally? :rolleyes:

Not gay. Some of my freinds are. Most of my neighbors are. Straight guys can like living in arts neighborhoods with little cafe's and shops too!

I should have accepted your apology before debating the part where you suggesting I misunderstood you when I said you plainly accused me of saying some things and not knowing others.

I accept your apology and I apologize for not making that clear. I will not accept though that I ever misinterpreted your posts or replied to anything other than what you plainly said.

For the record, however, I've asked the moderators to close the thread as I think it's gotten completely out of control.

Fine. Don't accept that. That's fine by me. Yes this thread has gotten out of control, and I apologize for my part in that.

Your last point (before you stopped being capable of understanding me) was that you were in the gene pool because of sperm banks. Unfortunately this has no effects on the current genepool that was developed without these technologies. If there was another point you wanted to make please do so. Or was that too fast for you?

Obviously you did not interpret my posts properly. I never said I was in the gene pool because of sperm banks. You really have to re-read this.

My debating skills are pretty good. And you are lying about me again.

I gotta say Ive seen others get the verbal best of you, and you resorted to name calling and viscousness then, too.

I gotta say Ive seen others get the verbal best of you, and you resorted to name calling and viscousness then, too.

I gotta say you aren't really correct about that one. :rolleyes:

People don't get the verbal best of anyone because this is opinion based debate.

You really need to work on your coherency.

Homosexuality removes me from the gene pool? Man dude, obviously you never heard of sperm banks.

Just re-read.

Just re-read.

You misinterpreted... I thought you meant, that my own genes won't be able to be carried on because I wouldn't procreate.

You misinterpreted... I thought you meant, that my own genes won't be able to be carried on because I wouldn't procreate.

You thought he meant something other than he said and he misinterpreted?

Have you read how many of your posts contain the phrase or some variation of the phrase "you misinterpreted"? Perhaps if you continually have this problem you should look at what is common in all of the cases.

You thought he meant something other than he said and he misinterpreted?

Have you read how many of your posts contain the phrase or some variation of the phrase "you misinterpreted"? Perhaps if you continually have this problem you should look at what is common in all of the cases.

He misinterpreted what I said... and I misinterpreted what he said. If you want to be rude about this, then go ahead. This thread is totally out of control.

You should stop insulting me.

You misinterpreted... I thought you meant, that my own genes won't be able to be carried on because I wouldn't procreate.
Then YOU misinterpreted as in the post you were responding to I said that homosexuals (Not you in particular you had'nt mentioned you were gay until that response) were effectively removed from the gene pool.

Then YOU misinterpreted as in the post you were responding to I said that homosexuals (Not you in particular you had'nt mentioned you were gay until that response) were effectively removed from the gene pool.

Ok whatever you say.

No personal attack. In fact I do have thicker skin. I'm wondering how the hell do you come to those assumptions?
As I said, when I get a spare hour or so I'll find your "greatest hits" in the area of responding with hyperbole, insults or namecalling.
I have presented many more then just one or two studies. Dozens of websites. And yes I do have a lack of emotion when dealing with people. That does not mean I don't deal with them harshly.
I must have missed these dozens of websites. But I have seen, in turn, dozens of other websites that either oppose your beliefs, or support differing views from yours. As for dealing harshly, I'm sorry but you have done this on numerous occasions. Just look at how you responded to Jocabia's original post...
My debating skills are pretty good. And you are lying about me again.
You debating skills are good in your humble opinion. :p I think you'll find that the number of people decrying your statements and debating skills would say otherwise. Even people who are basically on the same "side" of the debate as you are. And just what exactly am I lying about? I'm stating my opinion - how can my own opinion be a lie? :confused:

I must have missed these dozens of websites. But I have seen, in turn, dozens of other websites that either oppose your beliefs, or support differing views from yours. As for dealing harshly, I'm sorry but you have done this on numerous occasions. Just look at how you responded to Jocabia's original post...

You debating skills are good in your humble opinion. :p I think you'll find that the number of people decrying your statements and debating skills would say otherwise. Even people who are basically on the same "side" of the debate as you are. And just what exactly am I lying about? I'm stating my opinion - how can my own opinion be a lie? :confused:

Alright whatever you say. I don't care anymore. I'm tired.

My debating skills are pretty adequate. I'm not on any debate team, but I can pretty much present my arguments...

So whatever you say.

You misinterpreted... I thought you meant, that my own genes won't be able to be carried on because I wouldn't procreate.
Hang on, a poster made a statement that you took to mean something it does not say, and your interpretation of this event is that the other poster misinterpreted?

Mesatecala, I know you are very resistent to the idea, but I really want to help you out here, so again I invite you to consider how you engage others and whether or not you are either not helping yourself, or worse, harming your cause through your manner of engagement. I really can see no reason why you would want to come across the way you are, so I sincerely invite you to reconsider the attitude you employ when reading and responding to other peoples' point of view.

Mesatecala, I know you are very resistent to the idea, but I really want to help you out here, so again I invite you to consider how you engage others and whether or not you are either not helping yourself, or worse, harming your cause through your manner of engagement. I really can see no reason why you would want to come across the way you are, so I sincerely invite you to reconsider the attitude you employ when reading and responding to other peoples' point of view.

Here is a little tid bit: I don't think I will discuss this topic with you guys anymore. I'm not harming anything. I'm very much helping my cause because I present facts and evidence. I'm not going to discuss this topic anymore with you or some other people in this thread.

He misinterpreted what I said... and I misinterpreted what he said. If you want to be rude about this, then go ahead. This thread is totally out of control.

You should stop insulting me.

I'm not insulting you. I'm pointing something out. Do you not notice the common theme. I'm not one to defend some of the posters you're arguing with but you've accused in this thread alone me, Neo, PJ, NF, Zagat, et al., of misinterpreting your posts. These posters have VASTLY different styles and points of view. The only thing common to all of these misunderstandings is you. Instead of taking this as an insult, how about looking at these misunderstandings and how they occurred and attempting to learn from them and adjust your behavior to make you both happier and more effective at communicating. Again, not accusing you of being an ineffective communicator, just suggesting that you could improve in some ways. It would really be to your benefit to review this problem and address it.

Instead of taking this as an insult, how about looking at these misunderstandings and how they occurred and attempting to learn from them and adjust your behavior to make you both happier and more effective at communicating. Again, not accusing you of being an ineffective communicator, just suggesting that you could improve in some ways. It would really be to your benefit to review this problem and address it.

Go ahead and believe what you want. I will not change my style.

Here is a little tid bit: I don't think I will discuss this topic with you guys anymore. I'm not harming anything. I'm very much helping my cause because I present facts and evidence. I'm not going to discuss this topic anymore with you or some other people in this thread.
Presenting facts and evidence is not good enough. I happen to agree with the points you try to make but that didn't stop us from having a misunderstanding, did it? Seriously, read what Zagat and I are trying to say. We are honestly trying to help you be more effective.

Presenting facts and evidence is not good enough. I happen to agree with the points you try to make but that didn't stop us from having a misunderstanding, did it? Seriously, read what Zagat and I are trying to say. We are honestly trying to help you be more effective.

I will repeat again, I'm not changing my style. Nor am I taking your advice because I don't feel it is sound.

I will repeat again, I'm not changing my style. Nor am I taking your advice because I don't feel it is sound.

And I am the pigheaded one......

Here is a little tid bit: I don't think I will discuss this topic with you guys anymore. I'm not harming anything. I'm very much helping my cause because I present facts and evidence. I'm not going to discuss this topic anymore with you or some other people in this thread.
You are harming your credibility and with it goes your argument. The fact is this is an 'opinion' issue, so facts are only a part of the matter. You can all the facts in the world and a person can choose to think what they wish. If as a part of accepting your argument (however many facts you have provided) a person has to accept that they are stupid, or biggotted, or liers, or any other number of negative things, chances are they are not going to accept the argument. You are providing people with very good motive to disbelieve you. People do not want to be idiots and so if they can assure themselves you are wrong about homosexuality, they can assure themselves you are wrong about them being idiots by the same token.

Let me put it this way, how does insulting people you are trying to convince of something help you?

I believe that insulting people allows them to discredit you (and your evidence) even if your argument is sound and cannot be rejected on its merits, and may cause other people you could convince to be motivated to resist your arguments beyond objective critical analysis. If you think otherwise so be it, but can you remember the last time someone who was calling you names convinced you of their argument's truth?

Alright whatever you say. I don't care anymore. I'm tired.

My debating skills are pretty adequate. I'm not on any debate team, but I can pretty much present my arguments...

So whatever you say.
Uh, yeah...OK.

That pretty much sums up your debating - "I'm right, because I say I am"! :p [j/k]

Seriously, you strike me as a pretty intelligent person, and I realise that this is a fairly personal issue for you, but if you tried to be a bit more rational, a bit less emotional, and tried not to be so inflammatory in your replies, you would probably gain a lot more credence when presenting your points...

Go ahead and believe what you want. I will not change my style.

Then you will continue to spend the majority of your time debating on NS frustrated and trying to get to the heart of whatever the current misunderstanding is. And, particularly, if you don't learn to tamp down those flames, your time on NS will be limited. The longer you are here, the less tolerant moderators will be of flaming and flame-baiting and you've done at least one of each of those in this thread.

Or you could take our advice and try to adjust to the forums and enjoy what they have to offer in an interactive, respectful and intelligent way. No one is debating that you have something intelligent to offer. We are disputing the way in which you offer it, that the present is lost in the wrapping, so to speak.

You are harming your credibility and with it goes your argument. The fact is this is an 'opinion' issue, so facts are only a part of the matter. You can all the facts in the world and a person can choose to think what they wish. If as a part of accepting your argument (however many facts you have provided) a person has to accept that they are stupid, or biggotted, or liers, or any other number of negative things, chances are they are not going to accept the argument. You are providing people with very good motive to disbelieve you. People do not want to be idiots and so if they can assure themselves you are wrong about homosexuality, they can assure themselves you are wrong about them being idiots by the same token.

My argument and my credibility doesn't go anywhere. It is staying put. I'm getting really tired of arguing with you about something that isn't even significant or important. Disbelieve me? What are you talking about? I can't even follow you because your entire paragraph is totally incoherent. It just doesn't add up.

Let me put it this way, how does insulting people you are trying to convince of something help you?

Clarification: I'm not trying to convince anyone. It is up to people to change. I don't care if people change their opinions, but that will not stop me from voicing my own opinion.

Then you will continue to spend the majority of your time debating on NS frustrated and trying to get to the heart of whatever the current misunderstanding is. And, particularly, if you don't learn to tamp down those flames, your time on NS will be limited. The longer you are here, the less tolerant moderators will be of flaming and flame-baiting and you've done at least one of each of those in this thread.

That's not representative of the truth. Stop trying to get me banned. I'm staying here because I've taken part in plenty of other threads in a good, civil manner. Things may have gotten heated, and people may have become angry... but that is no reason to ban me.

Or you could take our advice and try to adjust to the forums and enjoy what they have to offer in an interactive, respectful and intelligent way. No one is debating that you have something intelligent to offer. We are disputing the way in which you offer it, that the present is lost in the wrapping, so to speak.

Dispute the way I debate all you want.. I'm not changing. And if I change, it is to my own specification.

My argument and my credibility doesn't go anywhere. It is staying put. I'm getting really tired of arguing with you about something that isn't even significant or important. Disbelieve me? What are you talking about? I can't even follow you because your entire paragraph is totally incoherent. It just doesn't add up.



Clarification: I'm not trying to convince anyone. It is up to people to change. I don't care if people change their opinions, but that will not stop me from voicing my own opinion.

Strange. I had no trouble following his/her (don't bother telling me Zagat, I'll forget) paragraph. I found it to be completely coherent and reasonable.

I know you're tired of hearing it. But you feel attacked on the forum, that's obvious. If you want people to support you then you have to help them help you. I was supporting you in debunking the claims of Neo and you attacked me. Now if I was incorrect in my statements, this would make sense, but I wasn't even offering opinion. I offered facts about the body and blood-born illnesses. Several others here are on your 'side' but you alienate them by being aggressive and insulting and claiming their posts are 'incoherent' on a regular basis. I've never been in any thread (that I know of) with these other two and yet we've all seperately reached the same conclusion. Again, ask yourself why this must be. You said you're tired and it's late. It is for me as well. Go to bed, sleep on it and then take a look at this fresh and see if you can't find some places where we might be right, places where you might benefit from our advice.

I know you're tired of hearing it. But you feel attacked on the forum, that's obvious. If you want people to support you then you have to help them help you. I was supporting you in debunking the claims of Neo and you attacked me. Now if I was incorrect in my statements, this would make sense, but I wasn't even offering opinion. I offered facts about the body and blood-born illnesses. Several others here are on your 'side' but you alienate them by being aggressive and insulting and claiming their posts are 'incoherent' on a regular basis. I've never been in any thread (that I know of) with these other two and yet we've all seperately reached the same conclusion. Again, ask yourself why this must be. You said you're tired and it's late. It is for me as well. Go to bed, sleep on it and then take a look at this fresh and see if you can't find some places where we might be right, places where you might benefit from our advice.

Right now, i'm feeling attacked non-stop by you guys who cannot accept the fact that I am me. Let me explain: I have my style of posting. And yes I did make a mistake in attacking you. I'm sorry. However, i'm not going to change my overall posting style for the satisfaction of others. I just won't do it, unless ordered to by the moderators.

That's not representative of the truth. Stop trying to get me banned. I'm staying here because I've taken part in plenty of other threads in a good, civil manner. Things may have gotten heated, and people may have become angry... but that is no reason to ban me.

Dispute the way I debate all you want.. I'm not changing. And if I change, it is to my own specification.
I honestly hope that you do not get banned. I certainly don't think you'll get banned for solely your actions in this thread. I doubt you'd even get an official warning based solely on this thread. But they keep a history. Every time they have to say anything to you about your behavior they make a note on your file and, like I said, the longer you are here the more they expect you to know and adhere to the rules. You WILL either decide to stop calling people names or they will not allow you to continue to post. One of those two things will occur. That's the way it works. I really hope it's that you decide that name-calling is not a necessary part of your debate arsenal.

Right now, i'm feeling attacked non-stop by you guys who cannot accept the fact that I am me. Let me explain: I have my style of posting. And yes I did make a mistake in attacking you. I'm sorry. However, i'm not going to change my overall posting style for the satisfaction of others. I just won't do it, unless ordered to by the moderators.


wich, Im thinking, will be soon, becuase in several threads youve been in, you get upset when back into a verbal corner, and come out calling people stupid.
This also serves to make you look like a poor debator.

A good one will, instead of trying to prove why everyone is wrong, will prove why he is right.

I honestly hope that you do not get banned. I certainly don't think you'll get banned for solely your actions in this thread. I doubt you'd even get an official warning based solely on this thread. But they keep a history. Every time they have to say anything to you about your behavior they make a note on your file and, like I said, the longer you are here the more they expect you to know and adhere to the rules. You WILL either decide to stop calling people names or they will not allow you to continue to post. One of those two things will occur. That's the way it works. I really hope it's that you decide that name-calling is not a necessary part of your debate arsenal.

