NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually, me personally I do live by a vast majority of the laws outlined in the OT... A lot of modern Christian society also is very hypocrital... I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect either...How can you believe in any of them?

Actually, me personally I do live by a vast majority of the laws outlined in the OT... A lot of modern Christian society also is very hypocrital... I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect either...

A "vast majority"? Which ones?

Then how dare you condemn anyone for not following ONE of a set of laws that YOU ADMIT you don't follow completely yourself? If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, you're too far gone to even consider speaking with rationally.

I really find these arguments from scripture to be hilarious. Sure, the bible was wrong when it posits that rain comes from God opening a floodgate in the heavens, as opposed to evaporation, condensation, precipitation, etc.. And the bible was wrong when it puts forth the cosmology that the Earth is the center of the universe, or when it proposes the existence of the solid dome over the Earth called the firmament, or when it condones slavery, or selling your daughter into slavery, or when it commands mass genocides committed against civilizations that were on land you wanted (of course remembering that "all the female children who have not known a man by lying with him, keep for yourselves" care to guess why?), when it says that breeding animals while they look at striped patterns will cause their offspring to be striped, or when it condemns wearing clothing made of more than one type of fabric, or when it says we should stone to death disobedient children, or when a non-virgin is raped, she is to be put to death, or when a virgin is raped, she is to marry he rapist, or even on the Christian right's attitude toward abortion. (If a men hits a women in such a way that she miscarries, he has to pay a fine. Sounds like that's not even as bad as planting two crops in the same soil, a "crime" worthy of death. Also, on many of the Hebrew's totally justified conquests, God supposedly instructs soldiers to cut open pregnant women, which is unnecessary anyway, as a dead mother pretty much ensures that the fetus will day, especially with the bible's limited medical technology.)

Yeah, the same bible which is supposedly wrong on all those things, many of them moral things, is still somehow a legitimate an unquestionable authority when it comes to homosexuality being a sin.

Many of these morals come from the Old Testament, and many Christians like to respond that "oh, those laws don't apply anymore." This is a non-answer. Such morally repugnant laws are NEVER acceptable in any time or place anywhere. That's just an attempt at dismisal that never really answers the question of how those laws could ever be considered moral, especially if they're dictated by an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent supreme being.

Some also like to respond that I'm "misinterpreting" biblical science claims when I read them literally. Sorry, but even biblical scholars up until the 1700's and later thought that the bible was literally correct when it posited that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that was in a time and place with much more advanced science and math than was available to the Jews when they wrote this stuff. Hell, even the ancient Greeks, who were able to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of its actual value long before Jesus arrived on the scene, believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Trust me, the much less scientifically and mathematically advanced Hebrews ACTUALLY BELIEVED the ridiculous scientific claims made in the book. Maybe y'all are the ones not reading the book honestly.

Forgive the length, but please don't tl;dr.

Made of win.

Actually, me personally I do live by a vast majority of the laws outlined in the OT... A lot of modern Christian society also is very hypocrital... I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect either...

So you do not eat lobster, do not wear polyester/cotton blended clothes (or anything else made from two fabrics) and stop people in wheelchairs or with glasses from entering the church ?

Note that I mentioned several abominations here. Yes, things that are just as bad as being gay ;)

I KNEW you wouldn't watch the clip I posted. You'd never ask that if you had.

How am I supposed to watch a clip on a shared Internet connection in Iraq? Believe me, I tried, but with the same result as trying to watch my local news so I can keep up on what is happening at home... It doesnt happen.

So you do not eat lobster, do not wear polyester/cotton blended clothes (or anything else made from two fabrics) and stop people in wheelchairs or with glasses from entering the church ?

Note that I mentioned several abominations here. Yes, things that are just as bad as being gay ;)

I bet he really loves stoning to death his disobedient children, and beating his slaves, so long as they get up within a day or two.

So you do not eat lobster, do not wear polyester/cotton blended clothes (or anything else made from two fabrics) and stop people in wheelchairs or with glasses from entering the church ?

Note that I mentioned several abominations here. Yes, things that are just as bad as being gay ;)

Where does the Bible say ANYTHING about glasses or wheelchairs... I fail to see that one... As far as clothes, I am only allowed to wear my uniforms (military), and I don't like shellfish anyway...

Samuel 20:41

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most."

Samuel 1:26

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
Try to that with your friend Spartoid Army ;-).

Try to that with your friend Spartoid Army ;-).

Ask the French, among whom, like here, a kiss is a greeting. And if you read further into the relationship of David and Jonathan they considered each other brothers. Tell me that you have not kissed your brother or sister before...

Where does the Bible say ANYTHING about glasses or wheelchairs... I fail to see that one...

You are not allowed to approach the Altar of God with a defect in your sight. Glasses count.
I will leave the wheelchair up to you ;)

But - kudos for trying to living up to your beliefs :)

Jonathan wasn't the brother of David.

Where does the Bible say ANYTHING about glasses or wheelchairs... I fail to see that one... As far as clothes, I am only allowed to wear my uniforms (military), and I don't like shellfish anyway...

Go read the book before you argue with people about what's in there, then. Hint: look up the book of Leviticus first, maybe you'll realize how unstable the ground you're standing on is.

On an unrelated note, Pope Benedict needs to be stripped of his papal robes and thrown into an arena filled with rabid, viagra'ed, sex-starved, manly hairy homosexual men wearing leather chaps. Cosmic justice and irony demands it.

He gets to keep his hat if he wants to, though.

You are not allowed to approach the Altar of God while displaying physical imperfections. Glasses count.

But - kudos for trying to living up to your beliefs :)

Kudos on that as well... I see your point... some things are outdated...

Kudos on that as well... I see your point... some things are outdated...

Like, for example, condemning consenting adults who just happen to be in love with each other?

Kudos on that as well... I see your point... some things are outdated...

So now you're picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you wish to follow? Right, because we're all allowed to decided which civil laws we want to follow when it suits our needs too.

Stop failing.

Amazingly enough, my post said NOTHING about the government...and was mainly meant to clarify the Bible's (and MOST Christians) position, as there had been debate about it... I made no mention of California Prop 8... And in actuality it was THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA that passed it... and if the Supreme Court of Cali supercedes the will of the voter, THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE PROBLEMS...

The Constitution of a state and the Judiciary that upholds that Constitution always have supremacy in order to protect rights. Try going back to school and taking a civics course.

God's design is for A (1) Man to be with A (1) woman... Look at Adam & Eve... Read Genesis 2 and Exodus 20:9-21 in entirety... It outlines very well why God designed sex between 1 man and 1 woman

Religious arguments don't matter in a debate about the law, which is brought to us by a government that demands separation of church and state.
Besides, by your own admission you don't even follow all the rules and prohibitions of the Bible, so why should any of the rest of us?

Kudos on that as well... I see your point... some things are outdated...

But how do you determine what's outdated and what's still valid? I could just as easily argue that the bible is outdated when it prohibits homosexuality, unless somehow, the New Testament is forbidden from being old-fashioned. It was, after all, Paul who said "Wives, be subservient to your husbands," among other gems.

Religious arguments don't matter in a debate about the law, which is brought to us by a government that demands separation of church and state.

It does however where my question was concerned - which was WHY God dislikes gays so much.
Not that this is an answer, but it IS relevant to the question asked.

Let us stay somewhat fair people. It is Christmas after all - no reason to ruin it for everyone, even if they ruined it for you first.

Jonathan wasn't the brother of David.

But they considered themselves as such 2 Sam 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan, my brother..."

It does however where my question was concerned - which was WHY God dislikes gays so much.

Who says he does? I see an awful fucking lot of people who claim to speak on his behalf, but one has to wonder...

After all, if He was all so much against homosexuality, you'd think He'd reminded "junior" not to forget one of the most important things to him when he brought His message down on earth.

Funnily enough, Jesus doesn't seem to give a damn about who fucks who. Only point of sexual morality he ever rants about is adultery. He stands up to prevent the men of the village from stoning the prostitute, even. I'm getting a whole "We don't care who you fuck, but if you're married or otherwise engaged in a serious exclusive relationship don't sleep around left and right, cuz that's not nice to your significant other" vibe there.

But they considered themselves as such 2 Sam 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan, my brother..."
It sounds really gay, just imagine the story in real life. D & J who love and kiss each other, J who strips naked in front for D (Samuel 18:3-4).

But how do you determine what's outdated and what's still valid? I could just as easily argue that the bible is outdated when it prohibits homosexuality, unless somehow, the New Testament is forbidden from being old-fashioned. It was, after all, Paul who said "Wives, be subservient to your husbands," among other gems.

Actually, it deosnt say "subservient" It says "submit". And it is more down to interpretation when you think of what is still valid. Some things were forbidden for reasons of "uncleanliness" Our modern technology is far superior as far as some of those things... such as pork... It was far more difficult to thoroughly cook pork in biblical times... yet with modern technology we can. We cant, however, change the idea for which it ws banned... food can now be cooked more thoroughly, however, anatomy still limits homosexuality...

It does however where my question was concerned - which was WHY God dislikes gays so much.
Not that this is an answer, but it IS relevant to the question asked.

Let us stay somewhat fair people. It is Christmas after all - no reason to ruin it for everyone, even if they ruined it for you first.

I agree, it is a relavent question... My opinion is that He doesn't dislike gays, he hates the sin of homosexuality. Do I hate my cousin who is gay? No. Do I openly disagree with him about his sexuality? Yes

Actually, it deosnt say "subservient" It says "submit". And it is more down to interpretation when you think of what is still valid. Some things were forbidden for reasons of "uncleanliness" Our modern technology is far superior as far as some of those things... such as pork... It was far more difficult to thoroughly cook pork in biblical times... yet with modern technology we can. We cant, however, change the idea for which it ws banned... food can now be cooked more thoroughly, however, anatomy still limits homosexuality...

Anatomy doesn't limit homosexuality, your lack of imagination does. It's really not that hard to figure out. Also, if you make the argument that pork was forbidden because a lot of people got sick from eating it, (which probably was the real reason) then you certainly can't claim the book is the absolute word of God.

Anatomy doesn't limit homosexuality, your lack of imagination does. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Why do you think it's called "sodomy"? Reference to Sodom and Gomorrah... two cities that were destroyed by fire? One of the reasons specifically mentioned for the destruction of those cities was homosexuality...

Why do you think it's called "sodomy"? Reference to Sodom and Gomorrah... two cities that were destroyed by fire? One of the reasons specifically mentioned for the destruction of those cities was homosexuality...

I believe the correct phrase in this situation is source please. Preferably in the Ancient Hebrew so mistranslation can be eliminated. :p

It does however where my question was concerned - which was WHY God dislikes gays so much.
Not that this is an answer, but it IS relevant to the question asked.

Let us stay somewhat fair people. It is Christmas after all - no reason to ruin it for everyone, even if they ruined it for you first.

In reality gays used to marry women. A man who was adopting a feminine role was extremely sinful (even in old greece) for heterosexual men. So they married a woman who was propably in those times illiterate and financially dependent so the gay husband could fuck easily fuck around. Church and states wanted to discourage these activities by criminalizing adultry and sodomy to protect the family. As I said the essential part in marriage is procreation for many scholars.

In modern times however, women have become financially independent and love/attraction is an enormous factor instead of male/female role. Women don't want to marry gay men anymore and gay men have become a minority in our society.
The state has the task to recognise and protect acceptable families. (heterosexual/homosexual relationships)

Why do you think it's called "sodomy"? Reference to Sodom and Gomorrah... two cities that were destroyed by fire? One of the reasons specifically mentioned for the destruction of those cities was homosexuality...

Which again brings us to... why does god hate it so much ;) Sodomy, homosexual acts... what exactly is wrong with them ?

Sperm is obviously not sacred - an ejaculation contains hundreds of millions of spermcells of which only one could theoretically succeed if released in the body of a female. If God does not care about 499,999,999 spermcells, assuming spilling the 500th million is bad seems a bit.. odd. Especially since men can ejaculate while sleeping and the succesrate, even with a female in the right time of the month, is nowhere near 100%.

Maybe the egg is sacred, but then it is a bit odd that it gets expelled from the body so often - quite often even when fertilised. But that should not impose any limit on what men can do...

So - what is wrong with sodomy, gay sex and so forth according to the Lord ?

Why do you think it's called "sodomy"? Reference to Sodom and Gomorrah... two cities that were destroyed by fire? One of the reasons specifically mentioned for the destruction of those cities was homosexuality...

And the attempt to rape angels, and bestiality. Plus there's that little pesky fact that historians aren't even in agreement as to whether these cities even existed, and if they existed, which ruins they may be, let alone that they were destroyed by "fire and brimstone." It's far more likely that the Hebrews happened upon ruins and made up folklore to explain why the ruins were ruins and not bustling metropolises, just like what was most likely the explanation for the battle of Jericho. All kinds of other ancient cultures made up myths to explain things, and you certainly don't believe that all the claims in the bible are absolutely true. (Do you believe in the firmament, or that opened floodgates in said firmament are where rain comes from?)

I believe the correct phrase in this situation is source please. Preferably in the Ancient Hebrew so mistranslation can be eliminated. :p

Genesis 19. I would prefer ancient Hebrew as well, but my interlinear was too bulky to carry to Iraq...

Do you believe in the firmament, or that opened floodgates in said firmament are where rain comes from?)

In in the case of the flood... and that is the only time thats mentioned...

Which again brings us to... why does god hate it so much ;) Sodomy, homosexual acts... what exactly is wrong with them ?

Sperm is obviously not sacred - an ejaculation contains hundreds of millions of spermcells of which only one could theoretically succeed if released in the body of a female. If God does not care about 499,999,999 spermcells, assuming spilling the 500th million is bad seems a bit.. odd. Especially since men can ejaculate while sleeping and the succesrate, even with a female in the right time of the month, is nowhere near 100%.

Maybe the egg is sacred, but then it is a bit odd that it gets expelled from the body so often - quite often even when fertilised.

So - what is wrong with sodomy, gay sex and so forth according to the Lord ?

The true reason why it's wrong is the same reason why all the Abrahamic faiths forbid any sort of sex outside the context of marriage. (Although Christianity is unique in its prohibition of polygamy.) The less people screw around outside of marriage, the more they screw around inside marriage, and the more babies they have, thus spreading the faith by out-breading the competition.

In in the case of the flood... and that is the only time thats mentioned...

But it IS mentioned. So, does it exist or not? All modern fields of science would suggest that it doesn't, nor could it ever.

The true reason why it's wrong is the same reason why all the Abrahamic faiths forbid any sort of sex outside the context of marriage. (Although Christianity is unique in its prohibition of polygamy.) The less people screw around outside of marriage, the more they screw around inside marriage, and the more babies they have, thus spreading the faith by out-breading the competition.

Then logically the Church should support gay marriage, provided the couple adopts at least 5 children and raises them in the Faith.

The decleration of independence states that "All man in created equal, and endowed br there creator with certain inalianable rights" or something to that extent, implying that they did believe in some god or higher power.

First off, the DOI is not a document about the laws of the land. Second of all, the fact that it says creator, and not "our heavenly father" or "Jesus" or "YHVH" or "Allah" makes it clear that it refers to a deistic conception of God.

Then logically the Church should support gay marriage, provided the couple adopts at least 5 children and raises them in the Faith.

Maybe, but then they'd have to admit that they were wrong. I mean damn, how long did it take for them to pardon Galileo?

Which again brings us to... why does god hate it so much ;) Sodomy, homosexual acts... what exactly is wrong with them ?

Sperm is obviously not sacred - an ejaculation contains hundreds of millions of spermcells of which only one could theoretically succeed if released in the body of a female. If God does not care about 499,999,999 spermcells, assuming spilling the 500th million is bad seems a bit.. odd. Especially since men can ejaculate while sleeping and the succesrate, even with a female in the right time of the month, is nowhere near 100%.

Maybe the egg is sacred, but then it is a bit odd that it gets expelled from the body so often - quite often even when fertilised. But that should not impose any limit on what men can do...

So - what is wrong with sodomy, gay sex and so forth according to the Lord ?

Like was said before, actually not by me... I forget who made the point of reproduction. It takes a man and a woman to successfully (and naturally... without millions of $ of surgery) create children.

Like was said before, actually not by me... I forget who made the point of reproduction. It takes a man and a woman to successfully (and naturally... without millions of $ of surgery) create children.

And it's not as if the world is overpopulated as is. Nor is it as if there aren't already a butt-load of unwanted children just waiting in the wing to be adopted.

And it's not as if the world is overpopulated as is. Nor is it as if there aren't already a butt-load of unwanted children just waiting in the wing to be adopted.

Shouldn't childless marriages be banned along with gay marriage then?:)

Like was said before, actually not by me... I forget who made the point of reproduction. It takes a man and a woman to successfully (and naturally... without millions of $ of surgery) create children.

Yes, but why is sex NOT aimed at reproduction bad ? Sex is an incredibly wasteful process (especially from the mans side) already.

The true reason why it's wrong is the same reason why all the Abrahamic faiths forbid any sort of sex outside the context of marriage. (Although Christianity is unique in its prohibition of polygamy.) The less people screw around outside of marriage, the more they screw around inside marriage, and the more babies they have, thus spreading the faith by out-breading the competition.

Christian marriage is derived from Roman marriage who granted soldiers certain rights that could be enherited by their children if they were married. This way the romans structured their society and encouraged people to officially marry in order to protect the children since the parents were liable for these children.

Christian marriage is derived from Roman marriage who granted soldiers certain rights that could be enherited by their children if they were married. This way the romans structured their society and encouraged people to officially marry in order to protect the children since the parents were liable for these children.

OK, that explains why it is slightly different from the other two.

But it IS mentioned. So, does it exist or not? All modern fields of science would suggest that it doesn't, nor could it ever.

Thats where it comes down to faith... the belief in things unexplained or unseen

It does however where my question was concerned - which was WHY God dislikes gays so much.
Not that this is an answer, but it IS relevant to the question asked.

Let us stay somewhat fair people. It is Christmas after all - no reason to ruin it for everyone, even if they ruined it for you first.

Heck, the bible mentions homosexuality in a derogative light 10 times at the most, right? That same bible mentions about a thousand times same-sex marriage in a bad light (like a man beating his wife, a man sleeping around, all sort of bad-bad things) about a thousand times. God CLEARLY doesn't want men to marry women.

Christian officials were very much inspired by the exellent way the romans structured their society.

Shouldn't childless marriages be banned along with gay marriage then?:)

Actually, there have been cases wherein the church makes the man get a fertility test before they will sanction the marriage. As for making childless marriages illegal, that would be both difficult to enforce in any country, and it would infringe on the rights of straight people, which we wouldn't want to happen. Like it or not, that's a battle that the church knows they could never hope to win. Unfortunately, they don't seem to realize that they are loosing the battle against modernity on almost every front.