I'm not going to continue to respond to these comments... I find them totally ridiculous... people call each other names all the time on these forums. I've seen one too many times. So please... don't try to pin all the blame on me.

wich, Im thinking, will be soon, becuase in several threads youve been in, you get upset when back into a verbal corner, and come out calling people stupid.
This also serves to make you look like a poor debator.

A good one will, instead of trying to prove why everyone is wrong, will prove why he is right.

Eh, no.

I've been part of plenty of threads where I contributed in a good way. You are therefore skewing the reality. And i'm not a poor debator.

Anyways, we must stop with this thread hijacking. I'm going to withdraw right now from this thread. Good night.

Right now, i'm feeling attacked non-stop by you guys who cannot accept the fact that I am me. Let me explain: I have my style of posting. And yes I did make a mistake in attacking you. I'm sorry. However, i'm not going to change my overall posting style for the satisfaction of others. I just won't do it, unless ordered to by the moderators.
Mesatecala, it is no secret that you feel like you are being attacked. The problem is you appear to feel like this whether or not you are being attacked. I do not see how it can be enjoyable to feel attacked, which is why I have made an effort to point out to you some of the ways in which your manner of engaging others might be problematic for you. You can say you do not care how others recieve your comments, but the fact that you are feeling attacked indicates otherwise.

You see apart from all the name calling, insisting that everyone is a lier and accusing everyone of incomprehensible posts, you also appear to regularly perceive attacks (against you) where none are occuring. So the problem goes beyond what you post, the problem includes what you percieve. I notice that you claim to post without emotion, yet I also have read a couple of your posts in other threads that are not about sexuality and they are somewhat different in tone.

I don't understand...why would anyone spend as much time debating and posting about a particular topic if they didn't want change people's opinion on the matter?

Mesa, no one is asking you to change your debating style to suit them, they are only suggesting that you could probably be putting forth your point of view in a manner that makes it more accessable to others. I think it's good advice, but you are, of course, free to ignore it if you wish.

But make no mistake - people HAVE been banned from the NS forums for too many insults, and too much flaming/flamebaiting. You have reported several people to moderators for similar behaviour, so I'm guessing you must know this...

...the only advice I would give you to chill out, and not make too many assumptions about what people post, other than what they actually write.

Zagat: Believe what you want... it is just not indicative of the reality. Furthermore, I don't feel we should continue hijacking this thread anymore.

Fubaria: I'm ignoring the advice. That's up to my own decision.

Well, best of luck then...

If you do add people to your ignore list, could you let us know so they don't waste time replying to you in future? Thanks. :)

Again it is called recessive traits. If you cannot understanding please leave this thread. Genetics plays the biggest part. You're nothing more then a troll. And you should be regarded as such.
Wow, if you are this hostile to homophobia, being a member of the US Republican Party must be a nightmare for you.

Are nightmares genetic? :D

*runs*

Mm, if it's really genetic, then Christianity is pretty much screwed in the anti-homosexuality arena.

Not really. Its also been shown that there are many people in the world with geneitic predispostions towards vilonence. That does not mean that being viloent is any less sinful. Just because you have a genetic predispostion towards a certian sin, does not give you an excuse.

Good to know that you are Jesus Christ himself and can thus explain what all Christians think.


He has a point (the person you were quoting). The Bible condems homosexuality in every place where a command is given about it. The theory that the laws refering to hetrosexual relations can be applied to homosexual relations in the same way that laws regarding men are applied to women also is flawed. Why? Because in said laws that only seem to apply to men, there is no set of corrisponding laws that apply to women somehow diffrently. The laws that said men applied to everyone and there was no reason to suggest that women had a diffrent moral code to deal with. However, laws regarding homosexuality were very diffrent to those describing hetrosexuality and were specificly pointed to.

Not really. Its also been shown that there are many people in the world with geneitic predispostions towards vilonence. That does not mean that being viloent is any less sinful. Just because you have a genetic predispostion towards a certian sin, does not give you an excuse.

Jsut because two things may or not be genetic does not make them analogous.

Just because a religion considers both a 'sin' does not make them analogous.

Just because something is or is not genetic does not validate it.

Just because there is no known gene(s) does not mean it is not genetic.

Just because two alleles pair to make a gene does not mean that singular pairing defines a specific trait of an individual nor does it mean a trait is not genetic.

Just because environmental factors have influence does not make it not genetic nor unnatural.

Just because a religion does not deem it 'valid' is not particularly relevant unless this is a religious discussion.

Just because a religion has some peculiar views with respect to the universe, earth and the origin of life does not mean reality bends to fit nor defines it.

Why?

Just because.

I forsee fundamentalists Republicans suffering an aneurism.

Simply put,
Yes, we can now use genetic engineering to rid the world of homosexuality! Oh wait, genetic engineering is immoral - but how do we get rid of all the gays?! Now we're back at square one! *brain explodes*
Or how about, "Homosexuality is genetic, and we can test for it in utero, and then we could abort the gay babies! Wait, we're about a "culture of life," right? HOW CAN WE SPIN THIS?!"

Or how about, "Homosexuality is genetic, and we can test for it in utero, and then we could abort the gay babies! Wait, we're about a "culture of life," right? HOW CAN WE SPIN THIS?!"


Have you considered "pro-morals"? :D

Why?

Just because.

If your not going to make any explaination to support your statements then there is not much point in making them.

If your not going to make any explaination to support your statements then there is not much point in making them.

Well it's actually perfectly clear... IF YOU HAVE ANY CLUE ABOUT GENETICS.

If your not going to make any explaination to support your statements then there is not much point in making them.

How much time do you need to type the vagina was designed for the penis? :D

Well it's actually perfectly clear... IF YOU HAVE ANY CLUE ABOUT GENETICS.

There has been found a genetic predispostion towards things such as alcoholism and vilonce which can indeed be described as sinful.

Just because a genetic predisposition is found for something, does not make said behavior pattern any less sinful. And yes we are talking about Christianity, since everyone in the first page saw fit to say that they thought if homosexuality was genetic then Christians have been proven wrong.

I'm not going to continue to respond to these comments... I find them totally ridiculous... people call each other names all the time on these forums. I've seen one too many times. So please... don't try to pin all the blame on me.

We're not blaming you for their actions. We're suggesting you take responsibility for yours. Trust me, no one benefits from name-calling. Name-calling always makes you look like your points are failing you or like you've given reason over to emotion. As was pointed out earlier have you ever been convinced of something by someone who is insulting you? Probably not.

He has a point (the person you were quoting). The Bible condems homosexuality in every place where a command is given about it. The theory that the laws refering to hetrosexual relations can be applied to homosexual relations in the same way that laws regarding men are applied to women also is flawed. Why? Because in said laws that only seem to apply to men, there is no set of corrisponding laws that apply to women somehow diffrently. The laws that said men applied to everyone and there was no reason to suggest that women had a diffrent moral code to deal with. However, laws regarding homosexuality were very diffrent to those describing hetrosexuality and were specificly pointed to.

False. You find WAAAY more references to heterosexual promiscuity in the Bible than any other kind of sex. Heterosexuality is specifically pointed to a LOT more than homosexuality is. Another case of selective reading.

Well it's actually perfectly clear... IF YOU HAVE ANY CLUE ABOUT GENETICS.

Agreed. I had no problem following it.

False. You find WAAAY more references to heterosexual promiscuity in the Bible than any other kind of sex. Heterosexuality is specifically pointed to a LOT more than homosexuality is. Another case of selective reading.
One of my fav quotes (used to be in my sig cant remember who said it)
The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals -- He just thinks they need more supervision.

There has been found a genetic predispostion towards things such as alcoholism and vilonce which can indeed be described as sinful.

Just because a genetic predisposition is found for something, does not make said behavior pattern any less sinful. And yes we are talking about Christianity, since everyone in the first page saw fit to say that they thought if homosexuality was genetic then Christians have been proven wrong.

Calling it a genetic 'predisposition' is like saying you have a genetic 'predisposition' for heterosexuality. Forcing a gay man to have sex with a woman would be like forcing you to have sex with a man (you are a man, yes?). It's not a predisposition. If you are born a certain way, you ARE gay. You're predisposed to being gay. You ARE gay. You are NOT attracted to women. You ARE attracted to men. Period.

One of my fav quotes (used to be in my sig cant remember who said it)

You must be lying. My pastor said that homosexuals are icky.

You must be lying. My pastor said that homosexuals are icky.
tries to :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: you :D

tries to :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: you :D

Stop it, you dirty homosexual.

Stop it, you dirty homosexual.
Uh-uh my friend BI sexual

*starts chasing after you* :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :p

He has a point (the person you were quoting).

He has a point - and it is his own opinion and his own view of Christianity.

The Bible condems homosexuality in every place where a command is given about it.

Actually, the Bible never specifically mentions homosexuality at all. Depending on what translation you are looking at, it *might* condemn specific homosexual acts. Looking at context (or possible context, since none of us can know for sure what was meant), it is likely that many of the references were referring to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex - for temple favors, etc. Some of them also may have been referring to a common Roman practice in which men took young boys as prostitutes. Of course, none of this has anything to do with homosexuality as a whole.

What you, and others, have to realize is that we are looking at documents that were written in languages that are no longer in use. When you read a translation of the Bible - you are getting what the translator *thought* was meant by the words (which most liikely have been scribed enough times to have been altered a bit themselves). You are looking at a human interpretation, right off the bat. On top of that, you then interpret the interpretation. It is no wonder that there are so many ways to look at it.

If you want to believe that God hates homosexuals - you go right ahead. You and I will agree to disagree. Just don't pretend that you speak for all Christians, or that your personal view of Scripture is infallible, or that your interpretation is infallible.

BTW, this thread has grown by like 30 pages since I left last night, and there's no possible way I'm going through all of them. If anyone wants an answer to anything they said to me, please direct me to the post.

:fluffle:

He has a point - and it is his own opinion and his own view of Christianity.



Actually, the Bible never specifically mentions homosexuality at all. Depending on what translation you are looking at, it *might* condemn specific homosexual acts. Looking at context (or possible context, since none of us can know for sure what was meant), it is likely that many of the references were referring to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex - for temple favors, etc. Some of them also may have been referring to a common Roman practice in which men took young boys as prostitutes. Of course, none of this has anything to do with homosexuality as a whole.

What you, and others, have to realize is that we are looking at documents that were written in languages that are no longer in use. When you read a translation of the Bible - you are getting what the translator *thought* was meant by the words (which most liikely have been scribed enough times to have been altered a bit themselves). You are looking at a human interpretation, right off the bat. On top of that, you then interpret the interpretation. It is no wonder that there are so many ways to look at it.

If you want to believe that God hates homosexuals - you go right ahead. You and I will agree to disagree. Just don't pretend that you speak for all Christians, or that your personal view of Scripture is infallible, or that your interpretation is infallible.
Exactly.

As far as what you missed, here is a summary - Neo making ridiculous statements, Mesa getting upset, Neo taking scripture out of context to deceive people into believe one thing is meant when another clearly is, more Mesa getting upset, Mesa deciding everyone is against him, everyone trying to make him understand what is really occuring, Mesa saying everyone is blocked for being incoherent, everyone calming Mesa down.

That's it in a nutshell. You didn't miss anything.

From what i understand all the damnations of homsexual behavior in the bible apear in the old testament, leviticus, romans, etc,
I dont claim to know or understand the bible as thoroughly as many people here, but i was under the impression that when jesus apeared on earth he was Replacing the previous laws of god with a new set, except for those he specificly sited to remain ie the ten commandments.
My question is what makes the passages in the old testament regarding homosexuality (assuming that the correct translation is a damnation of homosexuality) more applicable than the many others in the same books which are not even attempted to be followed?

From what i understand all the damnations of homsexual behavior in the bible apear in the old testament, leviticus, romans, etc,
I dont claim to know or understand the bible as thoroughly as many people here, but i was under the impression that when jesus apeared on earth he was Replacing the previous laws of god with a new set, except for those he specificly sited to remain ie the ten commandments.
My question is what makes the passages in the old testament regarding homosexuality (assuming that the correct translation is a damnation of homosexuality) more applicable than the many others in the same books which are not even attempted to be followed?
There is one NT passage … sorta

Right now, i'm feeling attacked non-stop by you guys who cannot accept the fact that I am me. Let me explain: I have my style of posting. And yes I did make a mistake in attacking you. I'm sorry. However, i'm not going to change my overall posting style for the satisfaction of others. I just won't do it, unless ordered to by the moderators.

Well then I suggest that you change the style of debating, on your part, simply because of the fact that you continue to insult everyone who is arguing against you in this debate. You seem to be misunderstanding the fact that this is an opinion based argument. If there were complete evidence to disprove one side of another, then this argument wouldn't have existed in the first place; however your continued repeat of this phrase (in different forms): "Ive presented strong evidence and statements" is more so "I've presented my opinion and my statements".

You have an extremely simplistic view of genetics.. but what do I expect from a simple minded fundamentalist...
In this post, you insult Haloman for simply having his own belief.

A stupid, retarded theory that is false.
Again, you continue to insult Haloman for having his own beliefs.

Fubaria: I'm ignoring the advice. That's up to my own decision.
Some good advice offered to you, gone ignored. You've proven to be extremely stubborn when someone offers to help you. This isn't the first time that you've ignored someone trying to make peace with you.

I've discussed this with other moderators as well, that you need to change the way that you react to others, because you continue to fling insults around as if its ok to do so.

Is there some reason you believe you are helping yourself or your cause by making enemies out of as many people as you can?"
Take your own advice. You're making a heck of a lot more enemies than you are friends.

Mesatecala: Official Warning for Flaming

And it is thought to be the source of AIDS. That's negative

This alone is a very extreme statement. The fact that you would post it in the first place was a mistake.

I showed that to me dad. He laughed pretty heartily. Thanks for the entertainment value

That's enough. Both you and Mesatecala have a bad habit of insulting people just because of their beliefs, and the fact that both of you are too damn stubborn to participate in a proper debate.

Neo Rogolia: Official Warning for Trolling and Flaming

gays are evil because it says so in the bible I don't need your arguments. You're all just immoral if you support that kind of behaviour

Nah you just need to read the bible and you'll be cured

Hmmm. Try reading it again. And this time REALLY concentrate

You're going the wrong way up a one way street it's just unnatural

Well I'm sure you'll have fun discussing existential athiesm in the firey pits of hell

You're in for one hell of a suprise. Hope you're not vegetarian too, cos you're going to a a looooong barbeque

Enough with the trolling FilthyScum. Take a break.
3-Day Forum Ban for excessive Trolling

From what i understand all the damnations of homsexual behavior in the bible apear in the old testament, leviticus, romans, etc,
I dont claim to know or understand the bible as thoroughly as many people here, but i was under the impression that when jesus apeared on earth he was Replacing the previous laws of god with a new set, except for those he specificly sited to remain ie the ten commandments.
My question is what makes the passages in the old testament regarding homosexuality (assuming that the correct translation is a damnation of homosexuality) more applicable than the many others in the same books which are not even attempted to be followed?

Well, technically those same passages were cited in the New Testament as well. There is still the problem of context and translation, however.

Well, technically those same passages were cited in the New Testament as well. There is still the problem of context and translation, however.

Any chance i could get specific examples?

snipage of moderator goodness




All I got to say is damn that must have taken a lot of work

And some people complain that the mods are lazy :p no way in hell

All I got to say is damn that must have taken a lot of work

And some people complain that the mods are lazy :p no way in hell

It took me nearly an hour to give the links to enough posts to show what was going on last night. It was a nightmare, but the thread was completely out of control last night.

I forsee fundamentalists Republicans suffering an aneurism.

Simply put,
Yes, we can now use genetic engineering to rid the world of homosexuality! Oh wait, genetic engineering is immoral - but how do we get rid of all the gays?! Now we're back at square one! *brain explodes*

... You're an idiot.

Homosexuality isn't genetic, by the way. There is the major flaw in your idiotic comment.

... You're an idiot.

Homosexuality isn't genetic, by the way. There is the major flaw in your idiotic comment.
1) Stop flaming we just had a major mod intervention I think they have spent enough time on this thread
2) Prove that it is not genetic … I personally have never seen it done

It took me nearly an hour to give the links to enough posts to show what was going on last night. It was a nightmare, but the thread was completely out of control last night.
Yeah saw your post and added to it :) thank you for spending the time

... You're an idiot.

Homosexuality isn't genetic, by the way. There is the major flaw in your idiotic comment.

Please refrain from flaming. The moderator was just here addressing these kinds of comments. You're a new poster so I'll offer some advice. There is much to see and learn here. You probably even have some things to teach the rest of us. If you have something to add to the conversations, we look forward to your contribution. However, if you can't refrain from name-calling, we'll likely never find out.

As far as what you missed, here is a summary - Neo making ridiculous statements, Mesa getting upset, Neo taking scripture out of context to deceive people into believe one thing is meant when another clearly is, more Mesa getting upset, Mesa deciding everyone is against him, everyone trying to make him understand what is really occuring, Mesa saying everyone is blocked for being incoherent, everyone calming Mesa down.

Wow, Neo was involved? That means it actually grew more than 30 pages, since all I get for a Neo post is a single line saying there was one.

Anyways, thanks for the update =)

I forsee fundamentalists Republicans suffering an aneurism.

*

You're saying that all fundamentalists are Republicans?

Frankly, if Christians took their faith seriously, they wouldn't support any political party, as they (the parties) are all corrupt.

... You're an idiot.

Homosexuality isn't genetic, by the way. There is the major flaw in your idiotic comment.

You need to cool it, before you end up getting in trouble.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Any chance i could get specific examples?

Romans 1:26-27 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

However, I think this again necessitates context that he is talking about heterosexual men who abandon the relations natural to them for those unnatural to them.

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

incest
rape
adultery
intercourse with animals
But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:
intercourse during menstruation
celibacy
exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
naming sexual organs
nudity (under certain conditions)
masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not
Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:
prostitution
polygamy
levirate marriage
sex with slaves
concubinage
treatment of women as property
very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

just thought id drop in a note for Mesatecala:

Well done, youve made my list of Amusing Things Said In a Public Forum. This utterly uncovetted (and unpublished) accolade was awarded for the post:

"You are just being incredibly rude. I believe people are born gay, and I believe people are born straight. That's a fact. You can agree to disagree with me all you want, but I won't move."

The convention when someone agrees to disagree is to accept it and move on. They respect your view, even if they dont hold it. You have effectively disagreed to disagree, you dont want to let it drop and move on, you'd rather flog the deceased horse. Also admirable was your declaration that you choose to hold a belief. Well done. (unless you where trying to state your belief are actually universal 'facts', in which case, oh dear.)

An honorable mention should also go to this gem of logic on your position Homosexuality is Genetic was, in relation to identical twins not necessarily being both gay: "Still doesn't prove it is not genetic because once they split, anything can happen.". Anything? What, like things in the environment or upbringing? Mavellous.

Congratulations and thank you for entertaining us today.

yummy snipage
And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.
I am going to have to linky this post well done

just thought id drop in a note for Mesatecala:

Well done, youve made my list of Amusing Things Said In a Public Forum. This utterly uncovetted (and unpublished) accolade was awarded for the post:

"You are just being incredibly rude. I believe people are born gay, and I believe people are born straight. That's a fact. You can agree to disagree with me all you want, but I won't move."

The convention when someone agrees to disagree is to accept it and move on. They respect your view, even if they dont hold it. You have effectively disagreed to disagree, you dont want to let it drop and move on, you'd rather flog the deceased horse. Also admirable was your declaration that you choose to hold a belief. Well done. (unless you where trying to state your belief are actually universal 'facts', in which case, oh dear.)

An honorable mention should also go to this gem of logic on your position Homosexuality is Genetic was, in relation to identical twins not necessarily being both gay: "Still doesn't prove it is not genetic because once they split, anything can happen.". Anything? What, like things in the environment or upbringing? Mavellous.

Congratulations and thank you for entertaining us today.

Oh, good. More posts with no content. What is it people in this thread have such a hard time being respectful and adding content rather than ridiculous flame-baiting or flaming? Again, please refrain.

As far as you comments on the genetics, I recommend you pick up a book. Your view is not supported by science.

I am going to have to linky this post well done

Particularly read the last paragraph of that link. I think it's beautiful. I did not post on this page due to the length, but I'm tempted to.

Romans 1:26-27 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

However, I think this again necessitates context that he is talking about heterosexual men who abandon the relations natural to them for those unnatural to them.


Thanks,

I understand that its a complex issue for christians, but remember who you are worshipping, and he never once condemned homosexuality the only people who ever did so were normal people who for one reason or another believed it was wrong, i emplore all christians to think of jesus and not the evangelsts of either today or 2000 years ago in relation to this issue.

I only read the first few pages so sorry if someone already posted something along these lines, but...

If its genetic, they will be able to screen fetuses for it, like with downs syndrome. And people who really dont want a gay baby can have abortions. but the people who dislike gays are also usually opposed to abortions. It'l be kinda fun to see how it pans out.

Oh, good. More posts with no content. What is it people in this thread have such a hard time being respectful and adding content rather than ridiculous flame-baiting or flaming? Again, please refrain.

As far as you comments on the genetics, I recommend you pick up a book. Your view is not supported by science.

:rolleyes:

Well spotted on the content front. Much like your reply. And this one. None of them progress the debate forward. But, hey if that was important then the web would be a pretty quite and dull place.

Also, i'd love you to point out what view of mine is not suppoted by science. Especially considering i did not actually put forward any view (see above).

:rolleyes:

Well spotted on the content front. Much like your reply. And this one. None of them progress the debate forward. But, hey if that was important then the web would be a pretty quite and dull place.

Also, i'd love you to point out what view of mine is not suppoted by science. Especially considering i did not actually put forward any view (see above).

You suggested homosexuality is not primarily a result of gestational influences (hormonal and genetic) but this is not supported by science. Developing twins do not receive the same hormones from the mother or fraternal twins would not be a possibility. There is a mountain of evidence forming that the brain topography of gay men is more similar to straight women than straight men and there is similar truth to the brain topography of gay women. This doesn't mean it's impossible for a straight man to commit gay acts or enter gay relationships any more than a gay man can commit straight acts or enter straight relationships, but the evidence is clear. Homosexuality, at it's core, is not a choice.

I only read the first few pages so sorry if someone already posted something along these lines, but...

If its genetic, they will be able to screen fetuses for it, like with downs syndrome. And people who really dont want a gay baby can have abortions. but the people who dislike gays are also usually opposed to abortions. It'l be kinda fun to see how it pans out.

Not really sure how Eugenics is fun. It's been mentioned several times in this thread and it hasn't been fun any of the times it was mentioned.

An honorable mention should also go to this gem of logic on your position Homosexuality is Genetic was, in relation to identical twins not necessarily being both gay: "Still doesn't prove it is not genetic because once they split, anything can happen.". Anything? What, like things in the environment or upbringing? Mavellous.

Environment and upbringing are certainly examples of "anything".

Of course, genetics can changes as well. The epigenetic changes in twins are different. Genes can be differentially expressed - different ones can be turned on and off in the twins.

You are making the same mistake when you assume that it is wholly environment as when someone assumes it is wholly genetic.

Meanwhile, evidence shows that sexuality is pretty much set-in-stone by about age 3. There is no evidence that any type of upbringing differences are related to this. That is not to say that upbringing cannot have an effect - but homosexuals come from very diverse backgrounds, and very diverse upbringing. No type of upbringing has ever been statistically linked to incidence of homosexuality.

You suggested <snip>

Wow, i suggested alot in a post with no content, didnt I? If you cared to read the post again (and re-read the original point made way back in this thread) i was merely suggesting Mesatecala's logic was less than robust. He appears to actually be contradicting his own argument: If indentical twins have differing sexuality, that is due to change after the original egg has split in two. Therefore non-genetic influences have brought about sexual orientation in the two otherwise identical siblings. So genetics cannot be whole responsible for sexual orientation, and therefore it must follw that it is possible that genetics play no role in sexual preferance.

I do not profess to be an expert on genetics or hold particular strong view on this subject. I do however know enough to know that many that claim knowledge in this area are lacking objectivity. I also know that fraternal twins bear no relationship to these points what so ever since they come from different eggs and are therfore not identical.

That you may take as a comment.

[edit: to fix typo that completly changed context of a sentence]

You suggested homosexuality is not primarily a result of gestational influences (hormonal and genetic) but this is not supported by science. Developing twins do not receive the same hormones from the mother or fraternal twins would not be a possibility.

Just to be absolutely clear, this is not entirely accurate. Fraternal twins are defined by developing from separate zygotes - that is, a separate egg and sperm pair, not by getting different hormones. Fraternal twins could occur even if both twins received the exact same hormones from the mother.

Of course, you are right that they do not necessarily receive the same hormones. We are talking about things that would exist in a gradient, either in the womb or in the bloodstream. Even in identical twins, there are sometimes two separate placentas. Where there are not, "parasitic twins" sometimes develop where one twin is getting the majority of the blood flow and the other is getting little. This can happen on a small scale - which would be hard to measure, or on a large scale - which can result in one twin dying soon after birth.

Meanwhile, evidence shows that sexuality is pretty much set-in-stone by about age 3. There is no evidence that any type of upbringing differences are related to this. That is not to say that upbringing cannot have an effect - but homosexuals come from very diverse backgrounds, and very diverse upbringing. No type of upbringing has ever been statistically linked to incidence of homosexuality.

I'm going to direct this question to you but it is open to anyone to answer. You just have come closest to touching on it.

I was in a debate with a friend about nature vs nurture and all of the possibilities of it. He is a doctor who spends a lot of time researching all kinds of medical issues. He starting bringing up the whole absence of a father theory to address why gay men are homosexual. Supposedly in many studies it is found that a very high percentile of men (I cannot remember the exact number but I recall it being in the nineties) who claim to be homosexual either had a very distant father or had no father figure.

Basically, I am wondering what people's views are on this and how to refute it, since it seems entirely illogical to assume someone's father did it to them.

I forsee fundamentalists Republicans suffering an aneurism.

Simply put,
Yes, we can now use genetic engineering to rid the world of homosexuality! Oh wait, genetic engineering is immoral - but how do we get rid of all the gays?! Now we're back at square one! *brain explodes*
Maybe it's a genetic abberation that's been passed on...a mutation...a mistake...a genetic freak.

Not saying it is...just something to think about.

Meanwhile, evidence shows that sexuality is pretty much set-in-stone by about age 3. There is no evidence that any type of upbringing differences are related to this. That is not to say that upbringing cannot have an effect - but homosexuals come from very diverse backgrounds, and very diverse upbringing. No type of upbringing has ever been statistically linked to incidence of homosexuality.


I'm not normally one of the people around here that say 'links' please or any other veiled attempt like that which is really just trying to 'call someone out,' but I've seen you mention this a few different times now, and I haven't run across anything like that. At least nothing that makes it sound as strongly as you do by any stretch of the imagination.

I would not assume that to be true, but not without merit either, with the preponderance of things like cervical cancer in lesbian women (suggesting the possibility that their bodies don't produce the same hormones during puberty as other girls bodies do, for example). And on the other hand, I can't say as I've seen anything that made me believe that a one year old and two year old (for example) are any more susceptible to changes in their sexual orientation later in life than a four year old is (or is not).

How would such a study be accomplished anyway?

I find it interesting to see people are still taking a religious stance on this issue. Religion is the same institution that used to believe that seizures were caused by demonic posession, and let us not forget the hairy concequences of masturbation. I don't agree with anyone who takes a specific side. There is currently no possible way for us to know if homsexuality is genetic or not. Unless you decide on personal preference of the two. Taking on those personal preferences as what they are..preferences..no basis in science..I don't see how anyone who is not homosexual can possibly attempt to say if it is or is not a genetic condition. Without the scientific evidence to back it up you have no right and no idea..Unless you wish to share a personal tidbit with us all? On the other side of the sword. How can a homosexual without a shadow of a doubt know their homosexuality is genetic and not a result of outside influence? I certainly cannot be sure that events in my childhood did not have some effect on my current psychological makeup. How can you? Two sides..with no answer in sight except for those based on opinion or those that cannot be proven..yet.

However, Some food for thought directed at those who seem fixed on the position that if a certain genetic abnormality has not been present in past generations it will not exist in future ones.

I was diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome at age seven..(Give or take a year or so..) Tourette's is a disorder that is known to be entirely genetic. Trust me..No one would want to fake it unless they wanted attention. Interestingly my parents showed no sign of the disorder. Nor my grandparents or my grandparents. Even more interestingly is that Tourette's is known to not have recessive genes. (Going on medical journals and studies here..Feel free to look it up.) Meaning, If a Tourette's dominant parent has a child that does not exhibit signs of the disorder it has not been passed on. You either have it or you don't. So..I ask those of you who say if there is no history in the bloodline then it cannot exist...What am I besides living proof? A government project? An alien baby perhaps? Or just a genetic mutation..Perhaps sparked off by some outside influence..maybe drug usage..or maybe just a flaw in my parent's coding that was cut out or copied incorrectly..Like I said..Food for thought. Any of you who think they have a better answer for my situation are welcome to send it my way..I would love to hear from one of the many accredited geneticists who seem to make their way to this board.

Oh, Incase any of you were wondering. Deuce Biggalo was wayyy off target.. :D

I'm going to direct this question to you but it is open to anyone to answer. You just have come closest to touching on it.