Yep, they are losing, but not enough for me.

Thats where it comes down to faith... the belief in things unexplained or unseen

So you do actually believe in it then? Do you also believe the Earth is the center of the universe, too? If not, why not? If so, at least you're somewhat consistent, but then you don't seem to think that the bible is an unquestionable source for morality. After all, you clearly expressed that the prohibition against the consumption of pork is no longer valid. So, if the book is not absolutely correct on such a minor inconvenience, then why still trust it unquestioningly when it makes absolutely absurd claims?

Actually, there have been cases wherein the church makes the man get a fertility test before they will sanction the marriage. As for making childless marriages illegal, that would be both difficult to enforce in any country, and it would infringe on the rights of straight people, which we wouldn't want to happen. Like it or not, that's a battle that the church knows they could never hope to win. Unfortunately, they don't seem to realize that they are loosing the battle against modernity on almost every front.

Ah, don't think I'd heard of them forcing a fertility test on anyone before. I guess they have to settle for keeping those weirdo gays in their place.

Yes, but why is sex NOT aimed at reproduction bad ? Sex is an incredibly wasteful process (especially from the mans side) already.

I didn't say it was... I said that homosexual sex is wrong. Look at a magnet. The positive side is not attracted to the +... it is attracted to the negative. Or electricity: If you touch a + wire to another +, you cause a short. Pos to Neg, you complete a circuit. Human bodies are the same way, but do you hear magnets and electricity being incorrect?

As far as sex goes... When I'm home my wife is going to get a lot... and not just for procreational purposes

I said nothing of the sort... In fact Cali is by vast majority a BLUE state... Or did this change since the election? The court does not have the right to overturn a measure voted on by the population of that state

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

This quote deals with the U.S. Constitution, but the sentiment is appropriate for rights protected by state constitutions as well. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

I didn't say it was... I said that homosexual sex is wrong. Look at a magnet. The positive side is not attracted to the +... it is attracted to the negative. Or electricity: If you touch a + wire to another +, you cause a short. Pos to Neg, you complete a circuit. Human bodies are the same way, but do you hear magnets and electricity being incorrect?

As far as sex goes... When I'm home my wife is going to get a lot... and not just for procreational purposes

WTF? Since when does "homosexual sex" "cause a short."

Further, perhaps you are unaware that "straights" can have what you call "homosexual sex." Many of us (if not most of us) enjoy oral and/or anal sex and/or use of toys. Those parts go together quite pleasurably regardless of your sexual orientation.

Why did "God" make these "incorrect" methods of sex pleasurable?

So you do actually believe in it then? Do you also believe the Earth is the center of the universe, too? If not, why not? If so, at least you're somewhat consistent, but then you don't seem to think that the bible is an unquestionable source for morality. After all, you clearly expressed that the prohibition against the consumption of pork is no longer valid. So, if the book is not absolutely correct on such a minor inconvenience, then why still trust it unquestioningly when it makes absolutely absurd claims?

Nobody ever said the Bible claims Earth as the center of the unverse... As far as morality, it is a guide. I trust it because I believe it to be true. On the morality side, it has never been wrong. Again, this is my opinion. Your opinion is different, hence 'absurd claims'

WTF? Since when does "homosexual sex" "cause a short."

Further, erhaps you are unaware that "straights" can have what you call "homosexual sex." Many of us (if not most of us) enjoy oral and/or anal sex and/or use of toys. Those parts go together quite pleasurably regardless of your sexual orientation.

Why did "God" make these "incorrect" methods of sex pleasurable?

Obviously, as a way to test our faith.

WTF? Since when does "homosexual sex" "cause a short."

Further, erhaps you are unaware that "straights" can have what you call "homosexual sex." Many of us (if not most of us) enjoy oral and/or anal sex and/or use of toys. Those parts go together quite pleasurably regardless of your sexual orientation.

Why did "God" make these "incorrect" methods of sex pleasurable?

Excellent misquoting... Ever heard of a metphor?

In addition... only "male to male" is homosexual... I said nothing about toys, oral, or anal

I didn't say it was... I said that homosexual sex is wrong. Look at a magnet. The positive side is not attracted to the +... it is attracted to the negative. Or electricity: If you touch a + wire to another +, you cause a short. Pos to Neg, you complete a circuit. Human bodies are the same way, but do you hear magnets and electricity being incorrect?

As far as sex goes... When I'm home my wife is going to get a lot... and not just for procreational purposes

and not just for procreational purposes = sinful though

1) they wouldn't do it if they weren't attracted, there is more than just simpel electricity. So they are attracted to each other and know how to get/give orgasms, what's your problem with it?
2) is it wrong because only a few feel the same way?

I didn't say it was... I said that homosexual sex is wrong. Look at a magnet. The positive side is not attracted to the +... it is attracted to the negative. Or electricity: If you touch a + wire to another +, you cause a short. Pos to Neg, you complete a circuit. Human bodies are the same way, but do you hear magnets and electricity being incorrect?

As far as sex goes... When I'm home my wife is going to get a lot... and not just for procreational purposes

First of all, as a physics guy, I am quite sure you're little diatribe on electromagnetism isn't even accurate. The sides of a magnet are north and south. Also, there is no such thing as "touching a positive wire to another, you get a short." Actually, if you attached two wires to each other that were at the exact same potential, you would get NOTHING. You'd get a short if you attached two wires to each other if they were at different potentials, even if they were both at "positive potentials," if you forgot to put any other resistance along the path, as you would have a dead short. Also, there's no real way to measure positive and negative potentials, the only physically meaningful quantity is potential DIFFERENCE which is measured in volts. I sure as hell wouldn't let you play with electricity.

I think you were trying to say something about like charges repelling and opposite charges attract, which is true, but not for all four forces. The strong force is only attractive, for example, even though there are different color charges that can be taken up by quarks. Gravity is also only attractive, as far as we know.

Anyway, why are these parallels with physics even meaningful in any way whatsoever? In psychology, it's a well documented fact that people who are similar tend to be friends far more often then people are dissimilar. By the logic of false analogy, I hereby declare that only gay marriages are okay under the tendency of "birds of a feather."

Excellent misquoting... Ever heard of a metphor?

In addition... only "male to male" is homosexual... I said nothing about toys, oral, or anal

1. Where did I misquote you?

2. I pointed out the obvious flaw in your metaphor.

3. "Female to female" is not homosexual?

4. "Male to male" sex tends to be oral or anal (or very creative.)

5. You inartfully dodged the question of why these "incorrect" methods of sex are so pleasurable.

EDIT: 6. Also your "metaphor" assumes men are not attracted to men. As this is clearly not true, in humans and in other species, your metaphor only harms your argument.

and not just for procreational purposes = sinful though

1) they wouldn't do it if they weren't attracted, there is more than just simpel electricity. So they are attracted to each other and know how to get/give orgasms, what's your problem with it?
2) is it wrong because only a few feel the same way?

Again... speaking metaphorically. and No, I believe it is still wrong no matter how many people believe it.

Again... speaking metaphorically. and No, I believe it is still wrong no matter how many people believe it.

It's a feeling that you don't share, that's ok. We don't wish you to be gay, but with a little empathy you can understand the problems that gays face.

1. Where did I misquote you?

2. I pointed out the obvious flaw in your metaphor.

3. "Female to female" is not homosexual?

4. "Male to male" sex tends to be oral or anal (or very creative.)

5. You inartfully dodged the question of why these "incorrect" methods of sex are so pleasurable.

You got me on #3... I neglected to mention that. 1,2mixing apples and oranges... 4. matters not... and 5. again, I said nothing of the sort... although if you have to have an answer, the only thing I said was incorrect was homosexual... which means GAY AND LESBIAN...

No, I believe it is still wrong no matter how many people believe it.

So, your argument earlier about the "will of people" was just an argument of convenience, as you would hold the same views regardless of how the majority feels.

I am curious, let's say you are right that homosexual sex is "wrong." Why does it necessarily follow that homosexuals shouldn't be granted equal protection under the law and fundamental rights like the right to marry?

You got me on #3... I neglected to mention that. 1,2mixing apples and oranges... 4. matters not... and 5. again, I said nothing of the sort... although if you have to have an answer, the only thing I said was incorrect was homosexual... which means GAY AND LESBIAN...

But your argument was that "homosexual sex" was wrong. Are certain forms of sex only wrong if you have a certain orientation, but OK if you have a different orientation?

Regardless, your admission that there is nothing wrong with straights having oral or anal sex fundamentally contradicts your "anatomy" and "human bodies" argument.

EDIT: I'll repeat my sixth point from my earlier edit: Also your "metaphor" assumes men are not attracted to men. As this is clearly not true, in humans and in other species, your metaphor only harms your argument.

Again... speaking metaphorically. and No, I believe it is still wrong no matter how many people believe it.

Metaphors don't prove anything. Only analogies are useful, and then you have to be careful that you don't construct a false analogy. Also, you have to be certain that you actually know what the hell you're talking about, and you demonstrated that you don't even have an elementary grasp of classical electrodynamics.

It's a feeling that you don't share, that's ok. We don't wish you to be gay, but with a little empathy you can understand the problems that gays face.

In a way, I do empathize... Do I tell you not to do it? No. I can't control anyone. What people do in their lives is their own concern... everyone will get their chance to explain themselves to God on judgement day. My job requires me to fight to guarantee the rights of all Americans... EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE with them. But that gives me as much right to protest gay marriage as it gives gays to protest for it.

Opposing reasonable gay rights is a sign of disrespect and lack of empathy.

I love how Mr. Spartoid Army refuses to answer my criticism of his ridiculous argument from complete lack of understanding of electrodynamics.

My job requires me to fight to guarantee the rights of all Americans... EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE with them. But that gives me as much right to protest gay marriage as it gives gays to protest for it.


Meh. You have the "right" to protest anything -- whether it be same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, desegregation of schools, freedom of religion -- but that doesn't make your protest right.

Again... speaking metaphorically. and No, I believe it is still wrong no matter how many people believe it.
Having finally gotten caught up with the thread since you joined it, it seems to me that your only argument against homosexuality is that you don't like it.

You don't understand it, but you don't like it, either, even though your dislike is based on obvious ignorance.

You claim a lot of Biblical justification for your dislike -- which basically makes your argument nothing more than "I don't like it because these other people told me not to" -- but you don't seem to have a much firmer grasp on the Bible than you do on homosexuality. You seem to be juggling pretty desperately to account for how you think the Bible should be the controlling moral force in others' lives even though you, yourself, do not follow the same dictates you want others to. In addition, your references to Bible stories indicate only the most shallow, children's Sunday school or Jeffrey Hunter movie versions of those stories -- at best. At worst, they suggest a self-serving interpretation of those stories just to plaster them over your anti-gay arguments.

You did your best to answer the OP, but as with so many who make religious arguments against legal rights for gays, you have failed. You have not told us why your religion or your god hates homosexuality so much. You have only really told us THAT YOU do, and that you do either for no apparent reason or because someone else told you to.

You have also utterly failed to address the secondary question of why your religion feels it necessary to interfere with the legal rights of gays in a country that has a secular government and legal system.

I love how Mr. Spartoid Army refuses to answer my criticism of his ridiculous argument from complete lack of understanding of electrodynamics.


i will retract my statment on electrical wiring. You cant however, argue the magnets:p

No, I believe it is still wrong no matter how many people believe it.

But does that belief of yours have any value if you cannot explain it or back it up ?
There are thousands of things I think are wrong. There are thousands of things I think are right. But does that actually make them right or wrong ? Am I the absolute authority on such things ? Could I not be mistaken ?

I do not know. It is certainly possible. So I have decided to not stop other people from being happy together, even if I find their relationship or the things they do in it revolting (provided they do not actually harm myself or others in ways other than causing nausea of course).

i will retract my statment on electrical wiring. You cant however, argue the magnets:p
He already did.

the things they do in it revolting
Like what? Sex is pretty much the same I guess.

i will retract my statment on electrical wiring. You cant however, argue the magnets:p

Yeah, I can, because it's a false analogy. The behavior of charged particles has nothing to do with the correctness of homosexuality, I don't even know why you think it does. Here's another case of attraction. In the center of atoms, only positively protons and neutrally charged protons exist. The positively charged protons are actually held together. Know why? The strong force, which is about 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force holds them together, even though they are of the same "electric sex."

I'm going to make my own false analogy now. The electrical repulsion of the protons represents the hatred and condemnation of society. The strong force represents the power of love. I have thus proven by basic quantum mechanics that love is stronger than hate and that homosexuals should get married. They should also group marry in large polyamorous groups because most types of atoms have more than one proton. However, it is wrong for more than 92 gays to intermarry, because Uranium is the heaviest, naturally occurring atom. Also, it is wrong for 43 gay people to get married because Technetium is not naturally occurring. See, I can make stupid and meaningless analogies too.

Like what? Sex is pretty much the same I guess.

Praying for example.
Seriously. The thought of grown men and women grovelling to beg for favours from some supreme nonhuman being turns my stomach. But I will not restrain them if it makes them happy.

Christian marriage is derived from Roman marriage who granted soldiers certain rights that could be enherited by their children if they were married. This way the romans structured their society and encouraged people to officially marry in order to protect the children since the parents were liable for these children.


I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Christian marriage is clearly derrived from the book of Genesis and the relationship between Adam and Eve. It is then further established as a covenant relationship mirroring that between every individual and God in Ephesians chapter six.

To assume Christianity stole everything from the Romans and pagan culture is quite honestly a tad silly. We must remember that Christianity as it was known in its rise, was unique and indivudalistic. It held its head high on refusing to mix with other cultures and systems of legal code which went against the teachings of Christ, and would lead to from a biblical understanding, moral corruption.

I am afraid I cannot agree with your generalisations, but they are common misconceptions.

You have also utterly failed to address the secondary question of why your religion feels it necessary to interfere with the legal rights of gays in a country that has a secular government and legal system.

You speak as if it is onlymy religion... however the reason I do not seem to answer that is beacuse I speak only for myself using the tools available to me and the beliefs I have held since childhood. I speak in accordance with the general beliefs of my religion, but every person has their own views. You can ask a radical Muslim (again I say radical) Why he can fly a plane into a building? You can ask a radical Christian why he bombs an abortion clinic?

You can also ask why an atheist gets offended when students gather in front of a school in the 3rd weds. in sept to excercise their "legal right" to express their religion. Some of these are wrong. Others not so wrong.

Praying for example.
Seriously. The thought of grown men and women grovelling to beg for favours from some supreme nonhuman being turns my stomach. But I will not restrain them if it makes them happy.

I don't think that quite defines a prayer life. If you would like to know more, perhaps I can start a new thread some time, on discussing Christian prayer life.

Praying for example.
Seriously. The thought of grown men and women grovelling to beg for favours from some supreme nonhuman being turns my stomach. But I will not restrain them if it makes them happy.

Praying = having fate/trust in destiny, you don't need a supreme non-human being for it.
By the way, christian gays exist in Belgium, but they are rare. Belgium christian officials are much more vague about the sin homosexuality, less negative but rather indifferent (unless you are talking about gay marriage or adoption).

Kudos on that as well... I see your point... some things are outdated...

SOME things? Oh, brother. So which things? Just the ones that DON'T make you personally uncomfortable? Son, you've got a lot of balls walking in here with Leviticus as your only back-up, saying the Word of God is to be taken as a whole, and THEN admitting that some things are outdated. If your'e going to lay a Biblical trip on us, you can't lay it on piecemeal. It's all right and supports you, or some of it is wrong and doesn't support you. By your own admission, it's the latter.

Actually, it deosnt say "subservient" It says "submit". And it is more down to interpretation when you think of what is still valid. Some things were forbidden for reasons of "uncleanliness" Our modern technology is far superior as far as some of those things... such as pork... It was far more difficult to thoroughly cook pork in biblical times... yet with modern technology we can. We cant, however, change the idea for which it ws banned... food can now be cooked more thoroughly, however, anatomy still limits homosexuality...

As you've been shown, it doesn't. We can't change the idea for which something was banned or demanded in Leviticus? Uh...we already have, many times. Unless your military clothing is all of the same fabric.

Then logically the Church should support gay marriage, provided the couple adopts at least 5 children and raises them in the Faith.

THIS. ^

Shouldn't childless marriages be banned along with gay marriage then?:)

OH, LORD, THIS! ^

See, you might assert that God made some heterosexual couples infertile. MADE them that way. So who are we to devise methods to circumvent God's Will through in-vitro fertilization, surrogacy and any other way? You are a tightrope walker in faith, aren't you?

Thats where it comes down to faith... the belief in things unexplained or unseen

Absolutely. Thing is, relying on literal interpretations of the Bible is not relying on faith, is it?

I didn't say it was... I said that homosexual sex is wrong. Look at a magnet. The positive side is not attracted to the +... it is attracted to the negative. Or electricity: If you touch a + wire to another +, you cause a short. Pos to Neg, you complete a circuit. Human bodies are the same way, but do you hear magnets and electricity being incorrect?

You stay the hell away from anyone's wiring. You know nothing about it.

As far as sex goes... When I'm home my wife is going to get a lot... and not just for procreational purposes

Then you're a sinner. Repent.

Nobody ever said the Bible claims Earth as the center of the unverse... As far as morality, it is a guide. I trust it because I believe it to be true. On the morality side, it has never been wrong. Again, this is my opinion. Your opinion is different, hence 'absurd claims'

"Never been wrong"? So you own slaves, do you? 'Cause by saying that, you're saying slavery is not morally wrong...among other things.

Excellent misquoting... Ever heard of a metphor?

In addition... only "male to male" is homosexual... I said nothing about toys, oral, or anal

WHAT?!? The lesbians will be interested to hear that you have decreed them to not be homosexual anymore. How is anal sex in a hetero sense any different than anal sex any other way? you are one flexible moral gymnast, you are.

In a way, I do empathize... Do I tell you not to do it? No. I can't control anyone. What people do in their lives is their own concern... everyone will get their chance to explain themselves to God on judgement day. My job requires me to fight to guarantee the rights of all Americans... EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE with them. But that gives me as much right to protest gay marriage as it gives gays to protest for it.

You will be given a chance to explain yourself, too. Remember that as you continue to witness so poorly.

You can protest all you want. Nobody's stopping you. You can pick up a sign and join the Fred Phelps "God hates fags" crusade to your heart's content. But when the law deliberately excludes a group of people for no reason other than "we don't like them because a thousands-year-old book, which we only follow MOSTLY, gets interpreted to TELL us to not like them" -- that law is defective and needs to be replaced. Liberty is for everyone or it's for nobody. It should only be withheld for just cause/due process.

Praying for example.
Seriously. The thought of grown men and women grovelling to beg for favours from some supreme nonhuman being turns my stomach. But I will not restrain them if it makes them happy.