I was in a debate with a friend about nature vs nurture and all of the possibilities of it. He is a doctor who spends a lot of time researching all kinds of medical issues. He starting bringing up the whole absence of a father theory to address why gay men are homosexual. Supposedly in many studies it is found that a very high percentile of men (I cannot remember the exact number but I recall it being in the nineties) who claim to be homosexual either had a very distant father or had no father figure.

Basically, I am wondering what people's views are on this and how to refute it, since it seems entirely illogical to assume someone's father did it to them.

I would say that it could be any number of things. There are certainly more straight men raised solely by their mothers than there are gay men, so it certainly couldn't be a root cause of any sexuality. Then there is psychological research demonstrating that sexuality seems to be determined at a very early age, and that no amount of, "No son, that is what girls do," will change a child that is effeminante (and might be gay) from ending up gay. In fact, attempting to push gender roles on a child has been shown to have more deleterious effects.

In the end, my guess would be that a man raised by his mother would be more likely to accept homosexuality and come out of the closet, as he wouldn't have as much pressure to be like daddy - and would have no problem relating more to his mother. But, then again, I could be wrong. I'm not exactly a psychologist.

What I do know is that, despite having looked for them, I have seen no studies correlating sexuality to any type of upbringing. Homosexual parents who raise children do not raise statistically larger numbers of homosexual children. Fundamentalist religious parents do not seem to raise a statistically lower number of homosexual children.

Meanwhile, the evidence for genetic and gestational influence on sexuality abounds. Other mammals demonstrate homosexual behavior, even in controlled experiments where upbringing is the same.

I'm kinda late to the party, but here's my two cents worth.

I'm a Christian (flame away if you must). I believe homosexuality is a sin. And I believe incest, bestiality, and adultery are sins too. So is lying, killing, and stealing, etc. I'm not perfect and am not claiming that I am. I know what sins are, and I know what behavior to avoid to keep my conscience clear. I have lots of people in my life that I love, and I know they sin. So what? I still love them, they're still important in my life.

It's kind of strange how the issue of homosexuality is such a hot topic and we spend so much time focusing on only ONE of the many sinful things in the scriptures. Why don't we bitch more about all the adultery going on? That's a sin, too, but it seems nobody cares.

I have known two guys from church - one had been having sex with other men, and the other was attracted to men. I don't care what the root of homosexuality is - genetic or environmental or whatever. The act of having sex with a same-sex partner is a CHOICE. Unless you're telling me your one-eyed monster has more control over your body than you do, you are CHOOSING to have sex with that person, and you can't blame the act on genetics or whatever. Factors we're not aware of may increase your attraction to another man, but ultimately it is your decision to carry through with it. These two guys I mentioned before - one decided he didn't want to do it anymore, and the other one chose to not give in to his feelings of attraction towards other guys, got married and has a family and is the happiest he's been in his life.

It's all about accountability, people. No matter how great the impulse or urge or temptation to do ANYthing, the time comes when you choose what you're going to do.

The act of having sex with a same-sex partner is a CHOICE. Unless you're telling me your one-eyed monster has more control over your body than you do, you are CHOOSING to have sex with that person, and you can't blame the act on genetics or whatever. Factors we're not aware of may increase your attraction to another man, but ultimately it is your decision to carry through with it.

Yes. But why is it such a wrong thing? If you are attracted to men instead of women why should there be a problem? Should not a person have the right to be happy and be true. Not lying and hiding what they are for someone elses benefit?

I'm not normally one of the people around here that say 'links' please or any other veiled attempt like that which is really just trying to 'call someone out,' but I've seen you mention this a few different times now, and I haven't run across anything like that. At least nothing that makes it sound as strongly as you do by any stretch of the imagination.

I would not assume that to be true, but not without merit either, with the preponderance of things like cervical cancer in lesbian women (suggesting the possibility that their bodies don't produce the same hormones during puberty as other girls bodies do, for example). And on the other hand, I can't say as I've seen anything that made me believe that a one year old and two year old (for example) are any more susceptible to changes in their sexual orientation later in life than a four year old is (or is not).

How would such a study be accomplished anyway?

Unfortunately, I came across the study and a review on similar studies with a pubmed search in a debate a while back, read it, and then didn't save the link. I haven't been able to remember the exact search string I used to find it originally. If I remember correctly, it actually came up in a search I was doing on another issue related to homosexuality. So, as much as I would like to provide a link, at the moment I cannot.

The study itself, if I remember correctly, followed male children from an early age to see if there were early signs of sexual orientation. The conclusions of the researchers were that sexuality is well-determined at an early age, and that attempts to chage it simply do not work.

Granted, such a study always has many problems, but it was as good as psychological studies can really get.

I'm a Christian (flame away if you must).

Why would anyone flame you for that?

I believe homosexuality is a sin. And I believe incest, bestiality, and adultery are sins too. So is lying, killing, and stealing, etc.

There is a difference. Lying, killing, stealing, and adultery are all things you do. Sexuality is a part of who you are.

The act of having sex with a same-sex partner is a CHOICE. Unless you're telling me your one-eyed monster has more control over your body than you do, you are CHOOSING to have sex with that person, and you can't blame the act on genetics or whatever.

Having sex, unless you are raped, is always a choice. However, your sexuality is not defined by who you have sex with. It is defined by who you are attracted to.

These two guys I mentioned before - one decided he didn't want to do it anymore, and the other one chose to not give in to his feelings of attraction towards other guys, got married and has a family and is

If the second guy ended up being attracted to a woman and forming a happy relationship with her, then he was not homosexual - he was bisexual. He still is. He has simply chosen a relationship with a woman, rather than pursuing one with a man. This doesn't change his sexuality.

I. And another thing: 30 psychologists have determined that homosexuality can be stopped.

Wow, 30? That must be like half of all of them.

Anyway, you can train someone to walk on a leash like a dog with the right methods. Does that mean that human dignity is a disease that can be cured?

Romans 1:26-27 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

However, I think this again necessitates context that he is talking about heterosexual men who abandon the relations natural to them for those unnatural to them.

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

incest
rape
adultery
intercourse with animals
But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:
intercourse during menstruation
celibacy
exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
naming sexual organs
nudity (under certain conditions)
masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not
Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:
prostitution
polygamy
levirate marriage
sex with slaves
concubinage
treatment of women as property
very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

You are a credit to your faith.

We're not blaming you for their actions. We're suggesting you take responsibility for yours. Trust me, no one benefits from name-calling. Name-calling always makes you look like your points are failing you or like you've given reason over to emotion. As was pointed out earlier have you ever been convinced of something by someone who is insulting you? Probably not.

I'm taking the advice of the moderator and will change my style. This is not to your benefit. Furthermore, I'm not changing to your liking but because a moderator asked me to.

As for the republican party strawman, well I'm just a moderate who is registered as "non-partisan". I vote both ways (I voted for Villaraigosa in the Los Angeles county election).

Argo: It doesn't matter if you think it is a sin, I'm not going to yield to a religion that demands me to be unhappy my entire life. It sure may be a choice to have a relationship, but I have that right and there is nothing wrong with that. I have a right to be happy. I've been in a relationship with a guy for nearly two and half months. And I'm very happy with him. I can most definitely say that sexuality is caused by genetics..

These two guys I mentioned before - one decided he didn't want to do it anymore, and the other one chose to not give in to his feelings of attraction towards other guys, got married and has a family and is the happiest he's been in his life.

Then they are bisexual or not being honest to themselves (erhm, Former Governor McGreevey anyone?). They can't get rid of their tendencies because sexuality is not a light switch.

It's all about accountability, people. No matter how great the impulse or urge or temptation to do ANYthing, the time comes when you choose what you're going to do.

I have a right to be happy. I don't want a relationship with the opposite sex.

Romans 1:26-27 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

However, I think this again necessitates context that he is talking about heterosexual men who abandon the relations natural to them for those unnatural to them.

So, in your interpretation, only lesbians and bi-sexual men are prohibited?

I think not. It says what it says. And you should try and give thought to those that take heed of your words and are encouraged to continue in their ways that do not lead to a relationship with the Lord.

2 Peter 3:14-16

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.


As to acting any way we want…

Ephesians 2 1-5
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Wow, i suggested alot in a post with no content, didnt I? If you cared to read the post again (and re-read the original point made way back in this thread) i was merely suggesting Mesatecala's logic was less than robust. He appears to actually be contradicting his own argument: If indentical twins have differing sexuality, that is due to change after the original egg has split in two. Therefore non-genetic influences have brought about sexual orientation in the two otherwise identical siblings. So genetics cannot be whole responsible for sexual orientation, and therefore it must follw that it is possible that genetics play no role in sexual preferance.

I was speaking to your plain and obvious insults. They aren't needed or desired. And yes, you can say a lot with "nuh-uh" but it's still a useless post with no content of any value.

He was not arguing that genetics is solely responsible for homosexuality (anymore). It is not possible that genetics plays no role unless you think the human brain topography reconfigures itself after gestation. Of course, everyone know that it doesn't. Well, apparently not everyone.

I do not profess to be an expert on genetics or hold particular strong view on this subject. I do however know enough to know that many that claim knowledge in this area are lacking objectivity. I also know that fraternal twins bear no relationship to these points what so ever since they come from different eggs and are therfore not identical.

Dem has clearly explained why identical twins are not fully identical. You are aware that they can be visually differentiated at birth even though they are genetically identical, though those looks are genetic, are you not? You are aware that one can have a genetic disorder that the other does not even though they are genetically identical, are you not? Sounds like NOT. The point of adding fraternal twins into the mix is that there are other gestational factors that are not choice and related to the genetics of the mother (also considered a genetic influence).

I'm taking the advice of the moderator and will change my style. This is not to your benefit. Furthermore, I'm not changing to your liking but because a moderator asked me to.

Point taken. Wouldn't want anyone to think you adjusted your style due to reasonable requests. It's important to demonstrate that you will only make reasonable adjustments if forced to. I'm sure your bolding has made that abundantly clear to all involved.

There is a difference. Lying, killing, stealing, and adultery are all things you do. Sexuality is a part of who you are.
I'm saying that the act of having sex is a choice. It is something you do. If you want to call homosexuality a mental illness then you can say the condition is uncontrollable. I don't believe it's a mental illness.

I understand that attraction is part of a person's sexuality. But attraction to men, women, children, your mother, animals, fruits and vegetables doesn't necessarily mean you're going to start a sexual relationship with any of them. Attraction (sexuality) is one thing. Having sex - hetero, homo, or bi - is another.

If you don't buy into Judaism or Christianity or other religions that disapprove of homosexuality, then it shouldn't be a conscience issue for you. But while the majority of the population of your country abides by those laws set forth in scripture, then a non-heterosexual lifestyle will continue to be a point of contention in that society. Seems hypocritical to me that people doesn't seem to give a damn about all the adultery going on out there but homosexuality is so much more evil. I guess it's just been an issue of what has been convenient to ignore.

FWIW, I absolutely believe that Christ taught us to love everyone. I believe every person is a child of God and is loved more than we can understand. I believe that happiness is found by abiding by His laws and commandments, and I don't believe we can pick and choose which ones we want to obey.

But we are free to choose our religion or to not have one at all, and we are free to pursue our happiness provided it causes no harm to anyone else or is against the law.

Point taken. Wouldn't want anyone to think you adjusted your style due to reasonable requests. It's important to demonstrate that you will only make reasonable adjustments if forced to. I'm sure your bolding has made that abundantly clear to all involved.
Lol I was thinking the same thing

i think homosexuals need to be educated of the fact that homesexuality is wrong, and if they cannot accept that, to refrain from gay activity.

Not to change the subject, but:

If christianity is supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus, why are the teachings of Paul so much more important to the religion? Most of the beliefs that represent "christianity" are from the Pauline writings and the words of Jesus seem to be largely ignored. If these are the tenets that Jesus wants us to follow, why didn't he say them himself? I'm not trolling, I would just really like to hear an explanation.

Point taken. Wouldn't want anyone to think you adjusted your style due to reasonable requests. It's important to demonstrate that you will only make reasonable adjustments if forced to. I'm sure your bolding has made that abundantly clear to all involved.

I was asked by a moderator who made a reasonable request. You guys didn't make reasonable requests. You wanted me to change my style completely. I just modified the way I post.. avoiding insults.

Argo:

I'm saying that the act of having sex is a choice. It is something you do. If you want to call homosexuality a mental illness then you can say the condition is uncontrollable. I don't believe it's a mental illness.

I don't think anyone is saying that having sex is not a choice. But I have a right to have it and be happy.

I understand that attraction is part of a person's sexuality. But attraction to men, women, children, your mother, animals, fruits and vegetables doesn't necessarily mean you're going to start a sexual relationship with any of them. Attraction (sexuality) is one thing. Having sex - hetero, homo, or bi - is another.

That's quite a list you made there. Pretty insulting I think. There are different kinds of attraction. Sexual attraction is not something you can change. It has nothing to do with children, my mom, animals or fruits and vegetables... now you are going up a slippery slope.

But while the majority of the population of your country abides by those laws set forth in scripture, then a non-heterosexual lifestyle will continue to be a point of contention in that society.

This is not a theocratic country and the majority of the country won't force their religion on me. I have read polls where most in this country are tolerant of gay relationships.

I believe that happiness is found by abiding by His laws and commandments, and I don't believe we can pick and choose which ones we want to obey.

I think I can be happy the way I am and I don't think I would be happy following a book.

i think homosexuals need to be educated of the fact that homesexuality is wrong, and if they cannot accept that, to refrain from gay activity.

OH what a flame. Educated of the fact that homosexuality is wrong? Who says homosexuality is wrong? The bible? I'm atheist, so homosexuality is not wrong and it cannot be substantiated as such.

I'm going to direct this question to you but it is open to anyone to answer. You just have come closest to touching on it.

I was in a debate with a friend about nature vs nurture and all of the possibilities of it. He is a doctor who spends a lot of time researching all kinds of medical issues. He starting bringing up the whole absence of a father theory to address why gay men are homosexual. Supposedly in many studies it is found that a very high percentile of men (I cannot remember the exact number but I recall it being in the nineties) who claim to be homosexual either had a very distant father or had no father figure.

Basically, I am wondering what people's views are on this and how to refute it, since it seems entirely illogical to assume someone's father did it to them.

Nahh don't buy it. My old man disappeared when I was 5. I am very hetro.

One friend dad was around and accepted the fact he was gay. They have a great relationship.

Another friend's dad was a baptist minister who beat the living crap out of him because he was gay.

Mind you my views are my limited world but of the circle of gay people I know they had the same type of families as everybody else. Good, bad, crazy, divorsed, married.........

Is the Doctor a Christian? Father being home seems to be one of their views that will solve everything.