Come on. You can't win an argument by demonizing the other side. That's their gig. You know praying isn't begging, you do your own argument no favors by sinking to your opponents' level.

And from the dwindling rainforests of course.

Yes people, in this wonderful time of the year where American lawyers try to annul a few thousand same-sex marriages, that jolly old time when the USA decided to not sign a statement to decriminalise homosexuality, the Pope, representative of the majority of Christians, has also made his contribution to the general joy of the world in his traditional Christmas speech. Saving the world from homosexuality and transgenders is just as important as saving the rainforests.

Quite.

So, we all know gayness is icky and that several books attributed to supreme beings seem to condemn it. But can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly is so world shattering about two adults loving eachother at Christmas that we now have three completely seperate reasons for having a topic on them ? Can we not just let them have their privacy ?

Why is my country being criticised for upholdings its rights? Alma Matter, must be an american because they like to inerfere in other countriess affairs.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Christian marriage is clearly derrived from the book of Genesis and the relationship between Adam and Eve. It is then further established as a covenant relationship mirroring that between every individual and God in Ephesians chapter six.


Were does the Bible say Adam and Eve were married? Or that their relationship was the only one that was appropriate? (And why are there so many examples of other types of relationships -- polygamy, incest, same-sex relationships, etc -- in the Bible? Why don't we follow those examples?)

I think you mean Ephesians, chapter 5. Other than assuming that "husband" and "wife" are gender roles, how does this chapter forbid same-sex marriage? Chapter 6 is interesting however, do you follow it's teachings regarding slaves and masters?

Come on. You can't win an argument by demonizing the other side. That's their gig. You know praying isn't begging, you do your own argument no favors by sinking to your opponents' level.

Oh no - I am serious. I truly feel this way about it.

However, I recognise that those feelings are wrong and intellectually dishonest. I can not really justify them. As such I have decided not to act on them, nor act against others that cause the nausea. It is their right do such things, just as I may do things that nauseate them.

Lovely holiday thought, no ?

Enough people! The debate's over! I've already scientifically proven (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14334239&postcount=325) that homosexuality and homosexual polyamory are okay by the laws of physics.

On the morality side, it has never been wrong.

I'd better start burning down entire cities then, and cutting babies in 2.

You speak as if it is onlymy religion... however the reason I do not seem to answer that is beacuse I speak only for myself using the tools available to me and the beliefs I have held since childhood. I speak in accordance with the general beliefs of my religion, but every person has their own views. You can ask a radical Muslim (again I say radical) Why he can fly a plane into a building? You can ask a radical Christian why he bombs an abortion clinic?

You can also ask why an atheist gets offended when students gather in front of a school in the 3rd weds. in sept to excercise their "legal right" to express their religion. Some of these are wrong. Others not so wrong.
I can also ask you what anything in the above post has to do with anything.

Nobody ever said the Bible claims Earth as the center of the unverse... As far as morality, it is a guide. I trust it because I believe it to be true. On the morality side, it has never been wrong. Again, this is my opinion. Your opinion is different, hence 'absurd claims'

Line up for your ritual stoning, then, you wearer of two threads.

To assume Christianity stole everything from the Romans and pagan culture is quite honestly a tad silly. We must remember that Christianity as it was known in its rise, was unique and indivudalistic. It held its head high on refusing to mix with other cultures and systems of legal code which went against the teachings of Christ, and would lead to from a biblical understanding, moral corruption.

As unique and individualistic as the several dozen religions arising at any one time, but with an ax. And "refusing to mix with other cultures"? Are you serious? One, Christianity would never have survived if it hadn't blended and changed itself to become more acceptable to other cultures, and two, being intractable isn't a point of pride generally.

You speak as if it is only my religion... however the reason I do not seem to answer that is beacuse I speak only for myself using the tools available to me and the beliefs I have held since childhood. I speak in accordance with the general beliefs of my religion, but every person has their own views.

Yes, but many of us are not trying to legislate them.

Think homosexual sex is a sin? Don't do it. You do not have the right--even your God has not granted you the right--to make other people's choices for them. I don't see a lot of protests from devout Hindus to bring down the immoral fast food chains that serve hamburgers. Your God, your soul, your choice. My life, my choice.

I can also ask you what anything in the above post has to do with anything.

Nothing.

Did anyone ever answer the question of why God inflicted homosexual lust on so many species of animals? Or are seagulls exercising their free will to sin?

Think homosexual sex is a sin? Don't do it. You do not have the right--even your God has not granted you the right--to make other people's choices for them. I don't see a lot of protests from devout Hindus to bring down the immoral fast food chains that serve hamburgers. Your God, your soul, your choice. My life, my choice.
This. A thousand times, this.

Did anyone ever answer the question of why God inflicted homosexual lust on so many species of animals? Or are seagulls exercising their free will to sin?

Shhh... Don't you know that all of science is just a conspiracy dreamed up by satan worshiping atheists to try and disprove the existence of God?

Did anyone ever answer the question of why God inflicted homosexual lust on so many species of animals? Or are seagulls exercising their free will to sin?

It was Satan!

SOME things? Oh, brother.

and that sort of thing is why i have some weird sort of grudging respect for the most hardcore of fundamentalists. at least they actually do think their chosen holy text is is right, regardless of how fucking stupid it is. everyone else is just hanging out in the tombs and sepulchers of God, pretending not to notice.

:mad:

This topic is like racists back 60-70 years ago who were always talking about how not all black people are bad and how they have black friends.

"Yeah, homosexuality is disgusting and perverse but why not just allow them their privacy?"

They aren't fighting for privacy. They're fighting for equality. Ya know, like the rights that everyone else has. Marriage and military service and etc.

I'm a heterosexual, white male Republican and I know that, so there's no excuse for not knowing it.

But I detect a whiff of satire in the whole post, The Alma Mater. I think you're messing around with everyone. Granted, I'm new, so maybe I'm wrong.

:p
I think the point is more so about the permissiveness of being willing to grant priivacy even to people one considers disgusting. In any case, yeah they're fighting for equality as well, and that should be pretty obvious, though to me I think privacy should be a higher priority, but ideally they should strive for all that except which there is a logical reason for discrimination.

And at this point in time, nothing comes to my mind for which the reasons for discrimination are logical enough to justify it...

I can't think of any case where there is a logical reason to justify discrimination of gays.

I can't think of any case where there is a logical reason for discrimination of gays.

I wonder why?

Explicit? Really? Chapter and verse, please. Also, nothing from the Old Testament, please. Jesus kinda voided all that nonsense.

Why not the Old Testament? That it is, on occassion, contradictory to the New Testament, is immaterial; both are valid as the basis of doctrine.

In any case, as the existence of purgatory demonstrates, scripture is not requisite for papal doctrine. The Pontiff is perfectly entitled to form such doctrine as he deems fit, irrespective of its merits.

Explicit? Really? Chapter and verse, please. Also, nothing from the Old Testament, please. Jesus kinda voided all that nonsense.
The distinction between the old testament and the new testament sounds somewhat arbitrary to me; some of the core stories of the new testament are tied to stories from the old testament, such as the Jesus story and the Adam-Eve story, as Richard Dawkins points out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFcZUe0ADpY

And IIRC "Romans 1:26-27" and "1 Corinthians 6:9-10" are in the new testament as well.

I think the relevant point about biblical condemnation of homosexuality is that that the bible shouldn't be used for ethical guidance in the first place...

I can't think of any case where there is a logical reason to justify discrimination of gays.
That's pretty much what I was saying, yeah. o.o

In any case, the "reasons" seem to be founded on either religion or misconceptions; and since religion is non-science, there isn't much reason for distinction between the two...

Who says he does? I see an awful fucking lot of people who claim to speak on his behalf, but one has to wonder...

After all, if He was all so much against homosexuality, you'd think He'd reminded "junior" not to forget one of the most important things to him when he brought His message down on earth.

Funnily enough, Jesus doesn't seem to give a damn about who fucks who. Only point of sexual morality he ever rants about is adultery. He stands up to prevent the men of the village from stoning the prostitute, even. I'm getting a whole "We don't care who you fuck, but if you're married or otherwise engaged in a serious exclusive relationship don't sleep around left and right, cuz that's not nice to your significant other" vibe there.

Indeed. I can be considered very much in favour of this, and I am a Christian.

Indeed. I can be considered very much in favour of this, and I am a Christian.
:fluffle:

Yes, I find it a sad thing that often Christians interpret the scripture in a regressive fashion. (That kind of does a disservice to you guys.) The important thing is that respect and loyalty is involved in a loving relationship.

Were does the Bible say Adam and Eve were married? Or that their relationship was the only one that was appropriate? (And why are there so many examples of other types of relationships -- polygamy, incest, same-sex relationships, etc -- in the Bible? Why don't we follow those examples?)

I think you mean Ephesians, chapter 5. Other than assuming that "husband" and "wife" are gender roles, how does this chapter forbid same-sex marriage? Chapter 6 is interesting however, do you follow it's teachings regarding slaves and masters?

Firstly, let it be said that I am only going to give a biblical perspective on this matter, and I am not willing to enter into an emotionally charged rant. I will do my best to explain the Christian point of view as best I can, and for those desiring to understand then I invite you to read.

The bible clearly presents that Adam was made first and was found to be wanting and lonely. God created Eve and gave her to him to live in an everlasting relationship. It was a covenant relationship which they entered into, one that was never to be broken.

That was the model of relationship before the fall, as God had intended it. What came after was mans err for introducing sin into the earth. The other examples of relationship within the bible, if you take their context are not suitable and are not the desired standard. Remember, that it is a fallen world and God is repeatedly calling his people to holiness, integrity, redemption and salvation. Many times you see the other relationships in scripture as being regarded as unsuitable, an abomination, disapproved of and regarded as entirely incorrect. These are placed within the bible by God, I believe to demonstrate to his people, how not to do things, how things can go wrong, and how we can avoid mistakes of our forefathers.

As for the chapter reference, yes you are correct, I did mean chapter five however six is an excellent commendation of it. If you look at chapter six of Ephesians you must first of all separate the cultural packet in which the literature was expressed from the eternal meaning of the text.

An example would be slavery. For a western context such as the United Kingdom, salvery is no longer a suitable means of social welfare. But the meaning of the text is a goldmine of wisdom. Work hard for those who are in charge of you. Do not complain, do not moan. And those who are masters, treat those who serve you well, just as you would Christ. This meaning encourages believers of both high and low ranks of society to work hard and kindly.

But, lets say, if the world were to hit disaster, and we required a Biblical model of social welfare, which was in reality extended servitude with a lot of perks. Then, social action such as is explained in the bible, in a technologically and socially past setting, would give many believers necessary social protection which was a rarity back then. And could be in the future if anything terrible were to happen to our state of development. It is an extreme example but one which repeats the previous. Work hard for your master. Master treat those that work for you well.

Finally, before you even begin to approach the text you must decide which hermeneutic you are going to employ. If you were to employ a static hermeneutic, then that is your course of action. Transpositional and the Redemptive are however the two which taken in moderate with the static, I feel, give the best meaning in our new cultural setting. I do not, go in for the reader-orientated hermeneutic at all as it shows no consistency and bends everything to modern presuppositions. It is dishonest to the text.

The chapter itself does not forbid same sex marriage. The entire bible does not for those outside the church. But for those inside the church and how profess Jesus as Lord, then they must follow Christ’s teachings on relationships as they have submitted they way they want things, to the way the King of Kings wants things.

What you get in America far more than the United Kingdom, is a political blending of the bible and just political opinion on how it should be expressed. I am for civil partnerships in the name of the state, I can accept those, as it affords legal protection etc etc. However, I can not support it or tolerate it if it were to be done in the name of God. As I feel that is directly contradictory to biblical teaching and must be addressed.


Anyway, as I am falling on to a tangent here I must conclude and hope I have answered some of your questions. But to finish let me say, that I must at all junctures strongly contest that the bible does not address the correct method of relationship, as they are clear themes running throughout. An integral part of holiness, morality and righteousness.

The real question is, should it be imposed on those who do not believe, and therefore these people would just hate the church and despise it, instead of looking to it in times of need? I do not believe the bible teaches moral imposition upon anyone. But instead preaches redemptive invitation to all who are thirsty.

What you get in America far more than the United Kingdom, is a political blending of the bible and just political opinion on how it should be expressed. I am for civil partnerships in the name of the state, I can accept those, as it affords legal protection etc etc. However, I can not support it or tolerate it if it were to be done in the name of God. As I feel that is directly contradictory to biblical teaching and must be addressed.

Ironically, such unions are already done in the name of God. It is in the name of the law that people struggle to be recognized. No church is compelled to sanctify a union, and none should be compelled, but many freely do so.

So it seems that for many Christians of your beliefs on homosexuality, it's okay if someone of some faith wants to marry two people, and it's okay if their union is legally recognized under the law, you just want to find some word for it other than marriage because... you have a copyright on that word.

The chapter itself does not forbid same sex marriage. The entire bible does not for those outside the church. But for those inside the church and how profess Jesus as Lord, then they must follow Christ’s teachings on relationships as they have submitted they way they want things, to the way the King of Kings wants things.



^ This

Emphasis mine. Note how it says that the bible does not forbid same sex marriage for those outside the church.
Now, can we have that actually occur, please?

homphobia = epic fail

all homophobes are idiots, end of

Stay here long enough, and one of those will change. republicans become Libertarians, Men become women, and I am sure there is at least one case somewhere of a change of race.

As an added bonus we'll infect him with "the gay".

The bible clearly presents that Adam was made first and was found to be wanting and lonely. God created Eve and gave her to him to live in an everlasting relationship. It was a covenant relationship which they entered into, one that was never to be broken.

Eve was not the first wife of Adam. Lilith was the first wife; however, Adam would not accept her as his wife as she wanted to be treated as his equal. Accordingly, she got pissed and said the name of God and was cast out. THEN Eve came, who was a woman Adam could dominate.

And just to add my stance on this issue. I'm a Deist who is slightly homophobic. To put it plainly I find it nauseating to see two men or women kissing. The difference between me and others however, is that I don't care. I have gay and lesbian friends, and the fact their sexual orientation disturbs me, has no bearing on our friendship. They respect me enough to not kiss their significant other in front of me, and I respect them enough to accept their love for the same sex. If it is against God's will, then he can tell us all when Judgment day comes. Until that happens, who the hell are we to judge?

Eve was not the first wife of Adam. Lilith was the first wife; however, Adam would not accept her as his wife as she wanted to be treated as his equal. Accordingly, she got pissed and said the name of God and was cast out. THEN Eve came, who was a woman Adam could dominate.

And just to add my stance on this issue. I'm a Deist who is slightly homophobic. To put it plainly I find it nauseating to see two men or women kissing. The difference between me and others however, is that I don't care. I have gay and lesbian friends, and the fact their sexual orientation disturbs me, has no bearing on our friendship. They respect me enough to not kiss their significant other in front of me, and I respect them enough to accept their love for the same sex. If it is against God's will, then he can tell us all when Judgment day comes. Until that happens, who the hell are we to judge?

nausiating huh?, i could say the same about reading your post.

Firstly, let it be said that I am only going to give a biblical perspective...It was a covenant relationship which they entered into, one that was never to be broken.

There is nothing, zero, zip, nil, nada in the Bible to indicate that Adam and Eve exchanged any kind of oaths to each other or "entered into" any kind of "covenant": you pretend you are taking this all from the Bible, but actually you are making stuff up, based on what you wish was in there.

nausiating huh?, i could say the same about reading your post.

Of all the people spouting nonsense on here, you find this offensive? The poster said seeing two men or two women kiss nauseates him/her. S/he also said that has no bearing on how s/he feels about gay people themselves and, I assume, doesn't think gay marriage should be outlawed. As opposed to all the "hate the sin, love the sinner" types out there who want to save gays from themselves. I really don't care what someone thinks of my relationship, as long as they aren't after me with a torch and pitchfork.

I also don't think nauseating always means bad or evil. I find lima beans to be so repulsive that I can't be in the same room with them, but I don't consider people who eat them to be bad, immoral or disgusting. Maybe insane, but not those other things.

There is nothing, zero, zip, nil, nada in the Bible to indicate that Adam and Eve exchanged any kind of oaths to each other or "entered into" any kind of "covenant": you pretend you are taking this all from the Bible, but actually you are making stuff up, based on what you wish was in there.

It's in the footnotes. I keep telling you, you gotta read those more carefully.

Oh no - I am serious. I truly feel this way about it.

However, I recognise that those feelings are wrong and intellectually dishonest. I can not really justify them. As such I have decided not to act on them, nor act against others that cause the nausea. It is their right do such things, just as I may do things that nauseate them.

Lovely holiday thought, no ?

Lovely enough.

^ This

Emphasis mine. Note how it says that the bible does not forbid same sex marriage for those outside the church.
Now, can we have that actually occur, please?

Don't hold your breath.

nausiating huh?, i could say the same about reading your post.

If you wanted to be perceived as a douchebag, sure. There are far more nauseating things on your opposing side than the post you quoted. Thuxor admitted his feelings and then said THEY DIDN'T MATTER. What part of that nauseates YOU? No homosexual I've ever met demands that people should enjoy them and their PDA. Rather, they'd like to have the same rights all others take for granted. Open your eyes.

Marriage isn't a religious thing. Anyone (man and a woman) can go to the town office or whatever and ask for a marriage license. Once that's obtained they are married, no need for a service or anything. I believe marriage is for a man and a woman. You can't just change the meaning of the word. By all means give the gays there own little civil union or whatever, but it simply isn't marriage. Marriage was created by society seeing the need of both a man and a woman to raise a child (which isn't really needed anymore) man to provide and the woman to take care of the children.

Personally I "dislike' flamboyant gay people (men anyways, im a straight man, lesbians are cool). For several reasons. It is disgusting and it feels wrong because it goes against natural instinct. Just don't be flamboyant and don't be showing it off then ure fine. Some guy I worked with was gay, never knew for weeks and then i found it by some1 else. He was a pretty cool guy and kept it to himself. He even made fun of flamboyant gay people. They suck.

Marriage isn't a religious thing. Anyone (man and a woman) can go to the town office or whatever and ask for a marriage license.

So far, so correct.

Once that's obtained they are married, no need for a service or anything.

Hi there. This is reality. You're wrong.

They need an officiant (if you look at a marriage license, "officiant" has a name/address spot and a signature line), and two witnesses. The license authorizes the officiant (like the line "by the power vested in me by the state of..." in all those movies and TV shows) to perform anything from a simple civil ceremony of a few minutes, to a whole Catholic ordeal of an hour or more.

If you get something as simple as this aspect of marriage so egregiously wrong, anyone might take anything else you have to say on the subject as similarly uneducated.

I believe marriage is for a man and a woman.

That's nice. Others disagree. What business is it of yours? How are you harmed by homsexual marriage?

You can't just change the meaning of the word.

Nobody is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Look at definition #4. Yes, it's not #1, but if Webster includes it, guess what, it's part of the word's definition, and gender-neutral.

By all means give the gays there own little civil union or whatever, but it simply isn't marriage.

Your use of the word "little" as an unsubtle attempt to belittle homosexuals searching for equal rights under the law as promised by the Constitution (it's in the thread, so read it), is pretty offensive. It is marriage. You don't own the word. Nobody does.

Marriage was created by society seeing the need of both a man and a woman to raise a child (which isn't really needed anymore) man to provide and the woman to take care of the children.

Do you contradict yourself like that often? I'm not sure you should be driving, if that's how you think.

Personally I "dislike' flamboyant gay people (men anyways, im a straight man, lesbians are cool).

And the truth comes out. "Gays are icky -- except the chicks." That's really kinda stupid, you do realize that, don't you?

For several reasons. It is disgusting and it feels wrong because it goes against natural instinct.

It goes against YOUR natural instinct. Gay people are ACTING on THEIRS, get it? Natural. Your view that it's disgusting is pretty much how some gays feel about heteros. And yet the gays aren't looking to keep straights from looking fabulous (something as proprietary to gay men as you seem to think marriage is to straight people). In fact, gay people have been trying hard on TV to get straights to take care of themselves better (Queer Eye, What Not to Wear, etc.). I should think that getting men to look better and take better care of themselves is worth letting them marry their loved ones, isn't it? Come on!

Just don't be flamboyant and don't be showing it off then ure fine.

So they're fine as long as they don't act like themselves. Are you telling me that there are no straight people who are flamboyant? Again, it isn't the flamboyance you dislike, you've already confessed to the whole "it's icky" thing. Well guess what? You are not who gay men are after, so you can relax. They don't want to bust into your house and fuck each other in the ass while you're having dinner, okay? They want to live life unimpeded by prejudice and ignorance. How is that in any way objectionable?

Some guy I worked with was gay, never knew for weeks and then i found it by some1 else. He was a pretty cool guy and kept it to himself. He even made fun of flamboyant gay people. They suck.

How many fag jokes or homophobic comments did you make around him before you knew? Wanna bet those hurt? Might it not be possible that he kept it to himself because he knew he worked with people like you who have irrational fear and hatred of just about everything he is? Would you be proud to show him your posts here? Might he have made fun of flamboyant gay people because he knew that if he didn't, he might have to deal with your hatred at work every day? Do you censor yourself or consciously do things differently now that you know? Do you even care that such self-examination is how people grow and evolve their personalities so that their not forever adolescents stuck in the high school mentality? I wonder.

homphobia = epic fail

all homophobes are idiots, end of

nausiating huh?, i could say the same about reading your post.

The Final Five, I strongly suggest you read The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), with particular reference to the sections on flaming and trolling. This is a discussion and debate site. One-liners without any supporting comment or argument seldom advance that aim. Play nice.

There is nothing, zero, zip, nil, nada in the Bible to indicate that Adam and Eve exchanged any kind of oaths to each other or "entered into" any kind of "covenant": you pretend you are taking this all from the Bible, but actually you are making stuff up, based on what you wish was in there.

"Gen 2:23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. "

Please friend, at least give me some credit. I have devoted the rest of my life to studying this book, and I assure you I would not knowinglymake up anything or risk doing any injustice to the word of God. Such an accusation is hardly anything other than a misdirected hammer blow. I have provided above adams oath, the reason behind biblical relationship in verse twenty four.

^ This

Emphasis mine. Note how it says that the bible does not forbid same sex marriage for those outside the church.
Now, can we have that actually occur, please?

It gets more complicated when you begin to take in to considerations matters of social justice etc etc. But I will write something on that when I have more time.

Personally I "dislike' flamboyant gay people (men anyways, im a straight man, lesbians are cool)..
I am so glad that you started that sentence off with the word 'Personally', as you are quite right... it is personal. Its like me saying I 'dislike' lawyers who wear ironed shirts, but hot male lawyers are okay.
Why are lesbians cool, but flamboyant gays not? They are both homosexual, so I imagine your dislike of them is based on nothing more than bigotry. Oh, one moment... you actually go on to explain 'several' reasons for this... Okay, I am listening...


For several reasons. It is disgusting and it feels wrong because it goes against natural instinct. .
Thats not several reasons. It is two. Also they are both personal reasons which goes more to imply that it is your flaw rather than theirs. I mean, you claimed earlier that lesbians are cool, so homosexuality is not an issue with you... therefore the thing you have against flamboyant gays is their natural mannerisms and instinct which manifests in flamboyancy.

I imagine you have a solution for this?


Just don't be flamboyant and don't be showing it off then ure fine..
*facepalm*
So.... it is as simple as "don't be who you are". Wow, if I had known the answer was that simple, I would have been spreading the word all my life and saving flamboyant gays from themselves.
How about, instead of hating flamboyancy in gay men, you simply 'Just dont hate flamboyancy in gay men'. There are two sides to every coin, you know.... several if you count the edges too.

....flamboyant gay people. They suck.
Given half the chance, yes they do. :p
------------------------------------------------------------
On a final note... why am I on NSG on Xmas Day? How sad am I?? And.. why are you here too?

Gays must be very thankful that we are not under biblical rule, however... as far as "civil rights" goes... they have THE SAME RIGHTS as the rest of us... to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX. They are not asking for CIVIL RIGHTS, but SPECIAL RIGHTS. They think that somehow they are better than us... more enlightened maybe.
Tolerance is something that the "politically correct" world has dreamed up. For those of us who are Christians, this is a central belief to us, and not denying someone "equal" rights, but denying SPECIAL rights

You seem to be making this up / pulling it out of your ass. From where do you get the idea that the definition of marriage is restricted to meaning marriage of someone of the "opposite sex"?

Show us.

according to the UN Deceleration of Human Rights homosexuality is a right, s is homosexual marriage, so every country that says they follow/enforce the laws of the UN must allow homosexual marriage. Thus America is a hypocritical pond of scum.

First of all, where in the UNDHR does it say anything about homosexuality being a "right"?

Secondly, the UN doesn't make "laws", so there are no "laws of the UN".

Personally I "dislike' flamboyant gay people
I expect you "dislike" flamboyant straight people too...

(men anyways, im a straight man, lesbians are cool). For several reasons. It is disgusting and it feels wrong because it goes against natural instinct.
So it's just the ick factor then...

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd60/nova1johson/AaronWuzunKiss2.jpg

What do you think of that pic?

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...WuzunKiss2.jpg
hot and sweet

Marriage isn't a religious thing. Anyone (man and a woman) can go to the town office or whatever and ask for a marriage license. Once that's obtained they are married, no need for a service or anything. I believe marriage is for a man and a woman. You can't just change the meaning of the word. By all means give the gays there own little civil union or whatever, but it simply isn't marriage. Marriage was created by society seeing the need of both a man and a woman to raise a child (which isn't really needed anymore) man to provide and the woman to take care of the children.

Personally I "dislike' flamboyant gay people (men anyways, im a straight man, lesbians are cool). For several reasons. It is disgusting and it feels wrong because it goes against natural instinct. Just don't be flamboyant and don't be showing it off then ure fine. Some guy I worked with was gay, never knew for weeks and then i found it by some1 else. He was a pretty cool guy and kept it to himself. He even made fun of flamboyant gay people. They suck.
When someone posts such a perfect stereotype of The Homophobe (tm), complete with every bigoted cliche right down to a fairly decent attempt at a "working class" speech pattern (part of the stereotype), I am inclined to congratulate them for a good satire.

You have done an excellent job of painting a word-portrait of everything that is wrong with homophobic mindset in one neat and well-crafted package. Build a hand puppet for the character and have it recite that speech, and you'd have a killer youtube video.

It's a perfect expression of why we have and need movements for civil rights.

So it's just the ick factor then...

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd60/nova1johson/AaronWuzunKiss2.jpg

What do you think of that pic?
If he sticks true to the character, he'll likely think they look alike. :p

"Gen 2:23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. "

Please friend, at least give me some credit. I have devoted the rest of my life to studying this book, and I assure you I would not knowinglymake up anything or risk doing any injustice to the word of God. Such an accusation is hardly anything other than a misdirected hammer blow. I have provided above adams oath, the reason behind biblical relationship in verse twenty four.
that seems like a ceremony to you? an exchange of oaths as tmu said in her post? it looks to me like a man taking posession of something that god made for him. where is EVE'S oath? where is her acceptance of her role?

it reminds me of the princess bride...

"buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast.

dp roberts: It never happened.

B: What?

DPR: It never happened.

B: But it did, I was there! This old man said man and wife!

DPR: Did you say I do?

B: Oh, well, no. We sort of skipped that part.

DPR: Then you're not married. You didn't say it, you didn't do it."

I would like to point the nice people of NSG at the Christmas speech Ahmadinejad gave on channel 4:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/articles/translation-of-the-alternative-christmas-message

Can someone explain to me why a symbol of "the axis of evil" makes more humane speeches than the Pope ? That actually somewhat approach "the spirit of Christmas" ?

I would like to point the nice people of NSG at the Christmas speech Ahmadinejad gave on channel 4:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/articles/translation-of-the-alternative-christmas-message

Can someone explain to me why a symbol of "the axis of evil" makes more humane speeches than the Pope ? That actually somewhat approach "the spirit of Christmas" ?
because you are picking out 2 speeches, one ugly and one nice. ahmadinejad has given ugly speeches in his day. the pope has given his nice ones.

if you look at the pope's christmas address you will find that it contained nothing that you would find offensive. (unless religion in general offends you)

because you are picking out 2 speeches, one ugly and one nice. ahmadinejad has given ugly speeches in his day. the pope has given his nice ones.

A fair assessment. Still, it seems our favourite Iranian fruitcake understands Christmas better than Christs representative on earth...

if you look at the pope's christmas address you will find that it contained nothing that you would find offensive. (unless religion in general offends you)

The OP is about the Popes Christmas speech. His urbi and orbi is merely dull - though a tad bit hypocritical.

Protect the children, peace in Mesopotamia and kill the gays.
Hypocritical ex-nazi retard.

that seems like a ceremony to you? an exchange of oaths as tmu said in her post? it looks to me like a man taking posession of something that god made for him. where is EVE'S oath? where is her acceptance of her role?

it reminds me of the princess bride...

"buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast.

dp roberts: It never happened.

B: What?

DPR: It never happened.

B: But it did, I was there! This old man said man and wife!

DPR: Did you say I do?

B: Oh, well, no. We sort of skipped that part.

DPR: Then you're not married. You didn't say it, you didn't do it."

She accepted him, that much is obvious since they remained husband and wife. You can mock, but that's hardly the spirit of understanding. All I have done is give the biblical perspective whether or not you agree. Mockery is hardly a fair rebuttle or communication of your perspective.

She accepted him, that much is obvious since they remained husband and wife. You can mock, but that's hardly the spirit of understanding. All I have done is give the biblical perspective whether or not you agree. Mockery is hardly a fair rebuttle or communication of your perspective.
So...does that mean that prisoners who don't escape are voluntarily accepting captivity? Staying in a situation does not mean one voluntarily accepts it.

That aside, I personally have no interest in arguing what I see as the flaws in the Biblical perspective. What I'm still waiting for is the Biblical perspective, or any other religious justification, for imposing that perspective on others. In other words, an answer to the OP's question of why gays cannot be allowed to have their privacy as to their own lives and equal rights as citizens under a secular government.

She accepted him, that much is obvious since they remained husband and wife. You can mock, but that's hardly the spirit of understanding. All I have done is give the biblical perspective whether or not you agree. Mockery is hardly a fair rebuttle or communication of your perspective.
its not like she had much of a choice. he was the only man on earth after all.

but thats not the point. the point was that they did not have a wedding, did not say vows, and there was no church to sanction it.

A fair assessment. Still, it seems our favourite Iranian fruitcake understands Christmas better than Christs representative on earth...



The OP is about the Popes Christmas speech. His urbi and orbi is merely dull - though a tad bit hypocritical.
that was his christmas address?

what an awful old man he is.

its not like she had much of a choice. he was the only man on earth after all.

but thats not the point. the point was that they did not have a wedding, did not say vows, and there was no church to sanction it.

I don't think you're being fair to what I have being writing. It is clear, absolutely, that Eve took Adam as her wife, because first of all, it was why she was created. Secondly, she would have longed for him as he for her.

The marriage was obviously sanctioned, nay directed by God, since he created Eve for that specific purpose. Secondly, it was to be destined to last for eternity, that much is clearly implied from the chapter. Yet, man caused sin to enter creation.

Marriage is not a church ceremony. Rather, the ceremony is a public declaration of an inner commitment which is the everlasting commitment, a covenant between man and woman, to share everything with each other in the presence of God.

Such, is clear from the Biblical text.

Christians view that as the absolute directive and the way things should be. However, our authority cannot extend to those outside of the church, unless, it treads on areas of vital social responsibility.

its not like she had much of a choice. he was the only man on earth after all.

but thats not the point. the point was that they did not have a wedding, did not say vows, and there was no church to sanction it.

But nonetheless, marriage is a covenant declaration, a joining of two people for the remainder of their lives. What you are lamenting is the absence of traditional baggage. And, as far as the bible is concerned, it can only take place before God, between male and female.

its not like she had much of a choice. he was the only man on earth after all..

I cannot resist to post the following commercial, which is quite fitting and adds a little lightheartedness to this whole debate ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU30H0rkymY

But nonetheless, marriage is a covenant declaration, a joining of two people for the remainder of their lives. What you are lamenting is the absence of traditional baggage. And, as far as the bible is concerned, it can only take place before God, between male and female.

In other words, despite the fact that Adam and Eve are not actually an example of marriage the way you claimed they were, you're still going to insist on your original assertion?

In other words, despite the fact that Adam and Eve are not actually an example of marriage the way you claimed they were, you're still going to insist on your original assertion?

It's less important to examine the reality than it is to reconstruct a fable in whatever image best supports your assertions.

In other words, despite the fact that Adam and Eve are not actually an example of marriage the way you claimed they were, you're still going to insist on your original assertion?

Not not at all. Marriage is a covenant relationship which conforms to the model God established from the start of creation. The challenge which I presented was removing the traditional baggage. The definition of marriage is the state of being voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union".

Such an expression is clearly present in Genesis, and where Christians today build the foundation of their opinion of proper relationship. Male and Female in the Garden of Eden. One given to the other, in a covenant union.

Male and Female in the Garden of Eden.

One man called Adam and one female called Eva, created from Adam actually.
If we are free to marry people with different names who are furthermore not clones - why would we not be allowed to change anything else ?

"Gen 2:23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. "

Please friend, at least give me some credit. I have devoted the rest of my life to studying this book, and I assure you I would not knowingly make up anything or risk doing any injustice to the word of God. Such an accusation is hardly anything other than a misdirected hammer blow. I have provided above adams oath, the reason behind biblical relationship in verse twenty four.

Do I detect a little defensiveness? It doesn't matter how much time you spend studying something if you're so in love with your idea of it that study becomes reinforcement of your love rather than an honest, objective look at the subject. You made up "covenant" where none -- in the very words you posted -- exists. I look at those words and see God's pronouncement after manufacturing woman in a rather interesting manner. If the decree comes from on high, how is that a covenant between two people, regardless of their gender? Also, with no "mother" to leave after the joining (unless there was a Goddess and it wasn't mentioned in the Bible) and the only "father" being God Himself, what was Adam talking about? How could he have understood the concept of "mother" when there wasn't one on Earth until Eve conceived Cain and Abel?

She accepted him, that much is obvious since they remained husband and wife. You can mock, but that's hardly the spirit of understanding. All I have done is give the biblical perspective whether or not you agree. Mockery is hardly a fair rebuttle or communication of your perspective.

Accepted him by not saying anything? Son, what you claim to be "obvious" is only so because you are in love with the source. That's fine, but it shreds your objectivity. What you perceive as mockery, we offer as honest criticism of a book that's been used and is still occasionally used to justify some pretty bad behavior. You've given your interpretation of the Biblical perspective. We are all about the "spirit of understanding", but we're not going to give you any slack just because you love the source as much as you do. You're trying to convince us, and we read your words and react to them as words, not as Gospel. As such, your words do not convince.

I don't think you're being fair to what I have being writing. It is clear, absolutely, that Eve took Adam as her wife, because first of all, it was why she was created. Secondly, she would have longed for him as he for her.

All we HAVE is what you're writing. How is it unfair to react to exactly what you type? You say "it is clear, absolultely", and I see nothing to support that claim. How do you KNOW she "would have longed for him"? We hear nothing from her on the matter, do we? You say "created" but it comes off as "programmed". I see a declaration by Adam after God whips up woman, and unless we have Eve on the record, you are imagining how Eve felt and what she "might" have said. That's a bit disingenuous.

The marriage was obviously sanctioned, nay directed by God, since he created Eve for that specific purpose. Secondly, it was to be destined to last for eternity, that much is clearly implied from the chapter. Yet, man caused sin to enter creation.

"Directed by God" doesn't sound like anyone had any say in the matter, yet you claim this "covenant". If the supreme being directs you to do something, are you going to decline?

Marriage is not a church ceremony. Rather, the ceremony is a public declaration of an inner commitment which is the everlasting commitment, a covenant between man and woman, to share everything with each other in the presence of God.

Funny, you make a very strong argument for homosexual marriage by saying that. If it's an inner commitment, what business is it of anyone else's? What's the big problem? If you don't like the "public declaration" part, the answer is simple -- don't go to a gay wedding. And yet you and people like you would rather get buried to the hilt in this continuing argument about marriage. Why bother if it's all internal anyway?

Such, is clear from the Biblical text.

Little is clear from Biblical texts, given how many ways they can be interpreted, depending upon the end result desired.

Christians view that as the absolute directive and the way things should be. However, our authority cannot extend to those outside of the church, unless, it treads on areas of vital social responsibility.

On THIS, we agree COMPLETELY. I wish your perspective on this point were the overall Christian perspective. Alas, it is not, and we have to have these pointless and petty arguments over marriage and who gets to have it.

Not not at all. Marriage is a covenant relationship which conforms to the model God established from the start of creation. The challenge which I presented was removing the traditional baggage. The definition of marriage is the state of being voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union".

Divorce which, until recently in many quarters, wasn't even allowed? Come on. I suppose you believe that folks lived 600 years back then, too?

Such an expression is clearly present in Genesis, and where Christians today build the foundation of their opinion of proper relationship. Male and Female in the Garden of Eden. One given to the other, in a covenant union.