On the matter of nature vs nuture. There was a canadian who after born was the victim of a botched circumcesion. They decided to remove the rest and raise him as a girl. Even though the family nutured him as a daughter, nature still kicked in and he had the aggesive tendancies of a boy.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060192119/qid=1123700681/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-3660793-2533641?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I would give it a read as it will really make you think about the nature vs nuture argument.

i think homosexuals need to be educated of the fact that homesexuality is wrong, and if they cannot accept that, to refrain from gay activity.
Lol silly

If you were here I would lock you in a room with some awsome HOTT MAN ON MAN porn :fluffle: :fluffle:

i think homosexuals need to be educated of the fact that homesexuality is wrong, and if they cannot accept that, to refrain from gay activity.

Yea that will do it. If they don't accept the lessons then we get to bash them right? :rolleyes:

Use it to get rid of religion and then the human race can finally make some damn progress.

Nahh don't buy it. My old man disappeared when I was 5. I am very hetro.

One friend dad was around and accepted the fact he was gay. They have a great relationship.

Another friend's dad was a baptist minister who beat the living crap out of him because he was gay.

Mind you my views are my limited world but of the circle of gay people I know they had the same type of families as everybody else. Good, bad, crazy, divorsed, married.........

Is the Doctor a Christian? Father being home seems to be one of their views that will solve everything.

On the matter of nature vs nuture. There was a canadian who after born was the victim of a botched circumcesion. They decided to remove the rest and raise him as a girl. Even though the family nutured him as a daughter, nature still kicked in and he had the aggesive tendancies of a boy.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060192119/qid=1123700681/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-3660793-2533641?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I would give it a read as it will really make you think about the nature vs nuture argument.


I am unsure about his religion honestly. He isn't an irrational Christian if he is in fact. He uses science to answer scientific questions and the like. But one of his hobbies is to research medical issues and he researched homosexuality at some point and found a bunch of studies on the distant father theory.

I think the idea of nurture turning someone gay is rediculous, personally. It seems that there would be more gay families (multiple gay siblings, etc) if that were the case because the parents would raise them all gay.

That's quite a list you made there. Pretty insulting I think. There are different kinds of attraction. Sexual attraction is not something you can change. It has nothing to do with children, my mom, animals or fruits and vegetables... now you are going up a slippery slope.
How is that insulting? Was it a personal attack on you? No.

People have had sex with everyone and everything on that list, so it's not like I'm throwing it out there just for kicks. People are attracted to different things. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Some people really *like* their animals. Incestuous relationships happen a lot. Okay, maybe the produce section should be under "toys" rather than "things you have relationships with."

i think homosexuals need to be educated of the fact that homesexuality is wrong, and if they cannot accept that, to refrain from gay activity.

I think Christians need to be educated of the fact that Christianity is wrong, and if they cannot accept that, to refrain from Christian activity.

I'm saying that the act of having sex is a choice. It is something you do.

No one is disputing that.

However, again, sexuality is not defined by who you have sex with, it is defined by who you are attracted to. A person can be a virgin and be homo-, hetero-, bi-, or asexual. A person can go through their entire lives without ever having a sexual encounter, but they will still have a sexuality.

If you want to call homosexuality a mental illness then you can say the condition is uncontrollable. I don't believe it's a mental illness.

It isn't a mental illness, but that doesn't make it any less innate.

I understand that attraction is part of a person's sexuality.

Incorrect. Attraction completely defines a person's sexuality.

Attraction (sexuality) is one thing. Having sex - hetero, homo, or bi - is another.

Then why do you keep saying that homosexuality - which is simply attraction to the same sex that cannot be chosen - is a sin?

If you don't buy into Judaism or Christianity or other religions that disapprove of homosexuality, then it shouldn't be a conscience issue for you.

I am a Christian. However, "homosexuality=bad" is not a core value of Christianity. Christ never made any such statement. Paul may have, but that is disputed by scholars and believers alike. Be careful of the generalizations you make.

quote]Seems hypocritical to me that people doesn't seem to give a damn about all the adultery going on out there but homosexuality is so much more evil.[/quote]

Seems pretty odd to me as well.

FWIW, I absolutely believe that Christ taught us to love everyone. I believe every person is a child of God and is loved more than we can understand. I believe that happiness is found by abiding by His laws and commandments, and I don't believe we can pick and choose which ones we want to obey.

I don't think we can pick and choose either, which is why ask God for guidance every day. I don't just take other human beings' word for it, I ask God to guide me directly. And I believe that I receive that guidance.

I think Christians need to be educated of the fact that Christianity is wrong, and if they cannot accept that, to refrain from Christian activity.

Yes, fighting bigotry with more bigotry is really the answer. :rolleyes:

How is that insulting? Was it a personal attack on you? No.

People have had sex with everyone and everything on that list, so it's not like I'm throwing it out there just for kicks. People are attracted to different things. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Some people really *like* their animals. Incestuous relationships happen a lot. Okay, maybe the produce section should be under "toys" rather than "things you have relationships with."

Don't compare me to those people.

Yes, fighting bigotry with more bigotry is really the answer. :rolleyes:
I think it was suposed to be bad sarcasm ... at least thats what I got from it

Though he needed a :rolleyes: or a :p in there or something like "yeah that will really work" to make it funny

So, in your interpretation, only lesbians and bi-sexual men are prohibited?

I think not. It says what it says. And you should try and give thought to those that take heed of your words and are encouraged to continue in their ways that do not lead to a relationship with the Lord.

Who said any such thing? It says it is wrong to act against your nature. Lesbians and bi-sexuals are acting in their nature as well.

I encourage people to create a partnership with the Lord and ask that question of Him. I'm not gay or bi-sexual so I need no such clarification. I don't pretend to be in a position to judge what is and is not acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Only one without sin (without a plank in their eye) may do that. There is only one who fits that bill.

As far as it says what it says. It says that it is wrong to act against what your nature tells you. So EITHER he did not realize that their nature tells them to be gay, thus he was wrong, or he was not saying homosexuality is wrong for homosexuals only for straight men. You can have it either way, but only those two ways fit.

Again, the Bible endorses marrying 11 to 13 year old girls and outlaws sex during menstruation. Aren't you just picking and choosing?


2 Peter 3:14-16

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.


As to acting any way we want…

Ephesians 2 1-5
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Nice passage. It says that we are saved because we will ALWAYS sin. We are saved by grace not by turning away from sin. We attempt to live a life as God would like us to, but we CANNOT ever be free from sin. Only one man was or ever will be. Hopefully, you've struck up a relationship with him. That man is the only one that will ever save anyone and that man is the only person fit to judge them for their sins.

I encourage people to create a partnership with the Lord and ask that question of Him. I'm not gay or bi-sexual so I need no such clarification. I don't pretend to be in a position to judge what is and is not acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. Only one without sin (without a plank in their eye) may do that. There is only one who fits that bill.

Well I'm going to stick to being atheist existentialist... religion doesn't appeal to me.

Just to be absolutely clear, this is not entirely accurate. Fraternal twins are defined by developing from separate zygotes - that is, a separate egg and sperm pair, not by getting different hormones. Fraternal twins could occur even if both twins received the exact same hormones from the mother.

I recognize this. My point was that developing in the same womb does not make the gestational influence identical. Fraternal twins were the example I used because they can be a male and a female so the difference in hormones received during gestation is obvious.

Of course, you are right that they do not necessarily receive the same hormones. We are talking about things that would exist in a gradient, either in the womb or in the bloodstream. Even in identical twins, there are sometimes two separate placentas. Where there are not, "parasitic twins" sometimes develop where one twin is getting the majority of the blood flow and the other is getting little. This can happen on a small scale - which would be hard to measure, or on a large scale - which can result in one twin dying soon after birth.

Yes, that was the point I was making.

Yes, fighting bigotry with more bigotry is really the answer. :rolleyes:

Well since we are arguing about religion, morality, and bigotry; why not at sexism?

Demp could you run out and get us all some coffee? :p

I recognize this. My point was that developing in the same womb does not make the gestational influence identical. Fraternal twins were the example I used because they can be a male and a female so the difference in hormones received during gestation is obvious.

And that is where you made an incorrect statement. Biological sex is not determined by the hormones received from the mother during gestation - it is determined by the sex chromosome received from the sperm. Fraternal twins are not sometimes opposite sexes because of any difference in hormones received from the mother - they are opposite sexes because one of them got an X chromosome and one of them got a Y chromosome.

Hormones received from the mother certainly affect development, but nothing has been shown that suggests that maternal hormones can make an XX zygote become male or an XY zygote become female.

Interestingly, it is possible, but unlikely, for identical twins to be opposite sexes. If the original sperm carries a Y chromosome, and the zygote begins as XY and then splits into two embryos, one of the embryos can have an improper division that leads to the majority of cells being XO, resulting in a male and female who are technically identical twins.

I'm not normally one of the people around here that say 'links' please or any other veiled attempt like that which is really just trying to 'call someone out,' but I've seen you mention this a few different times now, and I haven't run across anything like that. At least nothing that makes it sound as strongly as you do by any stretch of the imagination.

I would not assume that to be true, but not without merit either, with the preponderance of things like cervical cancer in lesbian women (suggesting the possibility that their bodies don't produce the same hormones during puberty as other girls bodies do, for example). And on the other hand, I can't say as I've seen anything that made me believe that a one year old and two year old (for example) are any more susceptible to changes in their sexual orientation later in life than a four year old is (or is not).

How would such a study be accomplished anyway?

The variance in hormones during puberty are often a result of the same differences that lead to sexuality. I'm pretty sure you've seen me explain this before, but the topography of the brain is a spectrum from extremely feminine to extremely masculine (for lack of better terms). In a female with a majoritively masculine brain she is interested in women but still might have mostly normal bodily hormones. However, in the more extreme cases women's glands receive different signals than they should causing them to physically develop different during puberty. This can manifest itself in a number of ways, from the stereotypical 'butch' lesbian (which is not as frequent as people think) to diseases that can be attributed to the after-affects of hormones during puberty.

And that is where you made an incorrect statement. Biological sex is not determined by the hormones received from the mother during gestation - it is determined by the sex chromosome received from the sperm. Fraternal twins are not sometimes opposite sexes because of any difference in hormones received from the mother - they are opposite sexes because one of them got an X chromosome and one of them got a Y chromosome.

Genetic sex is determine by the genes. The physical manifestation of it is determined by hormones received. All babies start out as women, regardless of the sex chromosomes, and become male (genitals) through hormones. This is why you can have a chromosomal sex of female but have male genitalia. I know you know all this, but I was obviously not clear in my post, so I'm clarifying now. I was referring to the genitalia not the chromosomes as we know are set from conception.

Hormones received from the mother certainly affect development, but nothing has been shown that suggests that maternal hormones can make an XX zygote become male or an XY zygote become female.

It does change the chromosomes which I know is a major point you like to make as you don't like for sex to be defined by the genitalia we're born with alone.

Interestingly, it is possible, but unlikely, for identical twins to be opposite sexes. If the original sperm carries a Y chromosome, and the zygote begins as XY and then splits into two embryos, one of the embryos can have an improper division that leads to the majority of cells being XO, resulting in a male and female who are technically identical twins.

I think I've heard of this before, but it's still interesting to read it again.

Again it is called recessive traits. If you cannot understanding please leave this thread. Genetics plays the biggest part. You're nothing more then a troll. And you should be regarded as such.
Wow, if you are this hostile to homophobia, being a member of the US Republican Party must be a nightmare for you.

Ok I have to ask. WHO in there right mind , or left, thinks to themselves, "Hmm, I think I will join the minority that is hated by most major religions and the state. That sounds like a whole lot of fun."

Please tell me. I would Love to know. :headbang:

Wow, if you are this hostile to homophobia, being a member of the US Republican Party must be a nightmare for you.

Why do people keep making this statement to taunt him? We're have a nice conversation and you've got to rile him all up. *wags finger*

Genetic sex is determine by the genes. The physical manifestation of it is determined by hormones received.

Most of those hormones, however, are not received from the mother.

The mother does not have a discernible difference in hormone levels when she is carrying a male vs. a female fetus. If she did, we would have a surefire way to determine sex ahead of time.

Most of the hormones that influence male v. female development are produced by the fetal cells. On top of that, the fetal cells will respond to the exact same hormones differently depending on which sex chromosomes they have.

Again, the mother's hormones can certainly affect development, and seem to be able to affect how masculine or feminine a person becomes. However, there are no known data that would support the idea that the hormones in the mother's system determine biological sex - determined by chromosomes or by genetalia.

All babies start out as women, regardless of the sex chromosomes, and become male (genitals) through hormones.

It isn't technically correct to say that all babies start out as female. By default, the cells with XY chromosomes react to the same hormones differently than cells with XX chromosomes. This is due to the genes on the Y chromosome inducing different gene expression.

This is why you can have a chromosomal sex of female but have male genitalia.

Actually, I have never heard of this happening. You cannot have XX and develop male genitalia (at least not in any documented sources I have seen). The biological mechanisms simply aren't present in the fetus without the specific genes on the Y chromosome. You can have an enlarged clitoris, but will still have a vagina, uterus, etc.

It is possible to be XY, but have female genitalia. However, this has nothing to do with levels of hormones from the mother. A person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) receives the same hormones as any other developing fetus. However, their androgen receptors are formed incorrectly. For this reason, their cells cannot react to testosterone and other androgens in the manner that is necessary for male development - and they develop by default as female.


Edit: In the end, when we talk about maternal hormones affecting the development of the brain, etc., we are talking about *gender* development, not *sex* development.

My stance is, and always has been, that sexuality is determined by both genetic AND environmental factors (nature and nurture) - though in what percentages I wouldn't care to guess. It would vary widely between individuals.

Most of those hormones, however, are not received from the mother.

The mother does not have a discernible difference in hormone levels when she is carrying a male vs. a female fetus. If she did, we would have a surefire way to determine sex ahead of time.

Most of the hormones that influence male v. female development are produced by the fetal cells. On top of that, the fetal cells will respond to the exact same hormones differently depending on which sex chromosomes they have.

Again, the mother's hormones can certainly affect development, and seem to be able to affect how masculine or feminine a person becomes. However, there are no known data that would support the idea that the hormones in the mother's system determine biological sex - determined by chromosomes or by genetalia.

It isn't technically correct to say that all babies start out as female. By default, the cells with XY chromosomes react to the same hormones differently than cells with XX chromosomes. This is due to the genes on the Y chromosome inducing different gene expression.

Actually, I have never heard of this happening. You cannot have XX and develop male genitalia (at least not in any documented sources I have seen). The biological mechanisms simply aren't present in the fetus without the specific genes on the Y chromosome. You can have an enlarged clitoris, but will still have a vagina, uterus, etc.

It is possible to be XY, but have female genitalia. However, this has nothing to do with levels of hormones from the mother. A person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) receives the same hormones as any other developing fetus. However, their androgen receptors are formed incorrectly. For this reason, their cells cannot react to testosterone and other androgens in the manner that is necessary for male development - and they develop by default as female.


Edit: In the end, when we talk about maternal hormones affecting the development of the brain, etc., we are talking about *gender* development, not *sex* development.