"Clearly". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do I detect a little defensiveness? It doesn't matter how much time you spend studying something if you're so in love with your idea of it that study becomes reinforcement of your love rather than an honest, objective look at the subject. You made up "covenant" where none -- in the very words you posted -- exists. I look at those words and see God's pronouncement after manufacturing woman in a rather interesting manner. If the decree comes from on high, how is that a covenant between two people, regardless of their gender? Also, with no "mother" to leave after the joining (unless there was a Goddess and it wasn't mentioned in the Bible) and the only "father" being God Himself, what was Adam talking about? How could he have understood the concept of "mother" when there wasn't one on Earth until Eve conceived Cain and Abel?

I prefer to use the Word Biblical Commentary amongst a number of others to assist in my research, so the following post I must give credit to Gordon J Wenham, editor of the commentary and John D.W. Watts.

The text I quoted is taken by all serious scholars to be a marriage rite. The poetry that Adam expresses on meeting Eve his perfect helpmate is traditionally scanned into a two beat tricolon and a three beat bicolon. Translated literally into English it does not make much sense but here it is anyway.

This, this time,
2
(4 syllables)
(is) bone of my bones
2
(6 syllables)
and flesh of my flesh
2
(7 syllables)
This shall be called woman
3
(7 syllables)
for from man was taken this
3
(7 syllables)

Here, many characteristics of Hebrew poetry are employed, parralemism lines 2-3; 4-5 and assonance, verbal repittion etc etc. All of these are designed to culminate upon the exclamation and focus all attention upon the woman.

This is understandable since the first three lines are a poetic formulation of the traditional kinship formula (Gen 29:14, Judgers 9:2, 2 Sam 5:1). Whereas English speaks of blood relationships, Hebrew spokes of relatives as one’s “flesh and bone.”

It is often suggested that the story of woman’s creation from man’s rib illustrates the meaning of this traditional kinship formula. “The first man could employ … (these) words in their literal connotation: actually bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh!” (Cassuto, 1:136). This formula sets man and woman on an equal footing as regards to their humanity, yet sets them apart from the animals (vv 19–20; cf. 1:26–28).

“This shall be called a woman, for from a man was she taken.” The last two lines are a typical example of Hebrew naming. Despite their similarity, it is doubtful whether there is any etymological connection between hva
(<isûsûaµh) “woman” and vya
(<éÆsû) “man.” (But see S. Qogut, Tarbiz 51 [1982] 293–98 for possible link.)

Frequently Hebrew folk etymologies offer a wordplay on the circumstances of the person’s birth (cf. 4:1, 25; 17:17, 19; 29:32–30:24, etc.). Here the first man names the first woman in a similar fashion. Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. 3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative (3:17).

“Therefore a man forsakes his father and his mother.” This is not a continuation of the man’s remarks in v 23, but a comment of the narrator, applying the principles of the first marriage to every marriage.

Accepted him by not saying anything? Son, what you claim to be "obvious" is only so because you are in love with the source. That's fine, but it shreds your objectivity. What you perceive as mockery, we offer as honest criticism of a book that's been used and is still occasionally used to justify some pretty bad behavior. You've given your interpretation of the Biblical perspective. We are all about the "spirit of understanding", but we're not going to give you any slack just because you love the source as much as you do. You're trying to convince us, and we read your words and react to them as words, not as Gospel. As such, your words do not convince.

I love the source, but I do not throw out my logical mind. I am not trying to convince you, all I'm doing is giving you a presentation to assist in understanding, there is a remarkable distinction.



All we HAVE is what you're writing. How is it unfair to react to exactly what you type? You say "it is clear, absolultely", and I see nothing to support that claim. How do you KNOW she "would have longed for him"? We hear nothing from her on the matter, do we? You say "created" but it comes off as "programmed". I see a declaration by Adam after God whips up woman, and unless we have Eve on the record, you are imagining how Eve felt and what she "might" have said. That's a bit disingenuous.

I can agree with the above. I will substantiate what I write with further sources in the future. I accept that point.

"Directed by God" doesn't sound like anyone had any say in the matter, yet you claim this "covenant". If the supreme being directs you to do something, are you going to decline?

I didn't when he spoke to me in a Geology lecture. I gave myself to him in a covenant relationship right there and then.

Funny, you make a very strong argument for homosexual marriage by saying that. If it's an inner commitment, what business is it of anyone else's? What's the big problem? If you don't like the "public declaration" part, the answer is simple -- don't go to a gay wedding. And yet you and people like you would rather get buried to the hilt in this continuing argument about marriage. Why bother if it's all internal anyway?

I have no problem with it, as long as it isn't in the name of God and does not impede upon a christians outworking of social responsibility. Homosexual relations does not do that.

Little is clear from Biblical texts, given how many ways they can be interpreted, depending upon the end result desired.

You can make anything say anything if you twist it enough, but most people know that they're moving away from the honesty of text. I try as hard as I can not to impose my own presuppositions upon the biblical texts.

On THIS, we agree COMPLETELY. I wish your perspective on this point were the overall Christian perspective. Alas, it is not, and we have to have these pointless and petty arguments over marriage and who gets to have it.

Indeed. I am not for forcing anyone to conform, unless it impedes social responsibility. For example, I would expect to force people not to murder and it extends from there.

Divorce which, until recently in many quarters, wasn't even allowed? Come on. I suppose you believe that folks lived 600 years back then, too?

I believe in everything that the word of God says.

"Clearly". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

It's a bad trait of mine, but as I have said, I will make sure I use many sources from now on, to at least give a little bit more insight. I believed that this discussion was light hearted and did not require much supportive text. I shall not make that assumption again. Thank you.

There is nothing, zero, zip, nil, nada in the Bible to indicate that Adam and Eve exchanged any kind of oaths to each other or "entered into" any kind of "covenant": you pretend you are taking this all from the Bible, but actually you are making stuff up, based on what you wish was in there.

"Gen 2:23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. "

Please friend, at least give me some credit. I have devoted the rest of my life to studying this book, and I assure you I would not knowinglymake up anything or risk doing any injustice to the word of God. Such an accusation is hardly anything other than a misdirected hammer blow. I have provided above adams oath, the reason behind biblical relationship in verse twenty four.

that seems like a ceremony to you? an exchange of oaths as tmu said in her post? it looks to me like a man taking posession of something that god made for him. where is EVE'S oath? where is her acceptance of her role?

it reminds me of the princess bride...

"buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast.

dp roberts: It never happened.

B: What?

DPR: It never happened.

B: But it did, I was there! This old man said man and wife!

DPR: Did you say I do?

B: Oh, well, no. We sort of skipped that part.

DPR: Then you're not married. You didn't say it, you didn't do it."

But nonetheless, marriage is a covenant declaration, a joining of two people for the remainder of their lives. What you are lamenting is the absence of traditional baggage. And, as far as the bible is concerned, it can only take place before God, between male and female.


just to remind you of the point i was responding to.

im thinking that the "flesh of my flesh" thing is more a "you cant marry a monkey" thing than a "you gotta marry a woman" thing. that is what set eve apart from all the other potential companions--that she was human like adam. ... otherwise the highest form of marriage would be parent/child and thats just sick.

in any case, i dont see why anyone joined in marriage wouldnt become one flesh regardless of gender. as long as you dont marry a monkey.

The definition of marriage is the state of being voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union".

Why do you accept "divorce"?

I prefer to use the Word Biblical Commentary amongst a number of others to assist in my research, so the following post I must give credit to Gordon J Wenham, editor of the commentary and John D.W. Watts.

The text I quoted is taken by all serious scholars to be a marriage rite. The poetry that Adam expresses on meeting Eve his perfect helpmate is traditionally scanned into a two beat tricolon and a three beat bicolon. Translated literally into English it does not make much sense but here it is anyway.

This, this time,
2
(4 syllables)
(is) bone of my bones
2
(6 syllables)
and flesh of my flesh
2
(7 syllables)
This shall be called woman
3
(7 syllables)
for from man was taken this
3
(7 syllables)

Here, many characteristics of Hebrew poetry are employed, parralemism lines 2-3; 4-5 and assonance, verbal repittion etc etc. All of these are designed to culminate upon the exclamation and focus all attention upon the woman.

This is understandable since the first three lines are a poetic formulation of the traditional kinship formula (Gen 29:14, Judgers 9:2, 2 Sam 5:1). Whereas English speaks of blood relationships, Hebrew spokes of relatives as one’s “flesh and bone.”

It is often suggested that the story of woman’s creation from man’s rib illustrates the meaning of this traditional kinship formula. “The first man could employ … (these) words in their literal connotation: actually bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh!” (Cassuto, 1:136). This formula sets man and woman on an equal footing as regards to their humanity, yet sets them apart from the animals (vv 19–20; cf. 1:26–28).

“This shall be called a woman, for from a man was she taken.” The last two lines are a typical example of Hebrew naming. Despite their similarity, it is doubtful whether there is any etymological connection between hva
(<isûsûaµh) “woman” and vya
(<éÆsû) “man.” (But see S. Qogut, Tarbiz 51 [1982] 293–98 for possible link.)

Frequently Hebrew folk etymologies offer a wordplay on the circumstances of the person’s birth (cf. 4:1, 25; 17:17, 19; 29:32–30:24, etc.). Here the first man names the first woman in a similar fashion. Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. 3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative (3:17).

“Therefore a man forsakes his father and his mother.” This is not a continuation of the man’s remarks in v 23, but a comment of the narrator, applying the principles of the first marriage to every marriage.

Lovely, but irrelevant. Hebrew poetic forms do not translate into English (or Greek, Aramaic, etc.). Drawing conclusions because the poetry resembles other languages' forms? Sorry. I appreciate the background and the scholarship, but cannot accept commonality as evidence.

I love the source, but I do not throw out my logical mind. I am not trying to convince you, all I'm doing is giving you a presentation to assist in understanding, there is a remarkable distinction.

Apologetics and hermeneutics for the Bible are sophistry to me. It's just a sophisticated way of making the Word your word. Which I have no probelm with, so long as those so doing admit it. They rarely do.

I have no problem with it, as long as it isn't in the name of God and does not impede upon a christians outworking of social responsibility. Homosexual relations does not do that.

Interesting. Do you, or have you voted against acknowledging gays right to a state marriage? I'm glad you've got no problem with it, but legions of people who are sullying the name of your religion certainly do have a problem.

The text I quoted is taken by all serious scholars to be a marriage rite.

Cute post, but based on degrees of wrong-ness and simple untruth.

Most serious scholars believe the marriage in Genesis to be a metaphor. So - claiming it as a marriage rite is ludicrous... maybe you could claim it as an IMAGE of a marriage rite.

Most serious scholars believe the marriage in Genesis to be symbolic of the story already told in Genesis - the spirit (chavah) being united with the red clay ('adam) to form the origins of life. The same story already told in breathing life into the dust.

Lovely, but irrelevant. Hebrew poetic forms do not translate into English (or Greek, Aramaic, etc.). Drawing conclusions because the poetry resembles other languages' forms? Sorry. I appreciate the background and the scholarship, but cannot accept commonality as evidence.

No, the author is discussing the Hebrew formulation of the poetry. The English translation was given in literally as an apendage to study and for further information. As for commonality, the same function and style is usd throughout a range of biblical texts. This particular form serves a purpose for a context which is marriage.

Apologetics and hermeneutics for the Bible are sophistry to me. It's just a sophisticated way of making the Word your word. Which I have no probelm with, so long as those so doing admit it. They rarely do.

Oh I would disagree, but I am sure you are not surprised at that.

Interesting. Do you, or have you voted against acknowledging gays right to a state marriage? I'm glad you've got no problem with it, but legions of people who are sullying the name of your religion certainly do have a problem.


First of all, I am British so I have not had the liberty to. Secondly, I would not vote against it, but I would not vote for it either. I have no qualms of a couple of the same sex, living together, having sex, doing whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on social responsibility.

That of course changes if the the people in question profess to be christian and are under my pastoral care.

Cute post, but based on degrees of wrong-ness and simple untruth.

Most serious scholars believe the marriage in Genesis to be a metaphor. So - claiming it as a marriage rite is ludicrous... maybe you could claim it as an IMAGE of a marriage rite.

Most serious scholars believe the marriage in Genesis to be symbolic of the story already told in Genesis - the spirit (chavah) being united with the red clay ('adam) to form the origins of life. The same story already told in breathing life into the dust.

You can find more research in Mills, M.S., A Study Guide to the Book of Genesis chapter 2.

I disagree, most respectable commentaries do hold that this is in fact a marriage rite, the very first no less. In fact, as will be further conveyed, such a claim is further referenced throughout the rest of the scriptures. I have taken this research from the above reference, if anyone feels like further research or study.

Now first things first. God could undoubtedly have created Eve from dust in the same way He created Adam, but by using flesh and bone from Adam, God literally and figuratively stressed the inseparable unity of marriage. When He said, “They shall be one flesh,” He demonstrated unarguably and forcefully just what He meant, for Eve could never deny her relationship to Adam, nor vice versa; they are eternally related to each other.

Now, additionally, God used this simple yet powerful principle in His teaching on divorce, for when He referred to ‘the beginning’ (Matt 19:4), He indicated that Adam had no alternative but to remain married to Eve, for she was the only woman God had provided for him.

Adam had to love her as he loved himself, for she indeed was part of him. Indeed, she was as much his flesh and blood as any child, and that is the figure God chose to illustrate the inviolability of marriage. It is easy to see from whence Paul drew Eph 5:28, is it not? Nothing is closer to a man’s heart (symbolically the seat of his emotions) than his rib, and just so his wife should be his dearest possession, the center of his human emotion.

God brought the woman to the man (v.22). In so doing our Creator performed the first marriage; He, the Father of mankind, gave that first bride away! From that wedding sprang the whole human race; and you and I, each one of us, trace a common heritage through Noah to these, our first human parents. In these two bodies were locked all the genetic secrets of every human being who has ever been conceived, or will ever be conceived.

Now first things first. God could undoubtedly have created Eve from dust in the same way He created Adam, but by using flesh and bone from Adam, God literally and figuratively stressed the inseparable unity of marriage. When He said, “They shall be one flesh,” He demonstrated unarguably and forcefully just what He meant, for Eve could never deny her relationship to Adam, nor vice versa; they are eternally related to each other.

Jumping in here, perhaps it was meant that they were both "one flesh" as in both human and related to one another?

Now, additionally, God used this simple yet powerful principle in His teaching on divorce, for when He referred to ‘the beginning’ (Matt 19:4), He indicated that Adam had no alternative but to remain married to Eve, for she was the only woman God had provided for him.

Well that would make sense just logically speaking, no?..

Adam had to love her as he loved himself, for she indeed was part of him. Indeed, she was as much his flesh and blood as any child, and that is the figure God chose to illustrate the inviolability of marriage. It is easy to see from whence Paul drew Eph 5:28, is it not? Nothing is closer to a man’s heart (symbolically the seat of his emotions) than his rib, and just so his wife should be his dearest possession, the center of his human emotion.

Again, perhaps what was meant might have been the love for one another as humans that we should hold dear?

God brought the woman to the man (v.22). In so doing our Creator performed the first marriage; He, the Father of mankind, gave that first bride away! From that wedding sprang the whole human race; and you and I, each one of us, trace a common heritage through Noah to these, our first human parents. In these two bodies were locked all the genetic secrets of every human being who has ever been conceived, or will ever be conceived.

Perhaps this was a misunderstanding of humanity or just the prevalence of thoughts that 'won the war' as it were and so were passed on subsequently. Might have been that your God 'married' off Eve to Adam simply because they were a starting point, in fact the only starting point available at the time.

You can find more research in Mills, M.S., A Study Guide to the Book of Genesis chapter 2.


I could do that. But your appeal to authority doesn't impress me.


I disagree, most respectable commentaries do hold that this is in fact a marriage rite,


Commentaries? Or serious scholars? You could be talking about VERY different things, there.

For one - commentaries TEND to take the text as though it were all literal, which is a rarity among serious scholars.


...the very first no less. In fact, as will be further conveyed, such a claim is further referenced throughout the rest of the scriptures. I have taken this research from the above reference, if anyone feels like further research or study.

Now first things first. God could undoubtedly have created Eve from dust in the same way He created Adam,


No, because the whole POINT of the metaphor, is uniting chavah and 'adam.


...but by using flesh and bone from Adam, God literally and figuratively stressed the inseparable unity of marriage.


By separating them one from another, it stresses the inseperability?


When He said, “They shall be one flesh,” He demonstrated unarguably and forcefully just what He meant, for Eve could never deny her relationship to Adam, nor vice versa; they are eternally related to each other.


And here you start wandering into midrash territory - because, if the bride is taken from Adam's rib, who is the female creation referred to earlier...

And THAT first female wouldn't be less closely related to Adam, but she WOULD be his equal in all regards, because she is co-created.

That's the sort of problem you run into when you read a metaphor as a literal history.

The other big problem, of course, is that you are misattributing (or quoting someone who misattributed): it is Adam that says "...Therefore shall a man... cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It's one of the anachronisms in the text, and good evidence that the text is both non-accurate, and evidently redacted.


Now, additionally, God used this simple yet powerful principle in His teaching on divorce, for when He referred to ‘the beginning’ (Matt 19:4), He indicated that Adam had no alternative but to remain married to Eve, for she was the only woman God had provided for him.


Again, not true. Or at least, very arguable. There is reason to suspect a first woman that pre-dates Eve, there are midrash arguments for a second (un-named) possible mate before Eve, and Eve is only unique in as much as she is the only one expressly mentioned.

When Cain leaves Eden, he finds a wife from elsewhere, despite the fact that he was allegedly part of the sole isolated geneology. Clearly there are other women elsewhere.

This isn't a problem if you understand it's all metaphor.

Similarly, it isn't a problem if you understand that the perspective of the Eden story is entirely local, and that 'Adam' and 'Eve' wouldn't represent the ONLY people in existence... only the first 'people' in the lineage the story follows.


Adam had to love her as he loved himself, for she indeed was part of him. Indeed, she was as much his flesh and blood as any child, and that is the figure God chose to illustrate the inviolability of marriage. It is easy to see from whence Paul drew Eph 5:28, is it not? Nothing is closer to a man’s heart (symbolically the seat of his emotions) than his rib, and just so his wife should be his dearest possession, the center of his human emotion.


Actually, a lung would be closer... and most of the ribs would be more distant.

If you take the story literally, Eve is either Adam himself, re-engineered with the other toolkit - in which case Adam's relations with her are masturbation.... or Eve is his identical offspring (a clone, again, repackaged with the other junk) in which case their relationships are incestuous.


God brought the woman to the man (v.22). In so doing our Creator performed the first marriage; He, the Father of mankind, gave that first bride away! From that wedding sprang the whole human race; and you and I, each one of us, trace a common heritage through Noah to these, our first human parents. In these two bodies were locked all the genetic secrets of every human being who has ever been conceived, or will ever be conceived.

Mythology. Those very 'genetic secrets' you mentioned suggest the possibility of common maternal ancestors, but make no such suggestions for male ancestors. And, of course, the evidence shows that - even if there WERE common ancestors, it wouldn't have been in the timeline of this book.

And there's another problem. You talk about the Genesis as the template of the first marriage... and yet people had been marrying (that we have evidence of) for millenia before that text was committed to writing.

I could do that. But your appeal to authority doesn't impress me.



Commentaries? Or serious scholars? You could be talking about VERY different things, there.

For one - commentaries TEND to take the text as though it were all literal, which is a rarity among serious scholars.

I don't intend to impress anyone, simply present a position. Of which, I have to say I disagree with you. Commentaries tend to take the text in light of the entire biblical context. Commentators also approach the bible from the perspective at which it must be approached for full understanding of what it is trying to mean, which is from a perspective of faith, not just simple logic.

No, because the whole POINT of the metaphor, is uniting chavah and 'adam.

I don't believe it was metaphorical.

The other big problem, of course, is that you are misattributing (or quoting someone who misattributed): it is Adam that says "...Therefore shall a man... cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It's one of the anachronisms in the text, and good evidence that the text is both non-accurate, and evidently redacted.

In your opinion, but once again you approach the bible from a perspective without faith, of which is a necessity from a book which preaches it.

Again, perhaps what was meant might have been the love for one another as humans that we should hold dear?

As an isolated text yes, you could claim that quite easily, but taken in context of the bible as a whole book, I'm afraid that this passage cannot be specified to your suggestion.

Perhaps this was a misunderstanding of humanity or just the prevalence of thoughts that 'won the war' as it were and so were passed on subsequently. Might have been that your God 'married' off Eve to Adam simply because they were a starting point, in fact the only starting point available at the time.

I would agree that they were a starting point and the only one at that.

In your opinion, but once again you approach the bible from a perspective without faith, of which is a necessity from a book which preaches it.

I am kinda stepping in without reading the whole argument. I am sorry if I am misunderstanding.

That line sounds a lot like the "you cannot understand the bible if you do not believe in the bible" argument. You should be aware that is complete bullshit.
As stated before, I am sorry if I am misunderstanding you.

I don't intend to impress anyone, simply present a position. Of which, I have to say I disagree with you. Commentaries tend to take the text in light of the entire biblical context. Commentators also approach the bible from the perspective at which it must be approached for full understanding of what it is trying to mean, which is from a perspective of faith, not just simple logic.


Aha - so in YOUR estimation, the only 'serious scholars' are scholars who cannot be objective?

We have very different ideas of what a 'serious scholar' might be, and an explanation of why you present the arguments you do.


I don't believe it was metaphorical.


You are welcome to believe as you wish. Archeological evidence shows that the story is either metaphor or a lie. Scientific evidence shows that the story is either a metaphor or a lie. Textual analysis shows that the story was redacted several times. Which is okay if it's a metaphor, but flies in the face of it being an hoest historical accounting.

So your choice, really, is - metaphor or lie.


In your opinion, but once again you approach the bible from a perspective without faith, of which is a necessity from a book which preaches it.

Au contraire. One of the reasons that I am a bible scholar is because I was a Christian. Even as a Christian, objective study of the text shows that some areas are (claiming to be) witness accounts, some areas are documentary (like Numbers), some areas are 'testimony' of a different sort (emotional or rhetorical, like the Song of Songs, the book of Job, Psalms, etc) and some texts are entirely or largely metaphorical (like most of Genesis and Exodus... or Revelation).

One can be objective and have faith. There is not the conflict you suggest.

As an isolated text yes, you could claim that quite easily, but taken in context of the bible as a whole book, I'm afraid that this passage cannot be specified to your suggestion.


Of course it can. A book in which the dominant messages are delivered by parable?


I would agree that they were a starting point and the only one at that.

Unlikely, given the fact that there were already people leaving us a legacy of recorded history before the dates commonly assumed for Genesis, based on literal reading of the text.

So either the dating is (way, way, waaaaaay) wrong, and the literal text isn't that reliable... or the events are not as literal as they might be assumed to be.

The Pope doesn't represent the majority of Christians, just Catholics.

The Pope doesn't represent the majority of Christians, just Catholics.

Given that the majority of Christians are Catholics, he does.

As an isolated text yes, you could claim that quite easily, but taken in context of the bible as a whole book, I'm afraid that this passage cannot be specified to your suggestion.

I'd disagree with that wholeheartedly - considering that 'the' Bible "taken in context as a whole book" is a collection of what appears to be parables, recollections, interpretations and documentation of events throughout a part of our human history.

In terms of studying a text... why are you not open to other suggestions, I especially disliked the post where you mentioned that you must have faith in order to study 'the' Bible - very poor approach there...
=[

Not not at all. Marriage is a covenant relationship which conforms to the model God established from the start of creation. The challenge which I presented was removing the traditional baggage. The definition of marriage is the state of being voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union".

Such an expression is clearly present in Genesis, and where Christians today build the foundation of their opinion of proper relationship. Male and Female in the Garden of Eden. One given to the other, in a covenant union.
I'm sorry, and I don't mean to impolite (at least you're creating a context for impolite speech earlier than I had hoped), but the only word for the above post is "bullshit."

I do not mean "bullshit" in the sense of a derogatory dismissal of your statement. I mean "bullshit" in the sense that you are manipulating and screwing around with your own terms and explanations solely in order to manufacture the appearance of authoritative support for your assertions where there really is none. Your words are neither truth nor lie. You are twisting both their context and their application so much that neither of those words can describe your statements anymore. They are just "bullshit" at this point, and the trick you are playing with that bull might make you very good at juggling or twisting up the verbal equivalent of balloon animals, but it does not make your argument valid.

You started out with a very clear claim, namely that marriage is defined by the Bible in the story of Adam and Eve. Period. That was your assertion.

It was pointed out to you that Adam and Eve are not described as married in any way in the Bible. None of the forms of covenant between mortals and the Abrahamic God that are described in other parts of the Bible appear in the Adam and Eve story. There are no rites and no declarations about their relationship -- merely some narrative descriptives -- nor is there any reference to their relationship creating a covenant or form of social structure that would endure through future generations, that set a standard for how the followers of that god would or should live. No later part of the Bible makes reference to Adam and Eve's relationship as an example of what marriage is in giving life instructions to people.

Bottom line: The Bible does not say what you said it does. Period. The content of your statements exists as a matter of fact. The content of the Bible exists as a matter of fact. The discrepancy between the two exists as a matter of fact. You cannot get around it.

And you have not gotten around it. Ever since the discrepancy was pointed out, you have been playing fast and loose with the definitions of "marriage" and "covenant," moving your goalposts all over creation in regard to how much the Bible has to say about marriage for it to count as disqualifying gays from marrying, and even trying to revise your own original statement on the fly, to get it out from under the debunking.

And now, you are left with nothing but logical fallacies of debate form to try to disqualify your opponents from arguing a point you cannot win.

I'm sorry but you fail. The story of Adam and Eve does not define marriage, and does not disqualify gays from marrying. Maybe some other part of the Bible does, but if you're going to insist on hammering away at this point on which you have already been proven wrong, then you will not be the one carry the larger debate.

By the way, I notice you still have not addressed the other question I addressed to you, namely, what part of the Bible justifies applying your religion's rules to people, institutions, and legal systems that are outside your religion in order to ban gay marriage under the laws of a secular government?

...what part of the Bible justifies applying your religion's rules to people, institutions, and legal systems that are outside your religion in order to ban gay marriage under the laws of a secular government?

Well, obviously the part about being a separate people... no, wait... that'd be the other way.

Erm.. the part about rendering unto mortal rulers their due, and unto God his separate due? No - thinking about it... that argues against it, too...

Ah, Paul's little diversion about adapting to the culture of the people you are among... that's not going to do it, either, is it...

Well, obviously the part about being a separate people... no, wait... that'd be the other way.

Erm.. the part about rendering unto mortal rulers their due, and unto God his separate due? No - thinking about it... that argues against it, too...

Ah, Paul's little diversion about adapting to the culture of the people you are among... that's not going to do it, either, is it...
:D I continue to wait. :D

While I don't necessarily agree with everything NM has said, he makes some valid points. I know the world is a happy place where everything happens for a reason, so judges are all appointed because of their qualifications and ability to read the minds of those folks who wrote the Constitution. Right?

And I really feel like if the courts were afraid to overturn Prop 8 you guys would be angry at them. Its totally legitimate to be angry at them for not going your way, but you can't smugly snub NM because he disagrees. If the courts ruled that Prop 8 stands, then you'd think they were wrong to do so. He thinks you're wrong. There's no right answer to this question because your answer is shaped by your perception of marriage. Is it a religious institution the state borrows or has it become a completely state (secular) institution instead?

Also, is the gay contagious? When will they start teaching little boys and girls to be gay in school? These are all important questions that need to be answered.

When will they start teaching little boys and girls to be gay in school?They already do it, man. Young people are taught to be happy while in school, otherwise it's a really boring place. [/out of context] [/ignore me, ignore me]

Also, is the gay contagious?

No it isn't. If it was I'd be gay by now.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything NM has said, he makes some valid points. I know the world is a happy place where everything happens for a reason, so judges are all appointed because of their qualifications and ability to read the minds of those folks who wrote the Constitution. Right?

And I really feel like if the courts were afraid to overturn Prop 8 you guys would be angry at them. Its totally legitimate to be angry at them for not going your way, but you can't smugly snub NM because he disagrees. If the courts ruled that Prop 8 stands, then you'd think they were wrong to do so. He thinks you're wrong. There's no right answer to this question because your answer is shaped by your perception of marriage. Is it a religious institution the state borrows or has it become a completely state (secular) institution instead?

Some minor problems with your agreement with NM.

1. California Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election. So complaining about unelected judges overturning "the will of the people" is rather inane when it comes to California.

2. There is a little thing called precedent. The idea that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the California Constitution is not new. It was not just invented by some "activist" judges. It dates back to at least 1948. Similarly, In re Marriage Cases was not the first time the California Constitution was held to forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. What was "new" was putting these concepts together and actually standing up for the rights of same-sex couples. I know any recognition that the "deviants" are persons disturbs NM's sensibilities, but that is tough shit.

3. One of the great ironies of the "activist judges" argument is that the dissenters in In re Marriage Cases argued in part that the decision was not necessary because the trend of public opinion and legislative action was towards legalizing same-sex marriage anyway. NM may just be ignorant of that fact or it may just be inconvenient for him.

4. There is a right answer to this question. Whether you hate homosexuals or not, it is a well-established principle of law that marriage is a civil institution and is a right. It it were a wholly religious institution, government would have no place regulating marriage licenses in the first place or granting special benefits to those who are married.

Also, is the gay contagious? When will they start teaching little boys and girls to be gay in school? These are all important questions that need to be answered.

I can only assume this was a lame attempt at humor.

And I really feel like if the courts were afraid to overturn Prop 8 you guys would be angry at them. Its totally legitimate to be angry at them for not going your way, but you can't smugly snub NM because he disagrees. If the courts ruled that Prop 8 stands, then you'd think they were wrong to do so. He thinks you're wrong. There's no right answer to this question because your answer is shaped by your perception of marriage.


Actually... my answer is shaped by thinking it against the spirit of the Constitution to remove rights from a minority.


Is it a religious institution the state borrows or has it become a completely state (secular) institution instead?


Marriage has never been a religious institution.


Also, is the gay contagious? When will they start teaching little boys and girls to be gay in school?

No. No. Questions answered. Rest your little head.

I can only assume this was a lame attempt at humor.
It was, and clearly failed. I apologize.

1. California Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election. So complaining about unelected judges overturning "the will of the people" is rather inane when it comes to California.
I stand corrected. I was speaking more towards issues on the federal level, which, if this plays out in enough courts, could very well become relevant. Federal judges (not those of California state courts) are appointed and confirmed - which can go both ways as to being "elected". Judges are of course supposed to not be subject to the will of the people, but that's an issue in itself.

4. There is a right answer to this question. Whether you hate homosexuals or not, it is a well-established principle of law that marriage is a civil institution and is a right. It it were a wholly religious institution, government would have no place regulating marriage licenses in the first place or granting special benefits to those who are married.
Do you think that the religious right agrees with you, however? You can say its a principle of law, but if the law doesn't stand in their favor I doubt they will bow out simply because it exists. We can't stand on laws when education is what we need to get things accomplished. It is unfortunately going to take time to show the majority of voters in this country that being gay is not a bad thing, its just a thing. I know plenty of people who would probably call themselves tolerant and might even point out their black friend if you asked, but still look at you kinda disgusted if you are gay. We can argue about activist judges and Prop 8, but this isn't a battle to be won in the courts and state houses across the country, this is a battle that we need to take to the doorsteps of Americans. Changing minds is the first step in changing votes, and while I think there are many issues where people's minds are so made up that they cannot be changed, I fortunately do not think that gay rights is one of those issues. If I tell someone I had a gay roommate and they ask if that was weird, ya know, since he's gay, I'm not going to get angry and tell them that there are laws on the books that guarantee marriage as a Constitutional right and that all men are created equal, I'm gunna say no it was cool he was actually my favorite roommate so far and we're gunna move on. Have I changed that person's mind right then and there? Probably not. But its like those commercials where the happiness and good deed spread like a disease - tolerance is infectious.

I just want to go on record here and now as affirming that the gay is, in fact, contagious. I know because I caught it from a girl I made out with in high school.

I just want to go on record here and now as affirming that the gay is, in fact, contagious. I know because I caught it from a girl I made out with in high school.

lol

I just want to go on record here and now as affirming that the gay is, in fact, contagious. I know because I caught it from a girl I made out with in high school.

Nah. If it was contagious, I'd have caught it from my boyfriend - because he's gay, even though I'm not.

Nah. If it was contagious, I'd have caught it from my boyfriend - because he's gay, even though I'm not.

...okay, my line would have been funnier if everyone remembered I'm a girl.

*sigh* Stupid internets.

...okay, my line would have been funnier if everyone remembered I'm a girl.

*sigh* Stupid internets.

I remember you're a hot girl...

I thought you couldn't catch it on your first time? :D

...okay, my line would have been funnier if everyone remembered I'm a girl.

*sigh* Stupid internets.

Stupid internets, indeed. There are no 'girls' on the internets, silly.

I thought you couldn't catch it on your first time? :D

That's what she told me, too! Then she asked me to sign a piece of paper and she turned it in for a toaster oven. :/

I remember you're a hot girl...

Awww. :D

Stupid internets, indeed. There are no 'girls' on the internets, silly.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. In that case, I'm a 45 year old guy from Kentucky named Hugh, and I really like... uhh... you know, those things guys like where you go sit in a perfectly good arena and watch cars hit each other. God damn it, I don't remember what they're called. I suck at this.

Awww. :D
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOPOyes008HL3.gif
Oh, yeah, I forgot. In that case, I'm a 45 year old guy from Kentucky named Hugh, and I really like... uhh... you know, those things guys like where you go sit in a perfectly good arena and watch cars hit each other. God damn it, I don't remember what they're called. I suck at this.

Demolition derby?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. In that case, I'm a 45 year old guy from Kentucky named Hugh, and I really like... uhh... you know, those things guys like where you go sit in a perfectly good arena and watch cars hit each other. God damn it, I don't remember what they're called. I suck at this.

You're not convincing anyone...

:D:tongue:

...okay, my line would have been funnier if everyone remembered I'm a girl.

*sigh* Stupid internets.

On the internet, men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.

Demolition derby?

Yes!

You're not convincing anyone...

:D:tongue:

I couldn't think of anything else manly that I don't already do, like watch insane amounts of sports, drink beer and leer at pretty girls... I didn't even convince MYSELF! :eek2:

On the internet, men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.

And FBI agents are thirtysomething computer support techs living in their mom's garage.

Yes!

*Is sad that he knew what you were referencing*

I am kinda stepping in without reading the whole argument. I am sorry if I am misunderstanding.

That line sounds a lot like the "you cannot understand the bible if you do not believe in the bible" argument. You should be aware that is complete bullshit.
As stated before, I am sorry if I am misunderstanding you.

I would hold that line, since approaching the bible with faith, will give a christian understanding of the text. Which is all I have been attempting to convey.

I have not been attempting to convey a liberal interpretation.

First of all, I am British so I have not had the liberty to. Secondly, I would not vote against it, but I would not vote for it either. I have no qualms of a couple of the same sex, living together, having sex, doing whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on social responsibility.

That of course changes if the the people in question profess to be christian and are under my pastoral care.

You've said that three times now. What do you think that means? I ask because I have no idea. Also, who defines "social responsibility"? And please don't say "the Bible". Please be more specific and brave than that.

*snip the points Unified Sith actually addressed*

No, because the whole POINT of the metaphor, is uniting chavah and 'adam.



By separating them one from another, it stresses the inseperability?



And here you start wandering into midrash territory - because, if the bride is taken from Adam's rib, who is the female creation referred to earlier...

And THAT first female wouldn't be less closely related to Adam, but she WOULD be his equal in all regards, because she is co-created.

That's the sort of problem you run into when you read a metaphor as a literal history.

The other big problem, of course, is that you are misattributing (or quoting someone who misattributed): it is Adam that says "...Therefore shall a man... cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It's one of the anachronisms in the text, and good evidence that the text is both non-accurate, and evidently redacted.



Again, not true. Or at least, very arguable. There is reason to suspect a first woman that pre-dates Eve, there are midrash arguments for a second (un-named) possible mate before Eve, and Eve is only unique in as much as she is the only one expressly mentioned.

When Cain leaves Eden, he finds a wife from elsewhere, despite the fact that he was allegedly part of the sole isolated geneology. Clearly there are other women elsewhere.

This isn't a problem if you understand it's all metaphor.

Similarly, it isn't a problem if you understand that the perspective of the Eden story is entirely local, and that 'Adam' and 'Eve' wouldn't represent the ONLY people in existence... only the first 'people' in the lineage the story follows.



Actually, a lung would be closer... and most of the ribs would be more distant.

If you take the story literally, Eve is either Adam himself, re-engineered with the other toolkit - in which case Adam's relations with her are masturbation.... or Eve is his identical offspring (a clone, again, repackaged with the other junk) in which case their relationships are incestuous.



Mythology. Those very 'genetic secrets' you mentioned suggest the possibility of common maternal ancestors, but make no such suggestions for male ancestors. And, of course, the evidence shows that - even if there WERE common ancestors, it wouldn't have been in the timeline of this book.

And there's another problem. You talk about the Genesis as the template of the first marriage... and yet people had been marrying (that we have evidence of) for millenia before that text was committed to writing.

UNIFIED SITH, you've left a lot of points unanswered here. Have you ceded them or just overlooked them? I ask because it appears suspicious.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything NM has said, he makes some valid points. I know the world is a happy place where everything happens for a reason, so judges are all appointed because of their qualifications and ability to read the minds of those folks who wrote the Constitution. Right?