Admittedly, my studies have been focused on development of the brain and only a cursory introduction to the physical development of genitalia. I'll consider myself enlightened. The bolded part above is what I meant when I said we all start as female. The same is true of the brain. Studies of development I've read suggest that initial development resembles female genitalia and brain topography and then during gestation they change and become fully-development sexed organs and brains. Unlike organs, brain development is more complex and within completely healthy populations exist on a spectrum.

I've always been far more interesting in the development of the brain and the nature of intelligence. The effects on sexuality and the related effects on the body (during puberty) are just points that I came across during my studies. Given the understood nature of the brain today it's pretty much impossible to avoid sexuality in the study of the brain.

I think the idea of nurture turning someone gay is rediculous, personally. It seems that there would be more gay families (multiple gay siblings, etc) if that were the case because the parents would raise them all gay.

Me and my two sisters are gay (we call my one straight sister the black sheep)

If it was genetic for me to be gay would that translate to my sisters too (presuming we got the same genes), or would it make them more straight?

Or is it a nurture thing?

(i personally think its both but there ya go)

There has been found a genetic predispostion towards things such as alcoholism and vilonce which can indeed be described as sinful.

Just because a genetic predisposition is found for something, does not make said behavior pattern any less sinful. And yes we are talking about Christianity, since everyone in the first page saw fit to say that they thought if homosexuality was genetic then Christians have been proven wrong.

When you learn the importance of relevancy in debating I'll engage you further but prepare for pwnage. :p

Me and my two sisters are gay (we call my one straight sister the black sheep)

If it was genetic for me to be gay would that translate to my sisters too (presuming we got the same genes), or would it make them more straight?

Or is it a nurture thing?

(i personally think its both but there ya go)

No it don't work that way. For example my wife and I carriers of the CF gene. If we have children, there is a 25% chance it will not have the disease, 50% chance to be a carrier, and 25% it will have the disease.

One daughter had the disease and the other is free or is a carrier.....

It isn't technically correct to say that all babies start out as female. By default, the cells with XY chromosomes react to the same hormones differently than cells with XX chromosomes. This is due to the genes on the Y chromosome inducing different gene expression.

By the way, I met a woman who SWORE up and down the men were XX and women were XY in a bar on Saturday night. I started laughing and bet her my tab versus hers and her husband's. The proof went like this.

Me: "Do men or women decide the sex of the baby?" (Yes, a simplification.)
Her: "Men."
Me: "If they have no Y chromosome how do they do this?"
Her: "Dammit. How big is your tab?"

I swear that is pretty much the most reasonable conversation I've ever had.

No it don't work that way. For example my wife and I carriers of the CF gene. If we have children, there is a 25% chance it will not have the disease, 50% chance to be a carrier, and 25% it will have the disease.

One daughter had the disease and the other is free or is a carrier.....

It's important to note that each child is like a coin toss. The result of the previous toss (pun intended) has not bearing on the result of the next toss. Just because it's 25% chance doesn't mean that if you have four children that one will have it, one will not and two will be carriers. This is a major sticking point for many people when looking at genetics.

Romans 1:26-27 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

However, I think this again necessitates context that he is talking about heterosexual men who abandon the relations natural to them for those unnatural to them.

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

incest
rape
adultery
intercourse with animals
But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:
intercourse during menstruation
celibacy
exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
naming sexual organs
nudity (under certain conditions)
masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not
Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:
prostitution
polygamy
levirate marriage
sex with slaves
concubinage
treatment of women as property
very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

This has to be the best thread on the subject I've read so far. Thanks for the good read (and reason) Jocabia! :)

Am I the only one here who is willing to admit (or understands) that there isn't enough evidence yet to support or refute the genetic origin for homosexuality?

:confused:

Am I the only one here who is willing to admit (or understands) that there isn't enough evidence yet to support or refute the genetic origin for homosexuality?

:confused:

There is a LOT of evidence to support that sexuality is not a choice and is decided very early in development (for the most part before you are born). Whether that is completely genetic or there are other non-genetice gestational factors is a topic of debate.

It's important to note that each child is like a coin toss. The result of the previous toss (pun intended) has not bearing on the result of the next toss. Just because it's 25% chance doesn't mean that if you have four children that one will have it, one will not and two will be carriers. This is a major sticking point for many people when looking at genetics.


Ahh thank you. Made an assumption and should have clarified..... :)

There is a LOT of evidence to support that sexuality is not a choice and is decided very early in development (for the most part before you are born). Whether that is completely genetic or there are other non-genetice gestational factors is a topic of debate.
I'm with you on the "it's not a choice" bandwagon. To me, that's just obvious.

I'm just stating that the current evidence to support or refute a genetic cause is less than without-a-doubt empirical.
I'm seeing a large amount of faith as a basis for both side's arguments. To me, whether it is genetics, environment, choice, whatever-- It makes no difference.
All of these factors can be argued as a defense or attack of homosexuality, depending on the interpretation of the "evidence" involved.

To me, it doesn't matter which factor (or factors) determine sexual orientation. Regardless, the sexual activities of consenting adults is nobody's business but their own.

From a scientific perspective, it is interesting to debate whether or not homosexuality is genetic. Unfortunately, most of us lack enough knowledge of genetics to debate the matter intelligently.

From a political perspective, I think it shouldn't make any difference whether homosexuality is chosen or genetically predetermind. 2 adults can engage in homosexuality without having any sort of effect on anyone else in the world, therefore homosexuality should be perfectly welcome in any free society.

What if all geneticists are homosexual?

There is a LOT of evidence to support that sexuality is not a choice and is decided very early in development (for the most part before you are born). Whether that is completely genetic or there are other non-genetice gestational factors is a topic of debate.
I dont think the majority of people questioning the 100% genetic option are saying it's a choice, but that environment plays a part as well as genetics.

Heck, I think even most people who say it is 0% genetic and 100% environmental would agree that it still isn't a concious choice...(except the loony religious right, that is) :p

Ok I have to ask. WHO in there right mind , or left, thinks to themselves, "Hmm, I think I will join the minority that is hated by most major religions and the state. That sounds like a whole lot of fun."

Please tell me. I would Love to know. :headbang:

Obviously, no one in his or her right mind would make such a choice, but I believe it is also equally obvious that there are plenty of people who are just plain freaking crazy. Who in their right mind would think "Hmm, I think I'm going to try smoking crack cocaine today, even though it is highly addictive and frequently kills people"? Who in their right mind would would think "Hmm, I think I'm going to be a Scientologist. That really seems to be working out well for Tom Cruise. I'm sure I'll be able to score with a hot, young Hollywood starlet after I become a Scientologist"?

Crazy people do crazy things. As far as I can tell, there is no shortage of crazy in the GLBT community(ies).

Jocabia, the condemnation of homosexuals is rather clear-cut and self-evident. Many liberal Christians would love to discount the Levitical laws and the teachings of Paul, yet their accusations have less evidence supporting them than there is supporting the notion that homosexual acts are sinful. First, though, as I begin this debate on homosexuality and Christianity, I will dispel a myth regarding the meaning of "strange flesh":


From http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2596

Some defenders of homosexuality maintain that Jude condemned the men of Sodom—not for their homosexuality—but because they sought to have sexual relations with angels. They base this claim on the use of the expression “strange flesh”: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7, emp. added). The reasoning is that the men of Sodom were guilty of desiring sexual relations with the angelic visitors (Genesis 19:1-5). However, several problems are inherent in this interpretation.

THE MEANING OF “STRANGE”

In the first place, the English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315). Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.

It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term:

The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added).

So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.

Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”

Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).

Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533). Jamieson, et al., defined “going after strange flesh” as “departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural” (n.d., p. 544). Schneider said the expression “denotes licentious living” (1964, 2:676; cf. Hauck, 1967, 4:646; Seesemann, 1967, 5:292). Macknight said: “They committed the unnatural crime which hath taken its name from them” (n.d., p. 693). Mayor explained, “the forbidden flesh (literally ‘other than that appointed by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).

The frequent allusion to “nature” and “unnatural” by scholars must not be taken to mean “beyond nature” in the sense of beyond human, and thereby somehow a reference to angels. The same scholars frequently clarify their meaning in unmistakable terms. For example, after defining “strange flesh” as unnatural, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown add: “In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame” (n.d., p. 544). Alford, likewise, added: “The sin of Sodom was afterwards common in the most enlightened nations of antiquity” (4:533). It is neither without significance nor coincidental that these Bible scholars focus on forms of the word “natural,” in view of the fact that Scripture elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is “against nature” (Romans 1:26-27) or unnatural—i.e., out of harmony with the original arrangement of nature by God at the Creation (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6).

CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS

In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”? And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!

Additionally, the men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. That is precisely why the angels were sent to Sodom—to survey the moral landscape (Genesis 18:21) and urge Lot and his family to flee the city (Genesis 18:23; 19:12-13,15-16). The men of Sodom were pronounced by God as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” back at the time Lot made the decision to move to Sodom (Genesis 13:13). Lenski called attention to the Aorist participles used in Jude 7 (i.e., “having given themselves over” and “going after”) as further proof of this fact: “An appeal to Gen. 19:4, etc., will not answer this question, for this occurred [i.e., the Sodomites descending on Lot’s house—DM] when the cup of fornications was already full, when Jude’s two aorist participles had already become facts, on the day before God’s doom descended” (1966, p. 624).

One final point likewise discounts the claim that the men of Sodom were lusting after angel flesh. The men of Sodom did not know that the two individuals visiting Lot were angels. They had the appearance of “men” (Genesis 18:2,16,22; 19:1,5,8,10,12,16), whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3). The men of Sodom could not have been guilty of desiring to have sexual relations with angels, since they could not have known the men were angels. Even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females.

An honest and objective appraisal of Jude 7 provides no support for the homosexual cause. The Bible consistently treats homosexual behavior as sinful.

Jocabia, the condemnation of homosexuals is rather clear-cut and self-evident. Many liberal Christians would love to discount the Levitical laws and the teachings of Paul, yet their accusations have less evidence supporting them than there is supporting the notion that homosexual acts are sinful. First, though, as I begin this debate on homosexuality and Christianity, I will dispel a myth regarding the meaning of "strange flesh":


From http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2596

Some defenders of homosexuality maintain that Jude condemned the men of Sodom—not for their homosexuality—but because they sought to have sexual relations with angels. They base this claim on the use of the expression “strange flesh”: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7, emp. added). The reasoning is that the men of Sodom were guilty of desiring sexual relations with the angelic visitors (Genesis 19:1-5). However, several problems are inherent in this interpretation.

THE MEANING OF “STRANGE”

In the first place, the English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315). Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.

It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term:

The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added).

So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.

Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”

Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).

Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533). Jamieson, et al., defined “going after strange flesh” as “departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural” (n.d., p. 544). Schneider said the expression “denotes licentious living” (1964, 2:676; cf. Hauck, 1967, 4:646; Seesemann, 1967, 5:292). Macknight said: “They committed the unnatural crime which hath taken its name from them” (n.d., p. 693). Mayor explained, “the forbidden flesh (literally ‘other than that appointed by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).

The frequent allusion to “nature” and “unnatural” by scholars must not be taken to mean “beyond nature” in the sense of beyond human, and thereby somehow a reference to angels. The same scholars frequently clarify their meaning in unmistakable terms. For example, after defining “strange flesh” as unnatural, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown add: “In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame” (n.d., p. 544). Alford, likewise, added: “The sin of Sodom was afterwards common in the most enlightened nations of antiquity” (4:533). It is neither without significance nor coincidental that these Bible scholars focus on forms of the word “natural,” in view of the fact that Scripture elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is “against nature” (Romans 1:26-27) or unnatural—i.e., out of harmony with the original arrangement of nature by God at the Creation (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6).

CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS

In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”? And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!

Additionally, the men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. That is precisely why the angels were sent to Sodom—to survey the moral landscape (Genesis 18:21) and urge Lot and his family to flee the city (Genesis 18:23; 19:12-13,15-16). The men of Sodom were pronounced by God as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” back at the time Lot made the decision to move to Sodom (Genesis 13:13). Lenski called attention to the Aorist participles used in Jude 7 (i.e., “having given themselves over” and “going after”) as further proof of this fact: “An appeal to Gen. 19:4, etc., will not answer this question, for this occurred [i.e., the Sodomites descending on Lot’s house—DM] when the cup of fornications was already full, when Jude’s two aorist participles had already become facts, on the day before God’s doom descended” (1966, p. 624).

One final point likewise discounts the claim that the men of Sodom were lusting after angel flesh. The men of Sodom did not know that the two individuals visiting Lot were angels. They had the appearance of “men” (Genesis 18:2,16,22; 19:1,5,8,10,12,16), whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3). The men of Sodom could not have been guilty of desiring to have sexual relations with angels, since they could not have known the men were angels. Even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females.

An honest and objective appraisal of Jude 7 provides no support for the homosexual cause. The Bible consistently treats homosexual behavior as sinful.
Neo, I don't know you well enough to assume much, but I'm beginning to think you do not have the creative faculties necessary to generate a single unique thought of your own. You post these pseudointellectual articles as if they were indicative of something other than inerpretation.

I should just post opinion articles from editorial spots in national newspapers to respond. With all of this bible study you claim to have comitted, why don't you introduce your own ideas on the subjects in question?

Most likely, you haven't spent nearly as much time studying the bible as you have reading people's opinions on it. :p :p :p

Wow, I could totally get into some angel sex! That would be wild!

Neo, I don't know you well enough to assume much, but I'm beginning to think you do not have the creative faculties necessary to generate a single unique thought of your own. You post these pseudointellectual articles as if they were indicative of something other than inerpretation.

I should just post opinion articles from editorial spots in national newspapers to respond. With all of this bible study you claim to have comitted, why don't you introduce your own ideas on the subjects in question?

Most likely, you haven't spent nearly as much time studying the bible as you have reading people's opinions on it. :p :p :p



No, I'm just pressed for time right now and naturally lazy anyway ;)

Well, one of these days I'd like to see what you think about a topic in detail, instead of someone else's thoughts being copied or rewritten.

I can't really get to know you if you're posting other people's words, and co-opting their efforts and hard work.

I fail to see why government is so interested in who its citizens sleep with at night. It it is two consenting adults, from government's perspective, l say leave it be. Genetic research shows promise for being able to eliminate birth defects, so the research should be continued. As always this is American if you believe a form of medical treatment is immoral than don't use it, it doesn't mean you get to decide for everyone else whether or not its okay.

I fail to see why government is so interested in who its citizens sleep with at night. It it is two consenting adults, from government's perspective, l say leave it be. Genetic research shows promise for being able to eliminate birth defects, so the research should be continued. As always this is American if you believe a form of medical treatment is immoral than don't use it, it doesn't mean you get to decide for everyone else whether or not its okay.