Wow. Almost clever. I see what you did there. You made a point about how not all judges are infallible. Next time, use a smaller hammer.

And I really feel like if the courts were afraid to overturn Prop 8 you guys would be angry at them. Its totally legitimate to be angry at them for not going your way, but you can't smugly snub NM because he disagrees. If the courts ruled that Prop 8 stands, then you'd think they were wrong to do so.

Whoa. Stop right there. First of all, I'd want to hear the judicial reasoning before I thought anything about the decision. Second, who are you to tell anyone but yourself how they'd think about anything? Finally, NM doesn't disagree. He mindlessly drones on and on about him being right and everyone else being wrong. You have to know his post history to truly grasp this pattern. I will concede that in this thread he's been less trollish than usual.

He thinks you're wrong. There's no right answer to this question because your answer is shaped by your perception of marriage. Is it a religious institution the state borrows or has it become a completely state (secular) institution instead?

Marriage as we know its purpose now is a state institution used to grant property and succession rights, unite clans, tribes, kingdoms or nations, and has had religion appended to it in order to lend this transaction/contract some kind of ethereal/spiritual legitimacy. So yeah, there actually IS a right answer. Don't want gays having a religious ceremony? Don't go to a church that does them. The state license and marriage contract should be open to all citizens of the proper age (and species, for those dumb enough to try the "but people will marry their PETS!" argument).

That point is not under contention. At least not by anyone reasonable. NM thinks I'm wrong because he thinks gays are icky. Neither he, nor anyone else, has presented ANY solid evidence for how gay marriage does anything apart from linking two homosexual people in a marriage contract. Destabalizes or threatens heterosexual marriages? How? No answer. "It's just wrong" is not an answer, it's a petulant verbal foot-stomp in an ongoing tantrum.

Also, is the gay contagious? When will they start teaching little boys and girls to be gay in school? These are all important questions that need to be answered.

Keep working on funny. We'll wait.

I would hold that line, since approaching the bible with my faith, will give my Christian understanding of the text. Which is all I have been attempting to convey.

I have not been attempting to convey a liberal interpretation.

Fixed for accuracy.

I came across the story on another site, and the pope doesn't seem to be referring so much to homosexual or transsexual behaviour in particular as much as to the "blurring" of the distinction between male and female, which can be "blurred" among heterosexuals as well.

Personally, I think a more meaningful perspective on gender would come from science, particularily evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, since they're based on the biology we're a result of more than the society that's a result of us. I wouldn't trust an authority on non-science on what the gender differences are, but someone wrapped up in political correctness denying the more scientifically valid gender differences, even if they disagree with the other's gender difference claims as well, isn't necessarily better. I think both sides are more similar than they'd seem, and I'd like to think that even thinking about science makes me less susceptible to propaganda than I'd otherwise be with non-science; it's like science is the immune system of thought and non-science is the AIDS of thought.

Also, I find it a bit disturbing that his opposition to blurring the distinction between male and female is based on the assumption that it would "cause" human self-destruction. First off, even if that assumption were legitimate (it probably isn't, and he doesn't even say what he thinks the connection is, but I'm talking more hypothetically) that'd still at best be like opposing the blurring of the distinction between matter and energy because it contributed to the development of nuclear weapons, which had the potential to "cause" human self-destruction. What an idea would be thought to "cause" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the idea. On top of that, who gets to say what an idea would "cause"? How would one know? And aside from that, if their belief system would be so threatened by an idea that he has to "warn people" of it (instead of rebutalling it) then the belief system, not gender theory, is what needs changing.

No, because the whole POINT of the metaphor, is uniting chavah and 'adam.

The bible does not treat it as a metaphor. 20th century scholarship does. I am giving a biblical perspective, not one of scholarship, though I am using likeminded evangelical scholars for research.

By separating them one from another, it stresses the inseperability?

You are misreading or just being far too picky.

And here you start wandering into midrash territory - because, if the bride is taken from Adam's rib, who is the female creation referred to earlier...

No it is you who raised it, I have stuck clearly to the text in Genesis.

And THAT first female wouldn't be less closely related to Adam, but she WOULD be his equal in all regards, because she is co-created.

That's the sort of problem you run into when you read a metaphor as a literal history.

Once again the Bible does not treat Genesis as metaphorical, (1 Timothy Chapter 2 Order of creation in Pauls writings as one example) and I will only give a biblical perspective of which I said I would in regard to the OP’s post. Genesis makes no mention of any other male and female, and it is quite particular that Adam and Eve are the first male and female.

The other big problem, of course, is that you are misattributing (or quoting someone who misattributed): it is Adam that says "...Therefore shall a man... cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It's one of the anachronisms in the text, and good evidence that the text is both non-accurate, and evidently redacted.

In your opinion. It is very debatable that the creation story is redacted. Poetic and literary consistency would strongly suggest it is not. Once again, you are hardly giving a biblical perspective, which is all I claim to be doing.

Again, not true. Or at least, very arguable. There is reason to suspect a first woman that pre-dates Eve, there are midrash arguments for a second (un-named) possible mate before Eve, and Eve is only unique in as much as she is the only one expressly mentioned.

When Cain leaves Eden, he finds a wife from elsewhere, despite the fact that he was allegedly part of the sole isolated geneology. Clearly there are other women elsewhere.

This isn't a problem if you understand it's all metaphor.

Nonsense. The bible details Adam and Eves lifespan, and that they fathered many children. Cain will have married one of his sisters, is the likely answer, rather than pulling something out of thin air, instead of dealing with the text purely in the way in which text implies.


Similarly, it isn't a problem if you understand that the perspective of the Eden story is entirely local, and that 'Adam' and 'Eve' wouldn't represent the ONLY people in existence... only the first 'people' in the lineage the story follows.

It is a very significant problem as it then subsequently contradicts further texts. Adam and Eve were the first male and female as far as the Bible is concerned. Provide me with biblical evidence to say otherwise and I will agree with you.

Actually, a lung would be closer... and most of the ribs would be more distant.

They used a rib for the imagery, no need to be silly.

If you take the story literally, Eve is either Adam himself, re-engineered with the other toolkit - in which case Adam's relations with her are masturbation.... or Eve is his identical offspring (a clone, again, repackaged with the other junk) in which case their relationships are incestuous.

Mythology. Those very 'genetic secrets' you mentioned suggest the possibility of common maternal ancestors, but make no such suggestions for male ancestors. And, of course, the evidence shows that - even if there WERE common ancestors, it wouldn't have been in the timeline of this book.

I can agree, that the relationships were incestuous, a direct result of a fallen creation, but it does not mean incest is morally acceptable. Detailed further on, is the mosaic decree against incest.

As for outside evidence, I am only giving a biblical perspective as best I can.

And there's another problem. You talk about the Genesis as the template of the first marriage... and yet people had been marrying (that we have evidence of) for millenia before that text was committed to writing.

No, the bible is very clear, from Pauls writings, it is clear that Adam and Eve are seen as the first marriage. This is what Genesis teaches, you may disagree with outside evidence, but the book states what the book states.

I feel that you are taking outside evidence and superimposing it upon the message of the text, warping its original meaning and intent. You can argue with outside information all you want, but the Bible does not claim to require outside support, nor does it rely on it.

I will say this until I’m blue in the face, I am only presenting a biblical perspective.

Fixed for accuracy.

Childish and aggressive, at the very least I have been nothing but polite in this entire thread, attempting to answer as many questions as possible. Afford me please with the same respect in which I treat you.

The bible does not treat it as a metaphor. 20th century scholarship does. I am giving a biblical perspective
But what's the point of a biblical perspective? It sounds kinda unscientific to me...

Cain will have married one of his sisters, is the likely answer
So would they have had children?

I can agree, that the relationships were incestuous, a direct result of a fallen creation, but it does not mean incest is morally acceptable.
So doesn't that mean we shouldn't be relying on this "god" for morality then? Besides, since incest causes genetic defects, wouldn't those genetic defects be passed on to their descendants?

I came across the story on another site, and the pope doesn't seem to be referring so much to homosexual or transsexual behaviour in particular as much as to the "blurring" of the distinction between male and female, which can be "blurred" among heterosexuals as well.

Personally, I think a more meaningful perspective on gender would come from science, particularily evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, since they're based on the biology we're a result of more than the society that's a result of us. I wouldn't trust an authority on non-science on what the gender differences are, but someone wrapped up in political correctness denying the more scientifically valid gender differences, even if they disagree with the other's gender difference claims as well, isn't necessarily better. I think both sides are more similar than they'd seem, and I'd like to think that even thinking about science makes me less susceptible to propaganda than I'd otherwise be with non-science; it's like science is the immune system of thought and non-science is the AIDS of thought.

Also, I find it a bit disturbing that his opposition to blurring the distinction between male and female is based on the assumption that it would "cause" human self-destruction. First off, even if that assumption were legitimate (it probably isn't, and he doesn't even say what he thinks the connection is, but I'm talking more hypothetically) that'd still at best be like opposing the blurring of the distinction between matter and energy because it contributed to the development of nuclear weapons, which had the potential to "cause" human self-destruction. What an idea would be thought to "cause" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the idea. On top of that, who gets to say what an idea would "cause"? How would one know? And aside from that, if their belief system would be so threatened by an idea that he has to "warn people" of it (instead of rebutalling it) then the belief system, not gender theory, is what needs changing.
i find it disturbing that "conditions" that are given by god (ie innate to the person in question) are considered to be wrong. that they are expected to live false lives in misery in order to conform to the pope's idea of what is non damaging to humanity.

if god dislikes homosexuality and transgenders so much he really ought to stop making them.

i find it disturbing that "conditions" that are given by god (ie innate to the person in question) are considered to be wrong. that they are expected to live false lives in misery in order to conform to the pope's idea of what is non damaging to humanity.

if god dislikes homosexuality and transgenders so much he really ought to stop making them.

Everything I've seen in my homosexual acquaintances indicates that it is a choice, not a pre-ordained thing. They're exercising their free will to do what they want. Biological homosexuality is a myth made up to try to reduce the seriousness of it.

i find it disturbing that "conditions" that are given by god (ie innate to the person in question) are considered to be wrong. that they are expected to live false lives in misery in order to conform to the pope's idea of what is non damaging to humanity.

if god dislikes homosexuality and transgenders so much he really ought to stop making them.
Well, to be fair, that idea is moot within religious reasoning because religious reasoning could claim that "god" created murderers as well. Not to be comparing homosexuality to murder, just pointing out that religious reasoning isn't really logical in the first place, so it's no surprise that those who buy into it won't be stopped by the contradictions.

That said, I don't think the pope's speech was just about homosexuals so much as about the "blurring" of the distinction between male and female.

i find it disturbing that "conditions" that are given by god (ie innate to the person in question) are considered to be wrong. that they are expected to live false lives in misery in order to conform to the pope's idea of what is non damaging to humanity.

if god dislikes homosexuality and transgenders so much he really ought to stop making them.

Ah, but you see, God is being kind by creating people 'wrong'. The chance to deny your true self for life to please our benevolent Lord is a huge opportunity to demonstrate the strength of your faith. Of course, should these people fail to do this, our caring, all-loving Lord will sentence them to everlasting pain and torture for trying to be happy rather than following the guidance of a text that reads like a second-rate compendium of fairytales. Its only fair.

Everything I've seen in my homosexual acquaintances indicates that it is a choice, not a pre-ordained thing. They're exercising their free will to do what they want. Biological homosexuality is a myth made up to try to reduce the seriousness of it.
Science says otherwise. According to my second-semester psychology prof, it's becoming increasingly apparent that homosexuality is genetic and soon we may be able to identify within the fetus the genetic indicators of homosexuality. It's the claim that it's a choice that's the "myth."

It might not be apparent from your personal experience, but personal experience can distort one's perception of reality. We don't experience time dilation, would you refuse to accept that despite the scientific evidence?

Well, to be fair, that idea is moot within religious reasoning because religious reasoning could claim that "god" created murderers as well. Not to be comparing homosexuality to murder, just pointing out that religious reasoning isn't really logical in the first place, so it's no surprise that those who buy into it won't be stopped by the contradictions.

That said, I don't think the pope's speech was just about homosexuals so much as about the "blurring" of the distinction between male and female.
yeah

except that GOD is blurring those lines by making gays and transgenders.

and intergendered (if that is the current term).

if god has a problem with line blurring he needs to stop blurring that line himself.

...okay, my line would have been funnier if everyone remembered I'm a girl.

*sigh* Stupid internets.

No you're not! There are no girls on teh internets!

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/there-are-no-girls-on-the-internet.jpg

Ah, but you see, God is being kind by creating people 'wrong'. The chance to deny your true self for life to please our benevolent Lord is a huge opportunity to demonstrate the strength of your faith. Of course, should these people fail to do this, our caring, all-loving Lord will sentence them to everlasting pain and torture for trying to be happy rather than following the guidance of a text that reads like a second-rate compendium of fairytales. Its only fair.
yeah i know what you mean

catholicly speaking

but such .... self denial for the glory of god... really needs to be a completely free choice like the choice a priest makes to be celibate. to create people who MUST live a miserable life denies the dignity of that choice.

even if we take the mild example of the straight man who is effeminate. requiring him to stop blurring that line between male and femal by butching up his public persona is requiring him to deny his own god given personality. isnt rejecting the way god made you a kind of DISSING of god?

yeah

except that GOD is blurring those lines by making gays and transgenders.

and intergendered (if that is the current term).

if god has a problem with line blurring he needs to stop blurring that line himself.
Why do you even claim that "GOD" does it? How do you know what this "GOD" does? What if there are several "GODS" fighting for control of our world? I don't see how the claim that there's one "GOD" is more scientifically valid than the claim that there are many... so if you're going to be bullshitting yourself, might as well have fun with it.

But seriously, it just looks like you're pointing out contradictions in religion.

Everything I've seen in my homosexual acquaintances indicates that it is a choice, not a pre-ordained thing. They're exercising their free will to do what they want. Biological homosexuality is a myth made up to try to reduce the seriousness of it.
everything ive seen with MY homosexual aquaintances suggests that it is not a choice. except, of course, that everyone has the choice to reject any particular relationship.

so there, i have negated your point, one more person with a similar experience to mine and I WIN.

everything ive seen with MY homosexual aquaintances suggests that it is not a choice. except, of course, that everyone has the choice to reject any particular relationship.

so there, i have negated your point, one more person with a similar experience to mine and I WIN.
To argue against personal experience with more personal experience is just fighting fire with fire. Furthermore, claims as to what one's personal experiences are would be kind of hard to prove on the Internet. I think a better approach would be based on reasoning (ie. why would someone choose to have attractions that make them looked down upon) or better yet based on science. (ie. homosexuality being genetic)

Why do you even claim that "GOD" does it? How do you know what this "GOD" does? What if there are several "GODS" fighting for control of our world? I don't see how the claim that there's one "GOD" is more scientifically valid than the claim that there are many... so if you're going to be bullshitting yourself, might as well have fun with it.

But seriously, it just looks like you're pointing out contradictions in religion.
because it is a religious notion that god makes us. god gives us our gifts and our detriments.

if "the gay" is not a choice, then god makes them.

we know that people are born gay and that transgenders are born that way and that those who are intersexed are undeniably born that way.

that makes it gods will.

and im speaking of the pope's god. not any other god that might exist.

To argue against personal experience with more personal experience is just fighting fire with fire. Furthermore, claims as to what one's personal experiences are would be kind of hard to prove on the Internet. I think a better approach would be based on reasoning (ie. why would someone choose to have attractions that make them looked down upon) or better yet based on science. (ie. homosexuality being genetic)
i know, i was just trying a bit of foolishness to show that personal acquaintance is not a good way to make a scientific point.

I've got a question that's somewhat tangential to this thread. Why do a lot of social conservatives use the idea that "There are no right answers and everyone's opinion is equally valid." to support both arguments against gay marriage and arguments in favor of creationism. It seems strange to me, as such sentiments come from the rather leftist and socially liberal "philosophy" of postmodernism. I thought these same people believe in both absolute physical and absolute moral truths, whereas I only necessarily believe absolute physical truth. (though that leaves open the epistemological question of whether or not we can learn these truths) It seems rather disingenuous.

I've got a question that's somewhat tangential to this thread. Why do a lot of social conservatives use the idea that "There are no right answers and everyone's opinion is equally valid." to support both arguments against gay marriage and arguments in favor of creationism. It seems strange to me, as such sentiments come from the rather leftist and socially liberal "philosophy" of postmodernism. I thought these same people believe in both absolute physical and absolute moral truths, whereas I only necessarily believe absolute physical truth. (though that leaves open the epistemological question of whether or not we can learn these truths) It seems rather disingenuous.
because people use any argument that will support their contention.

I've got a question that's somewhat tangential to this thread. Why do a lot of social conservatives use the idea that "There are no right answers and everyone's opinion is equally valid." to support both arguments against gay marriage and arguments in favor of creationism. It seems strange to me, as such sentiments come from the rather leftist and socially liberal "philosophy" of postmodernism. I thought these same people believe in both absolute physical and absolute moral truths, whereas I only necessarily believe absolute physical truth. (though that leaves open the epistemological question of whether or not we can learn these truths) It seems rather disingenuous.
As far as I'm concerned ideology labels like "conservative" and "liberal" aren't very meaningful anyway; there's isn't much of a real difference between people who cling to one ideology and people who cling to another.

because people use any argument that will support their contention.

The honest thing to do would be to only use arguments which fit within one's own philosophical framework. If there are no arguments that fit within your framework that support your contention, then, logically, you probably shouldn't support that contention to begin with. (e.g. If the only evidence for a scientific idea is anecdotal evidence, then scientists should reject the idea because anecdotal evidence is not considered valid in the scientific method.)

As far as I'm concerned ideology labels like "conservative" and "liberal" aren't very meaningful anyway; there's isn't much of a real difference between people who cling to one ideology and people who cling to another.

What I really meant to speak of was the fact that they're using an argument based on the idea that there's no such thing as truth in order to support positions for creationism or "traditional" marriage, while simultaneously believing in absolute moral and physical truths. This is either special pleading or dangerously close to it. If you're willing to support a given line of logic for one argument, you must, if you wish to remain intellectually honest, support that same line of logic everywhere, even if doing so will require you to throw out ideas that you previously held. The alternative is to not accept that given argument.

The honest thing to do would be to only use arguments which fit within one's own philosophical framework. If there are no arguments that fit within your framework that support your contention, then, logically, you probably shouldn't support that contention to begin with. (e.g. If the only evidence for a scientific idea is anecdotal evidence, then scientists should reject the idea because anecdotal evidence is not considered valid in the scientific method.)
so true.

but people arent known for having oodles of intellectual honesty.