The entire branch of ethical philosophy tends to disagree with that statement ;)

The entire branch of ethical philosophy tends to disagree with that statement ;)

Now, now. Let's not imagine for one second that any branch of philosophy, whether it be in ontology, epistemology or ethics, is actually a unified whole which presents an agreed upon and set in stone list of conclusions. Certainly there may be some philosophers working within the field which would agree with you here, but there are also many that wouldn't.

The entire branch of ethical philosophy tends to disagree with that statement ;)
The entire branch? I admit that it has been a few years since I last took a philosophy course but I DO remember a number of them stating the same thing as Justianen.

Oh... wait... wait. I am getting a vision. And in this vision, I see you typing at me that ONLY Christian philosophers, or rather Christian philosophers that happen to agree with you are truely ethical philosophers; the rest are just hacks.

Am I right?

The entire branch of ethical philosophy tends to disagree with that statement ;)
Obviously, you haven't read much on political or ethical philosophy that is based on a nontheological foundation.
I already hear you saying that they aren't eithical in that case. :rolleyes:

Jocabia, the condemnation of homosexuals is rather clear-cut and self-evident. Many liberal Christians would love to discount the Levitical laws and the teachings of Paul, yet their accusations have less evidence supporting them than there is supporting the notion that homosexual acts are sinful. First, though, as I begin this debate on homosexuality and Christianity, I will dispel a myth regarding the meaning of "strange flesh":


From http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2596

*snip*

I guess the 10 righteous men from Gen 18 really meant find me 10 hetros?

Looking around that site I would probably say it's rather arch-conservative.

I especially liked the evolution book.

Obviously, you haven't read much on political or ethical philosophy that is based on a nontheological basis. ;)



I was referring to his last statement, which, indeed, is a hotbed for ethical contingents. I will cite three examples of heated controversy: First, the Baby Theresa incident, which involved the argument that we should not use individuals as means to the benefits of other persons, especially without their consent. Second, the Jodie and Mary incident, involving conjoined twins, and the argument that it is not right to kill another individual for the sake of one (i.e. the sanctity of life). Finally, the Tracy Latimer incident, which dealt with the argument of the wrongness of discriminating against the handicapped. All are similar to what he was implying.

I guess the 10 righteous men from Gen 18 really meant find me 10 hetros?

Looking around that site I would probably say it's rather arch-conservative.

I especially liked the evolution book.



I wouldn't exactly discredit the apologetics press when it comes to the issue of biblical interpretations and accuracy. After all, apologists are far more insightful than either of us could hope to be; they are biblical scholars.

After all, apologists are far more insightful than either of us could hope to be; they are biblical scholars.

Does the term 'appeal to authority' in the context of logic mean anything to you?*






* hint: it is often used in connection with the term 'logical fallacy'.

I wouldn't exactly discredit the apologetics press when it comes to the issue of biblical interpretations and accuracy. After all, apologists are far more insightful than either of us could hope to be; they are biblical scholars.

And yet the article implies that the four cities were destroyed solely for homosexuality. He did sidestep the 10 righteous men comment.....

Bible scholars can have agendas as well.....

Does the term 'appeal to authority' in the context of logic mean anything to you?*






* hint: it is often used in connection with the term 'logical fallacy'.
Excellent point, Grampus.

Excellent point, Grampus.

Indeed Grampus! :)

What is this? 'Be nice to Grampus day'?

Off Topic Warning:

Neo, I can't help but wonder what you look like. Why don't you have a pic posted in the NS Player Pics thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412572)?
You must be the only female here who hasn't posted one.

What is this? 'Be nice to Grampus day'?
Would you prefer we insult you instead?

Wow, if you are this hostile to homophobia, being a member of the US Republican Party must be a nightmare for you.

You have to keep banging your head against the wall and making that statement? How many more times you have to make it? It is just wrong. If you can't understand what being registered as non-partisan means then you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Since you have apparent problems in reading my posts, you would know I'm actually not a member of either party.

While you assault my character, neo continues copying and pasting without any opinion of his own... and continues to attack gay people as immoral. His religion teaches him not to judge, and he does it all the time. He doesn't provide any opinion of his own, but rather lets others do the talking for him. He purports that interpretations he posts are the truth, when in reality there are many interpretations for the bible.

You have to keep banging your head against the wall and making that statement? How many more times you have to make it? It is just wrong. If you can't understand what being registered as non-partisan means then you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Since you have apparent problems in reading my posts, you would know I'm actually not a member of either party.

While you assault my character, neo continues copying and pasting without any opinion of his own... and continues to attack gay people as immoral. His religion teaches him not to judge, and he does it all the time. He doesn't provide any opinion of his own, but rather lets others do the talking for him. He purports that interpretations he posts are the truth, when in reality there are many interpretations for the bible.

Neo is a she......

Neo is a she......

I can't happen to remember the gender of everyone on here, nor do I care. In essence, stop nit-picking and lets get the issues.

Jocabia, the condemnation of homosexuals is rather clear-cut and self-evident. Many liberal Christians would love to discount the Levitical laws and the teachings of Paul, yet their accusations have less evidence supporting them than there is supporting the notion that homosexual acts are sinful. First, though, as I begin this debate on homosexuality and Christianity, I will dispel a myth regarding the meaning of "strange flesh":


From http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2596

Some defenders of homosexuality maintain that Jude condemned the men of Sodom—not for their homosexuality—but because they sought to have sexual relations with angels. They base this claim on the use of the expression “strange flesh”: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7, emp. added). The reasoning is that the men of Sodom were guilty of desiring sexual relations with the angelic visitors (Genesis 19:1-5). However, several problems are inherent in this interpretation.

THE MEANING OF “STRANGE”

In the first place, the English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315). Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.

It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term:

The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added).

So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.

Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”

Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).

Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533). Jamieson, et al., defined “going after strange flesh” as “departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural” (n.d., p. 544). Schneider said the expression “denotes licentious living” (1964, 2:676; cf. Hauck, 1967, 4:646; Seesemann, 1967, 5:292). Macknight said: “They committed the unnatural crime which hath taken its name from them” (n.d., p. 693). Mayor explained, “the forbidden flesh (literally ‘other than that appointed by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).

The frequent allusion to “nature” and “unnatural” by scholars must not be taken to mean “beyond nature” in the sense of beyond human, and thereby somehow a reference to angels. The same scholars frequently clarify their meaning in unmistakable terms. For example, after defining “strange flesh” as unnatural, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown add: “In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame” (n.d., p. 544). Alford, likewise, added: “The sin of Sodom was afterwards common in the most enlightened nations of antiquity” (4:533). It is neither without significance nor coincidental that these Bible scholars focus on forms of the word “natural,” in view of the fact that Scripture elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is “against nature” (Romans 1:26-27) or unnatural—i.e., out of harmony with the original arrangement of nature by God at the Creation (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6).

CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS

In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”? And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!

Additionally, the men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. That is precisely why the angels were sent to Sodom—to survey the moral landscape (Genesis 18:21) and urge Lot and his family to flee the city (Genesis 18:23; 19:12-13,15-16). The men of Sodom were pronounced by God as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” back at the time Lot made the decision to move to Sodom (Genesis 13:13). Lenski called attention to the Aorist participles used in Jude 7 (i.e., “having given themselves over” and “going after”) as further proof of this fact: “An appeal to Gen. 19:4, etc., will not answer this question, for this occurred [i.e., the Sodomites descending on Lot’s house—DM] when the cup of fornications was already full, when Jude’s two aorist participles had already become facts, on the day before God’s doom descended” (1966, p. 624).

One final point likewise discounts the claim that the men of Sodom were lusting after angel flesh. The men of Sodom did not know that the two individuals visiting Lot were angels. They had the appearance of “men” (Genesis 18:2,16,22; 19:1,5,8,10,12,16), whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3). The men of Sodom could not have been guilty of desiring to have sexual relations with angels, since they could not have known the men were angels. Even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females.

An honest and objective appraisal of Jude 7 provides no support for the homosexual cause. The Bible consistently treats homosexual behavior as sinful.

First of all, I've totally squashed the source several times in other threads. I'm not interested in doing it again but feel free to search for this link and my name and you'll find it. Second of all, my link already explained all of these references. Your link is completely spurious. S and G was not in ANY way shape or form about homosexuality. It was about prostitiution if anything. Leviticus also suggests you should kill people for sin. Do you suggest this should still be held? The Bible outlaws approaching a woman when she is on her period. It outlaws spilling seed. Thus anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, hand manipulation and birth control are all sins, but only for men. Shall I go on? More importantly, Jesus lifted these laws. They are to be held no longer. Jesus replaced them. You're going to have to do some real work to convince me that it's otherwise.

Neo says that levitical law was not lifted. Let's look at what levitical law entails.

Leviticus 25: 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Hey, look we can own slaves.

Leviticus 4: 3 " 'If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. 4 He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORD.

Ok, looks like we're slaughtering bulls again. Don't worry sheep and birds aren't far behind (in fact, they come earlier in the book).

Leviticus 19:27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

No haircuts.

Leviticus 19:26 " 'Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

No meat with blood in it.

Shall I find some more laws?

Leviticus 11:10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

No fish. No shellfish.

Leviticus 19:19 " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Wow, no cotton/polyester blends.

I better get started holding to levitical law. Anyone have a bull I can borrow?

Neo says that levitical law was not lifted. Let's look at what levitical law entails.


That's because Jesus said it's ok to do those things. You know? Jeee-sus!!!


I better get started holding to levitical law. Anyone have a bull I can borrow?

Why buy and feed when you can sit and read, chapter for chapter verse for verse.

That's because Jesus said it's ok to do those things. You know? Jeee-sus!!!




Why buy and feed when you can sit and read, chapter for chapter verse for verse.

What do you know, someone's paying attention. Who'd have thunk it?

Neo seems to think Christianity means you listen to Jesus unless you think some of the laws he lifted are better kept because 'those people are icky'. I tend to accept that Jesus was right regardless of what my personal feelings on a group of people is.

I asked this earlier in the thread, but nobody answered, so I'll ask it again.

Why does Paul get to decide what Christians believe? Why are things he wrote in letters, giving his opinion on things (which was often colored, it seems, by fundamentalist Judaism) matter when it comes to the end all and be all of what christians believe? Why don't the words of Jesus, for example the ones about giving everything away and following Jesus, get precedence over Paul telling us that homos are cursed? Is it just because it is easier to condemn gay people (when you aren't gay, and therefore don't have to concern yourself) than it is to live a life of poverty in service of Jesus?

As far as it says what it says. It says that it is wrong to act against what your nature tells you. So EITHER he did not realize that their nature tells them to be gay, thus he was wrong, or he was not saying homosexuality is wrong for homosexuals only for straight men. You can have it either way, but only those two ways fit.


It says no such thing as you try to twist it into... You try so hard to make it say something that it does not say. But fine, I think the various interpretations of the passages can speak for themselves of their intent.

Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And 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, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)

26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (C)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Romans 1:26-27 (Amplified Bible)

26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

Romans 1:26-27 (New Living Translation)

26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:26-27 (New Revised Standard Version)

26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

To suggest that the scripture says something other than what it actually says is wrong. Period. Find a different argument, flatly lying to people about what it says is wrong (no matter how strongly you want it to say something other than what it does).

First of all, I've totally squashed the source several times in other threads. I'm not interested in doing it again but feel free to search for this link and my name and you'll find it. Second of all, my link already explained all of these references. Your link is completely spurious. S and G was not in ANY way shape or form about homosexuality. It was about prostitiution if anything. Leviticus also suggests you should kill people for sin. Do you suggest this should still be held? The Bible outlaws approaching a woman when she is on her period. It outlaws spilling seed. Thus anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, hand manipulation and birth control are all sins, but only for men. Shall I go on? More importantly, Jesus lifted these laws. They are to be held no longer. Jesus replaced them. You're going to have to do some real work to convince me that it's otherwise.



Liar, Sodom and Gomorrha were about homosexuality in addition to prostitution, rape, and other aforementioned abominations. I just showed you how the original text's words for strange flesh described same-sex acts, yet you deny the evidence presented right to you. Perhaps a little less heresy, and a little more intellectual honesty is in order: get over it, homosexual is clearly depicted in Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. No matter how much the uber-liberal churches try to discredit it, the apologists shoot down all of their claims aptly. The very languages you claim support your case, in reality, support mine. There's a reason the homosexuals go the route of claiming the customs are outdated instead of claiming the customs did not forbid it in the first place: Because they did. I consulted with my preacher tonight who has spent his entire life studying Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and guess what: He showed how your claims are a bunch of bologna.

Go ahead, call me a judgemental bigot: You're only heaping damnation upon yourself by refusing to stand up for Christ. I think this little excerpt from an article I'm reading describes your attitude:


"Unfortunately, the success of the homosexual movement in this area has resulted in numerous Christians remaining silent, for fear of being labeled as hatemongers—or worse. Some Christians seem to have forgotten the words of the Savior:


Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake (Matthew 5:10-11). "



Oh, and another thing: the Bible clearly states marriage is between a man and a woman. It never mentions the homosexual union as sacred like it does the heterosexual union....in fact, it never even mentions a homosexual union, because homosexuality is already condemned several times. Before you pounce upon me for being an adherent to Levitical customs, remember: Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians.

To suggest that the scripture says something other than what it actually says is wrong. Period. Find an a different argument, flatly lying to people about what it says is wrong.

And what about lying about what it means?

What do you know, someone's paying attention. Who'd have thunk it?

Neo seems to think Christianity means you listen to Jesus unless you think some of the laws he lifted are better kept because 'those people are icky'. I tend to accept that Jesus was right regardless of what my personal feelings on a group of people is.


False, you don't accept Jesus at all. If you did, you would heed the instructions of his ordained apostles, yet you let your own will cloud your judgement.

It says no such thing as you try to twist it into... You try so hard to make it say something that it does not say. But fine, I think the various interpretations of the passages can speak for themselves of their intent.

Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And 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, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)

26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (C)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Romans 1:26-27 (Amplified Bible)

26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

Romans 1:26-27 (New Living Translation)

26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:26-27 (New Revised Standard Version)

26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

To suggest that the scripture says something other than what it actually says is wrong. Period. Find an a different argument, flatly lying to people about what it says is wrong.

Thank you for making my point. It says very clearly that it is wrong for man to leave the natural use of a woman. If that use is not natural to that man, if he is homosexual then either it does not apply or Paul was wrong to assume it is natural to all men. Which would you like to interpret it as?

I'm not lying about what it says. I posted it. People are free to read it in the context it was written. The text is plainly based on heterosexual acts being the only natural acts, an idea which has thoroughly been disproven. So either Paul was wrong or the translation you are making is. Either way, it doesn't hold. Jesus offered up no such law. I don't hold Paul above Jesus. I recommend you don't.

snip

To suggest that the scripture says something other than what it actually says is wrong. Period. Find a different argument, flatly lying to people about what it says is wrong (no matter how strongly you want it to say something other than what it does).
So you are countering her/his interpretation and using other interpretations as proof that hers/his wrong

Wow so I seem to remember something about a house built on sand in that big book of yours :p

False, you don't accept Jesus at all.


Are you claiming that Jocabia isn't a Christian?


If you did, you would heed the instructions of his ordained apostles, yet you let your own will cloud your judgement.

Why, according to you, is the individual's will to be subjugated to their judgement, and not the other way round?

That's because Jesus said it's ok to do those things. You know? Jeee-sus!!!




Why buy and feed when you can sit and read, chapter for chapter verse for verse.


You manifest your lack of biblical knowledge in this post: Christ struck down the old law, now we are to be adherents to the law of Christ and the apostles. Which, by the way, also condemns homosexuality ;)

Are you claiming that Jocabia isn't a Christian?




Why, according to you, is the individual's will to be subjugated to their judgement, and not the other way round?



1. I'm claiming he is being heretical and blasphemous, when he dares twist the holy scriptures for his own ends.

2. Oh, maybe because Christ Himself commands them to teach us and heed their will? After all, their teachings were infallible because they had the spirit of the Holy Ghost in them, which spoke through them.

So you are countering her/his interpretation and using other interpretations as proof that hers/his wrong

Wow so I seem to remember something about a house built on sand in that big book of yours :p



This is not an interpretive issue, it's plainly stated that homosexuality is damnable.

Liar, Sodom and Gomorrha were about homosexuality in addition to prostitution, rape, and other aforementioned abominations. I just showed you how the original text's words for strange flesh described same-sex acts, yet you deny the evidence presented right to you. Perhaps a little less heresy, and a little more intellectual honesty is in order: get over it, homosexual is clearly depicted in Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. No matter how much the uber-liberal churches try to discredit it, the apologists shoot down all of their claims aptly. The very languages you claim support your case, in reality, support mine. There's a reason the homosexuals go the route of claiming the customs are outdated instead of claiming the customs did not forbid it in the first place: Because they did. I consulted with my preacher tonight who has spent his entire life studying Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and guess what: He showed how your claims are a bunch of bologna.

Go ahead, call me a judgemental bigot: You're only heaping damnation upon yourself by refusing to stand up for Christ. I think this little excerpt from an article I'm reading describes your attitude:


"Unfortunately, the success of the homosexual movement in this area has resulted in numerous Christians remaining silent, for fear of being labeled as hatemongers—or worse. Some Christians seem to have forgotten the words of the Savior:


Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake (Matthew 5:10-11). "



Oh, and another thing: the Bible clearly states marriage is between a man and a woman. It never mentions the homosexual union as sacred like it does the heterosexual union....in fact, it never even mentions a homosexual union, because homosexuality is already condemned several times. Before you pounce upon me for being an adherent to Levitical customs, remember: Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians.

I'm a liar, huh? Hmmmm... let's barbeque.

You clearly suggested that levitical law has not been lifted and I'm the liar? Respond to all those laws of Leviticus that NO ONE holds to be true. Or can I take Canadians as slaves?

Admit it. YOU have no ability to support your point without throwing around spurious links. You clearly don't know levitical law or the ways of Jesus or you would accept that levitical law was lifted by the arrival of Jesus.

Where did I mention marriage in terms of the Bible? I said earlier denying homosexual marriage is a violation of the US Constitution. Last I checked that has NOTHING to do with the Bible. It's just so important to you that you get to attack people that you have to look for any way to do so.

You aren't being persecuted for righteousness. No one is persecuting you for behaving as a Christian. People are persecuting you for behaving contrary to a Christian. This includes your holier-than-thou attitude specifically addressed by the plank analogy, your hatred for your fellow man, and your attacks on others. You really should read your Bible more closely and attempt to actually follow it. Calling people names and ad hominem attacks are not the ways of the Christian.

And I didn't throw levitical law at you. You threw it at me.

1. I'm claiming he is being heretical and blasphemous, when he dares twist the holy scriptures for his own ends.

Whereas your interpretation of the scriptures is flawless?


2. Oh, maybe because Christ Himself commands them to teach us and heed their will? After all, their teachings were infallible because they had the spirit of the Holy Ghost in them, which spoke through them.

That isn't answering the question. Try reading it again.

You manifest your lack of biblical knowledge in this post: Christ struck down the old law, now we are to be adherents to the law of Christ and the apostles.

If the old law has been struck down them making references to Leviticus is a pointless excercise.

You manifest your lack of biblical knowledge in this post: Christ struck down the old law, now we are to be adherents to the law of Christ and the apostles. Which, by the way, also condemns homosexuality ;)

Actually I am not bound to any law of Christianity and what "Paul" said and the rest of it is such ambiguous, contextual, crappola. When you have time actually sit and read Romans 1 etc. instead of having it read to you. When you are done go refer to the topic line of this thread and the opening post. This thread has NOTHING to do with religion and I am wondering if some of you biblethumpers are in violation of ROC for repeated spamming and derailing threads.

Until the mods display better control of these the lot of you are on ignore because I for one am sick of trying to pick out valid posts within a sea of jibberish.

Have a nice day.

From http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577

Those who attempt to soften or contradict the clear teaching of Paul in Romans 1 regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality sometimes attempt to sidestep the clear import of the passage by insisting that it applied only to its original recipients. Boswell claimed that the idea of the passage is not to “stigmatize sexual behavior but to condemn Gentiles for their general infidelity” (p. 108). Martin has suggested that Paul referred to the Gentile culture, not the “universal human condition” (1995, p. 338). But is Romans 1:26-27 a “cultural chastisement,” or a universal condemnation? The immediate context (1:18-3:20) consists of God’s pronouncement that all humans in every culture and nation are under sin—“all the world” (3:19). In fact, the entire book of Romans is the New Testament’s flagship declaration of the means of justification for all persons—“everyone” (Romans 1:16). Hence, the condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 is parallel to its like condemnation of murder, deceit, covetousness, and all the other sins itemized by Paul.




One final observation regarding Romans 1 is noteworthy. Not only is God displeased with those who participate in homosexual behavior, but Paul indicates that He is equally displeased with those who are supportive of such conduct—even if they do not engage in the activity themselves. The wording is: “Those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (vs. 32). On this count alone, many have earned the disapproval of God.

Compare Paul’s remarks to the church at Rome with the question he posed to the Corinthian church:


Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, emp. added).
The Greek word translated “homosexual” in this passage is a metaphorical use of a term that literally means “soft,” and when referring to people, refers to males allowing themselves to be used sexually by other males. Again, lexicographers apply the term to the person who is a “catamite,” i.e., a male who submits his body to another male for unnatural lewdness—i.e., homosexually (Thayer, p. 387; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 489).

“Sodomites” (“abusers of themselves with mankind” in the KJV) is a translation of the term arsenokoitai. It derives from two words: arsein (a male) and koitei (a bed), and refers to one who engages in sex with a male as with a female (Thayer, p. 75). Paul used the same term when he wrote to Timothy to discuss certain behaviors that are both “contrary to sound doctrine” and characteristic of the one who is not “a righteous man” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

As D. Gene West correctly observed regarding Paul’s letter to Timothy:


We can see from the context that homosexual activities are classed with such sins as patricide, matricide, homicide, kidnapping, and perjury. If we accept that any of these things are sins, we must accept that all are sins. If it is a sin to be a whoremonger, to pursue a lascivious life with prostitutes, then it is likewise a sin to engage in homosexual acts. There is no way to escape that conclusion. If it is a sin to murder one’s father, or mother, or some other human being, then it is a sin for both males and females to “cohabitate”.



REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—James-Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Barrett, C.K. (1967), A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ed. Henry Chadwick (London: Black).

Bauer, Walter (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans., rev., and ed. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.

Bengel, John Albert (1971), New Testament Word Studies, trans. Charlton Lewis and Marvin Vincent (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).

Benson, Rusty (2004), “Paper vs. Practice,” AFA Journal, 28[5]:17-19, May.

Bloom, Allan (1987), The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Boswell, John (1980), Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1986), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

“Bowers v. Hardwick et al.” (1986), [On-line], URL: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZS.html.

Cranfield, C.E.B. (1985), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ed. J.A. Emmerton and C.E.B. Cranfield (Edinburgh: Clark).

Deyoung, James B. (1988), “The Meaning of ‘Nature’ in Romans and Its Implications for Biblical Proscriptions of Homosexual Behavior,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 31:429-441.

Diocese of New Hampshire (2004), “Our Search Process,” [On-line], URL: http://www.nh episcopal.org/BishopSearch/bishop_search_news.htm.

Dupont, Florence (1993), Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. Christopher Woodall (Cambridge: Blackwell).

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (1993), Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday).

Floyd, Ronnie W. (2004), The Gay Agenda (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press).

Gesenius, William (1979), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Gomes, Peter J. (1996), The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart (New York: William Morrow).

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Harrub, Brad, Bert Thompson, and Dave Miller (2004), “ ‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’ ” Reason & Revelation, 24:73-79, August.

Hughes, R. Kent (1991), Righteousness from Heaven (Wheaton, IL: Crossway).

“Is Homosexual Marriage a Constitutional Right?” (2003), The Bill of Rights Institute, [On-line], URL: http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/print.php?sid=430.

“Lawrence et al. v. Texas” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102.

Lenski, R. C. H. (1951), The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, OH: Wartburg).

Little, Jane (2003), “Australia Church Accepts Gay Priests,” BBC NEWS, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3075739.stm.

Martin, Dale B. (1995), “Heterosexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1.18-32,” Biblical Interpreter, 3:332-355.

Melina, Livio (1998), “Homosexual Inclination as an Objective Disorder: Reflections of Theological Anthropology,” Communio-International Catholic Review, 25:57-68.

Salmond, S.D.F. (1950), The Pulpit Commentary—Jude, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

“Teens in Crisis” (2001), Teen Help (Las Vegas, NV: World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools).

Thayer, Joseph H. (1977 reprint), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Vitagliano, Ed (2004), “Mutiny Among the Methodists,” AFA Journal, 28[5]:20-21, May.

West, D. Gene (2004), “Homosexuality, Alternative or Deviate Lifestyle” [a tract], (Moundsville, WV).

Whitelaw, Thomas (1950), The Pulpit Commentary—Genesis, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.



Happy now?

If the old law has been struck down them making references to Leviticus is a pointless excercise.
You would think so lol

Actually I am not bound to any law of Christianity and what "Paul" said and the rest of it is such ambiguous, contextual, crappola. When you have time actually sit and read Romans 1 etc. instead of having it read to you. When you are done go refer to the topic line of this thread and the opening post. This thread has NOTHING to do with religion and I am wondering if some of you biblethumpers are in violation of ROC for repeated spamming and derailing threads.

Until the mods display better control of these the lot of you are on ignore because I for one am sick of trying to pick out valid posts within a sea of jibberish.

Have a nice day.
That happened early this morning for me lol ... it truly does cut down the clutter

I asked this earlier in the thread, but nobody answered, so I'll ask it again.

Why does Paul get to decide what Christians believe? Why are things he wrote in letters, giving his opinion on things (which was often colored, it seems, by fundamentalist Judaism) matter when it comes to the end all and be all of what christians believe? Why don't the words of Jesus, for example the ones about giving everything away and following Jesus, get precedence over Paul telling us that homos are cursed? Is it just because it is easier to condemn gay people (when you aren't gay, and therefore don't have to concern yourself) than it is to live a life of poverty in service of Jesus?
man it would be great if someone would answer this. Just great. Fan freaking tastic.

Those who attempt to soften or contradict the clear teaching ....

Yes, we can all cut-and-paste here. Did you actually write any of that post? - it is somewhat unclear whether you did or not.

We can see from the context that homosexual activities are classed with such sins as patricide, matricide, homicide, kidnapping, and perjury. If we accept that any of these things are sins, we must accept that all are sins. If it is a sin to be a whoremonger, to pursue a lascivious life with prostitutes, then it is likewise a sin to engage in homosexual acts. There is no way to escape that conclusion. If it is a sin to murder one’s father, or mother, or some other human being, then it is a sin for both males and females to “cohabitate”.

Here we go with the holier then though attitude. How dare you accuse me of being similiar to murderers, or kidnappers. That's just sick...

Actually I am not bound to any law of Christianity and what "Paul" said and the rest of it is such ambiguous, contextual, crappola. When you have time actually sit and read Romans 1 etc. instead of having it read to you. When you are done go refer to the topic line of this thread and the opening post. This thread has NOTHING to do with religion and I am wondering if some of you biblethumpers are in violation of ROC for repeated spamming and derailing threads.

Until the mods display better control of these the lot of you are on ignore because I for one am sick of trying to pick out valid posts within a sea of jibberish.

Have a nice day.



Are you calling me illiterate? Are you seriously accusing me of not having read Romans 1? I have eyes you know, I can read. :rolleyes:

man it would be great if someone would answer this. Just great. Fan freaking tastic.
They did to an extent ... they figure the bible as unabridged truth :rolleyes: and as such sense Paul plays a prominent part they figure we are meant to follow him otherwise god would have not let it be so

AT least that’s what I take from it

False, you don't accept Jesus at all. If you did, you would heed the instructions of his ordained apostles, yet you let your own will cloud your judgement.

I adhere to the teachings of Jesus. He was clear in what behavior he finds unacceptable and you are willing to endorse those behaviors. I don't make judgements on homosexuality because it does not affect me. I'm not homosexual. Homosexuality is between the homosexual and Jesus. You are NOT in the equation. You seem to forget this.

I accept Jesus. Above ALL, I accept Jesus. You throw out the Golden Rule and the rules about judgement set forth by Jesus, himself, and I'm the one that doesn't respect his teachings? Laughable.

Here we go with the holier then though attitude. How dare you accuse me of being similiar to murderers, or kidnappers. That's just sick...
Don’t you know her interpretation is the only correct one :rolleyes:

Here we go with the holier then though attitude. How dare you accuse me of being similiar to murderers, or kidnappers. That's just sick...

Neo Rogolia didn't directly accuse you... instead she quoted Dave Miller and Brad Harrub quoting D. Gene West. We could all just start cutting and pasting blocks of text from hither and thon across the internet with no direct input ourselves, but where would that get us?

I adhere to the teachings of Jesus. He was clear in what behavior he finds unacceptable and you are willing to endorse those behaviors. I don't make judgements on homosexuality because it does not affect me. I'm not homosexual. Homosexuality is between the homosexual and Jesus. You are NOT in the equation. You seem to forget this.

I accept Jesus. Above ALL, I accept Jesus. You throw out the Golden Rule and the rules about judgement set forth by Jesus, himself, and I'm the one that doesn't respect his teachings? Laughable.
Dont worry we all can see that you do(follow a better path) … even if some Christians don’t appreciate our opinions lol

Here we go with the holier then though attitude. How dare you accuse me of being similiar to murderers, or kidnappers. That's just sick...


Oh, get off it, I'm not even allowed to talk to you nor are you allowed to talk to me, according to the mods.