Everything I've seen in my homosexual acquaintances indicates that it is a choice, not a pre-ordained thing. They're exercising their free will to do what they want. Biological homosexuality is a myth made up to try to reduce the seriousness of it.

I notice you say 'homosexual acquaintances' rather than 'homosexual friends'.

The difference between friends and acquaintances is the fact that friends will be more open generally. Also, there is a strong possibility that the fact you claim they chose to be gay is what is preventing them from progressing from acquaintances to friends.

However, I am Fennijer... Nice to meet you. Now we are acquainted, you will be pleased to know that I am a homosexual who never asked to be this way. It was not my choice to be attracted to the same gender as myself, and nor was it my choice to be discriminated for it. The only choice I made was whether or not I should be honest about who I am, or to lie to the world. However, being that most people ask me if I am gay before I tell them, I am guessing that hiding my sexuality would be ultimately fruitless. So, yet again, there is no real choice there.

If I had 'chosen' to be gay, then I would also have chosen to be victimised, bullied and slightly effeminate. I chose none of those things. (please note - I am not suggesting all gays are slightly effeminate.)

I imagine most heterosexuals are as repulsed by the thought of themselves engaged in a homosexual act, much in the same way as I am repulsed by the notion that I would ever be involved in a heterosexual act.
The only choice I make is whether to act upon my natural instinct, or to abstain.

Maybe your definition of the word 'choice' is flawed? Its a possibility worth considering.

Everything I've seen in my homosexual acquaintances indicates that it is a choice, not a pre-ordained thing. They're exercising their free will to do what they want. Biological homosexuality is a myth made up to try to reduce the seriousness of it.

Probably untrue, or at least only a partial explanation

Science says otherwise. According to my second-semester psychology prof, it's becoming increasingly apparent that homosexuality is genetic and soon we may be able to identify within the fetus the genetic indicators of homosexuality. It's the claim that it's a choice that's the "myth."

It might not be apparent from your personal experience, but personal experience can distort one's perception of reality. We don't experience time dilation, would you refuse to accept that despite the scientific evidence?

Probably true, or at worst only a partial explanation.

But both are irrelevant --- see my sig. *points down*

Wow I'mma getting a wiff of Nazism within the Pope's speach! Or is it just me?

Wow I'mma getting a wiff of Nazism within the Pope's speach! Or is it just me?

I can see no specifically Nazi content to the Pope's speech. But in general the lines between papist social views and Nazism are notoriously blurry.

But what's the point of a biblical perspective? It sounds kinda unscientific to me...


So would they have had children?

Yes.

So doesn't that mean we shouldn't be relying on this "god" for morality then? Besides, since incest causes genetic defects, wouldn't those genetic defects be passed on to their descendants?

No, it implies that we must rely on God for morality. The fall, the entering of sin into creation ruined absolutely everything. It disturbed the perfect natural order. Man pursued ways that were his own and not God's, it is the Christian desire to abandon these and return to God's way.

These genetic defects could have been passed on, but such is the result of the fall.

But what's the point of a biblical perspective? It sounds kinda unscientific to me...


So would they have had children?

Indeed, the fact of God, sending his son to die for us, seems massively unscientific, yet scientists, politicians, teachers, kids, military officers, all over the globe take it.

Are they all out of their mind, or have they experienced God in a way that is undefeatable in their hearts? One side would claim one, the other, well the other.

I myself, was in Glasgow University studying Geology when I had such an experience. From there, faith and the biblical perspective dominated my life. I choosing it, over everything else.

The biblical perspective is important as it is not a guide book to science, but it answers questions science can never answer. Why are we here, what is our purpose, who is our saviour, and what is truth.

These may seem repulsive to some, proper to others, but I'm not here to debate that. Perhaps, I will elaborate on my conversion some time in the future, yet I hesitate on these forums.

Yes.



No, it implies that we must rely on God for morality. The fall, the entering of sin into creation ruined absolutely everything. It disturbed the perfect natural order. Man pursued ways that were his own and not God's, it is the Christian desire to abandon these and return to God's way.

These genetic defects could have been passed on, but such is the result of the fall.

Whereas we here in reality land know that genetic differences are the result of the fact that DNA is an imperfect replicator.

Yes.



No, it implies that we must rely on God for morality. The fall, the entering of sin into creation ruined absolutely everything. It disturbed the perfect natural order. Man pursued ways that were his own and not God's, it is the Christian desire to abandon these and return to God's way.

These genetic defects could have been passed on, but such is the result of the fall.
I'm sorry, but your apparent use of the Bible as a handy-dandy catch-all Big Book o' Answers for any and every question in the world is only a teensy-weensy bit self-serving. You just whip out some shallow, over-broad dismissal like "such is the result of the fall" to shrug off any nuanced or difficult situation you may happent to come across. You appear to use the Bible as an alternative to thought.

It kind of explains a bit about the quality of your argument about gay marriage, which, though lengthy, is still very limited and one-note.

I can see no specifically Nazi content to the Pope's speech. But in general the lines between papist social views and Nazism are notoriously blurry.

Yes, the Catholic Church is well known for its "kill all the darkies" position.

I'm sorry, but your apparent use of the Bible as a handy-dandy catch-all Big Book o' Answers for any and every question in the world is only a teensy-weensy bit self-serving. You just whip out some shallow, over-broad dismissal like "such is the result of the fall" to shrug off any nuanced or difficult situation you may happent to come across. You appear to use the Bible as an alternative to thought.

It kind of explains a bit about the quality of your argument about gay marriage, which, though lengthy, is still very limited and one-note.

For a start, I never said it answered every question as it does not. Just as your appeal to pure logic serves your worldview, my faith shapes mine. The dismissal was broad, but it is hardly shallow.

The doctrinal significance of the fall stretches into great depths of thought, wisdom and research. I do not use the bible as an alternative to thought, but I do allow it to shape my life. They are two very different things.

I have placed no position against gay marriage, none at all. Instead, what I did do was respond to a position earlier claiming Christianity took marriage from other cultures. I disagreed and suggested it originated from the biblical book of Genesis, and have continued that line throughout.

Not once have I said it should be imposed on those outside of the church, but instead I attempted to at least demonstrate where the coservative Christian line of thought originates to the liberal opposition in the United States of America.

Debate followed towards my interpretation of the verse, and we got tied up in that, but, I feel you have mistaken my position somewhere along the way, which I do not think is fair.

Everything I've seen in my homosexual acquaintances indicates that it is a choice, not a pre-ordained thing. They're exercising their free will to do what they want. Biological homosexuality is a myth made up to try to reduce the seriousness of it.

Is it a choice for every species? Do you believe that penguins, dolphins, elephants, lions, gulls and dragonflies make conscious choices about their sexuality?

No, it implies that we must rely on God for morality. The fall, the entering of sin into creation ruined absolutely everything. It disturbed the perfect natural order. Man pursued ways that were his own and not God's, it is the Christian desire to abandon these and return to God's way.

These genetic defects could have been passed on, but such is the result of the fall.

Creating a perfect world and then setting up its only occupants for eviction seems to be "God's way". It's like a father pushing his children out of a window, then telling them they should be grateful it was only three stories up and they are crippled and not dead, and if they can drag themselves back up, he'll forgive them for obeying the laws of gravity.

Creating a perfect world and then setting up its only occupants for eviction seems to be "God's way". It's like a father pushing his children out of a window, then telling them they should be grateful it was only three stories up and they are crippled and not dead, and if they can drag themselves back up, he'll forgive them for obeying the laws of gravity.

That's just silly...
Obeying the law of gravity is inexcusable
:D

I like my idea of removing religion instead.
I think there is a way of doing that without infinging on people's First Amendment rights:

Do not allow parents to baptize their children. Only allow adults (people eighteen or older) to join a religion. That doesn't mean they can't attend a church or mass (unless the church only allows people who are baptized to their respected religion enter, which I don't think happens much), but they can only be official members of a religion by their own choosing.

I know that if my parents hadn't baptized me into the Catholic Church, I wouldn't be a part of any religion or church today.


By the way, my post is regarding the United States. I'm sure that might work in other countries, but I'm not familiar with their laws...



Inver Brass

I think there is a way of doing that without infinging on people's First Amendment rights:

Do not allow parents to baptize their children. Only allow adults (people eighteen or older) to join a religion. That doesn't mean they can't attend a church or mass (unless the church only allows people who are baptized to their respected religion enter, which I don't think happens much), but they can only be official members of a religion by their own choosing.

Always an interesting idea, but since parents can beat their children so long as they don't leave marks, I'm pretty sure throwing a little water/oil on their child's head is their right.

Instead, what I did do was respond to a position earlier claiming Christianity took marriage from other cultures. I disagreed and suggested it originated from the biblical book of Genesis, and have continued that line throughout.

Um. Setting aside the argument about whether the Bible actually says what you claim, the biblical book of Genesis may purport to describe the start of existence (including of Earth and humanity), but the book itself didn't come into existence until much later in human history.

Institutions such as marriage existed prior to Jewish civilizations. Thus, whether or not the first marriage was between Adam and Eve, the institution predates the book of Genesis, right?

Further, since marriage existed in cultures that predated belief in the Old Testament or the Judeo-Christian God, it cannot reasonably be argued that marriage has always been a covenant among a man, a woman, and said "God."

First off imma say, I am a christian, been one for a long time. I believe homosexuality is wrong no matter what BUT that don't mean we are suppose to demonize the people. I am against it as much as God is but then God loves the people as do I. I will not give them my vote to do something that goes against God's Will. Besides the consitution recognizes marriage only between a man and woman don't try and change that lol.

I understand people feel different about things and that's all well and good. But how you act on them is a different story. No the pope does not represent me, Christ does. (Can't stand catholic doctrine.) Do I get along with gay people? sure they are people after all. They know I am not for it but nonetheless we get along.

Don't compare homosexuality with being black or white. You have a choice in what you sleep with. Attraction doesn't make you gay or straight, its how you act on those feelings. I am attracted to ferrais lol does that make me wanna sleep with that car? No. People love alot of things but they don't take it so far. Some people love animals to the extent of sleeping with them (if you know what I mean) and we all say its wrong but can they help what they feel and do? Same with anything, some dude make like another dude but that don't make him gay. Temptation isn't wrong but only if you fall into it.

We all are born with a sinful nature according to God, therefore yeah people are born with gay desires (not related to the research that try and prove people are born gay lol). Some people fall into that and others don't. Point God makes in the bible is that we all need Christ no matter who you are because your not going to hell for being gay or straight. You're going to hell if you don't have Christ. Once you have Christ, He will change you now that's what people don't like.

I know what some may say in reply to this, your comparing homosexuality to beastility. I can compare it to any sin God says is a sin lol Like I said, I am not going to stop anyone from doing what they want, but they won't see me voting for it. Equal rights... Tolerance... I am all for that to an extent. I am tolerant of the people... not what they do. As far as I am concerned, gay people can do what they please but don't try to defile the sancity of marriage.

Living together is basically what the world tells people to do so do that lol As far as I am concerned, people are people and will do what they like as I said. But I am not condoning something I KNOW is wrong not just because God says it but also biology and not only biology, homosexuals know its wrong as well at least the ones I talked to.

Point is, I put my God Lord Jesus Christ, first before anyone. I don't "play christianity" I am christian. I don't follow the Pope or a man made religion. I follow the one true Living God. I know, I know, God isn't real many will say, you've been brainwashed. Trust me, a faith isn't faith if you've been brainwashed into it. I know God for myself therefore there's no changing my mind.

Here's what I ask, get to know God no matter who or what you are and talk to Him and HE will help you no matter what you've done in your life. God loves all and seeks to help all, just have to accept it.

God loves all and seeks to help all, just have to accept it.I've got a message for your God. "God, I do not want, nor need, your help. Have a nice eternity."

What is with this ridiculous thing about God being the only one able to help humans? Are we all children who can't do anything right without daddy's help?

What is with this ridiculous thing about God being the only one able to help humans? Are we all children who can't do anything right without daddy's help?

Intruiging comparison. Would this lead to
1. Christians being the young ones, needing to be obedient and unable to take care of themselves
2. Atheists being the teenagers, rebelling against the Big Daddy and trying to find their own way
3. Some future generation approaching something that may talk with God on an equal basis ?

Don't you think I've heard it before lol You think you don't need help but like everyone else when your in deep trouble your like O GOD or O GOD Help me... or etc. The world today is a screw up because we've been doing it on our own. We can't even tell what's right or wrong instead we say be tolerant of everything basically. We need God more than ever right now. And yes God calls us his children so hey pretty good comparison, but I obey God because I love God. You may have enjoyed the days of rebelling against your parents or maybe you just hate them all together but I love my parents therefore I did my best to obey them.

Don't you think I've heard it before lol You think you don't need help but like everyone else when your in deep trouble your like O GOD or O GOD Help me... or etc.

I daresay that millions of Hindus and Buddhists don't do that ;)
Well, not with your "God" anyway :p

The world today is a screw up because we've been doing it on our own. We can't even tell what's right or wrong instead we say be tolerant of everything basically. We need God more than ever right now.

One could also argue that blind obedience is bad.

Don't you think I've heard it before lol You think you don't need help but like everyone else when your in deep trouble your like O GOD or O GOD Help me... or etc. The world today is a screw up because we've been doing it on our own. We can't even tell what's right or wrong instead we say be tolerant of everything basically. We need God more than ever right now.No, that sounds more like Weekend Christians. I own up to my own mistakes. It's a small miracle, I know.

Don't you think I've heard it before lol You think you don't need help but like everyone else when your in deep trouble your like O GOD or O GOD Help me...
Fail
The world today is a screw up because we've been doing it on our own.
Or the world is screwed up because of 2000+ years of the influence of the Abrahamic religions.
We can't even tell what's right or wrong instead we say be tolerant of everything basically.
I know right from wrong... For one, intolerance=wrong.
We need God more than ever right now.
Maybe you do, personally I'm doing fine without having to make up some sky fairy.

Besides the consitution recognizes marriage only between a man and woman don't try and change that lol.

where?

Don't compare homosexuality with being black or white. You have a choice in what you sleep with. Attraction doesn't make you gay or straight, its how you act on those feelings.

really? you are actually claiming that people choose to be discriminated against, attack, treated like pedophiles, run into people like fred phelps, ect?

I am attracted to ferrais lol does that make me wanna sleep with that car? No. People love alot of things but they don't take it so far. Some people love animals to the extent of sleeping with them (if you know what I mean) and we all say its wrong but can they help what they feel and do? Same with anything, some dude make like another dude but that don't make him gay. Temptation isn't wrong but only if you fall into it.

you know what? fuck you. I am tired of people claiming homosexuality is like beastiality and such WHEN IT IS NOT.

We all are born with a sinful nature according to God, therefore yeah people are born with gay desires (not related to the research that try and prove people are born gay lol). Some people fall into that and others don't. Point God makes in the bible is that we all need Christ no matter who you are because your not going to hell for being gay or straight. You're going to hell if you don't have Christ. Once you have Christ, He will change you now that's what people don't like.

I do not believe in your god. so back the fuck off when the claims your religion should run my life.

I know what some may say in reply to this, your comparing homosexuality to beastility. I can compare it to any sin God says is a sin lol Like I said, I am not going to stop anyone from doing what they want, but they won't see me voting for it. Equal rights... Tolerance... I am all for that to an extent. I am tolerant of the people... not what they do. As far as I am concerned, gay people can do what they please but don't try to defile the sancity of marriage.

Its your hell. you burn in it. you talk about "tolerance" when you dont even respect people. 50% divorce rate and you cry sanctity of marriage? read your own book and get the plank out of your eye first before you get the splinter from others.

Living together is basically what the world tells people to do so do that lol As far as I am concerned, people are people and will do what they like as I said. But I am not condoning something I KNOW is wrong not just because God says it but also biology and not only biology, homosexuals know its wrong as well at least the ones I talked to.

beside "my fake god says so" why is it wrong? procreation? where is the requirement in law for kids? why is it pleasurable? generally if you're not supposed to be able to do something with your body pain is the result.

Point is, I put my God Lord Jesus Christ, first before anyone. I don't "play christianity" I am christian. I don't follow the Pope or a man made religion. I follow the one true Living God. I know, I know, God isn't real many will say, you've been brainwashed. Trust me, a faith isn't faith if you've been brainwashed into it. I know God for myself therefore there's no changing my mind.

You be christian. dont try to FORCE others into YOUR version of a fake guy in the sky.

Here's what I ask, get to know God no matter who or what you are and talk to Him and HE will help you no matter what you've done in your life. God loves all and seeks to help all, just have to accept it.

People like you are one of the reasons I stopped believing.

Well before I go, going to leave a few remarks here because I can see this has the potential of getting ugly. Your mistakes are always your own lol I don't know what your talking about but if you choose to go to hell then that's your choice no one is making you go.

Whether you believe or not isn't the case, fact is you don't know and need to know. I apologize for offending anyone but nonetheless I will not take back what I said. Blind obedience is bad not saying you should be blind but on the contrary. What I am saying is that, God will give you all the evidence you need if you trust Him.

The problem is human beings in God's eyes are indeed children. You got the ones who wanna go off on their own and others who want to serve. Unlike when you left your parents, you can't fight Satan on your own that's why your so rebellious now is because you've chosen another father which is him. You want to do whatever you like whether its right or wrong and look at the screw up generation that we have now. We all screwed up but we are making the next generation even worse than our own.

Kids having kids, increase in domestic violence, divorce, murder, etc, etc, etc the list will go on in what evils we've brought upon ourselves. If we all listened to God we wouldn't have such issues but that day will not come till Jesus comes back. People desire wicked things instead of the things of God. God can prevent STDs, hunger, etc but yet we reject Him and try and do it on our own and see how good we're doing.

Without God, none of us would be breathing air or exist period. I'll be praying for one and all because without God we will only bring further doom upon ourselves. Man will destroy man because of his own stupidity, you know the things mentioned in revelation only happened because we chose to rebel. In a sense its saying we will destroy ourselves because of our own carelessness and wickedness.

Don't you think I've heard it before lol You think you don't need help but like everyone else when your in deep trouble your like O GOD or O GOD Help me... or etc.

Does that mean I am a satanist since my "oh shit" phrase of choice is "HOLY FUCKING HELL" or could it be a cultural saying that has NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever.

The world today is a screw up because we've been doing it on our own.

religion has been in charge of thing for a while. bush jr for example.

First off imma say, I am a christian, been one for a long time. I believe homosexuality is wrong no matter what BUT that don't mean we are suppose to demonize the people. I am against it as much as God is but then God loves the people as do I. I will not give them my vote to do something that goes against God's Will. Besides the consitution recognizes marriage only between a man and woman don't try and change that lol.
Where exactly does the constitution say that? And the US constitution has been changed befpre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights)

Don't compare homosexuality with being black or white. You have a choice in what you sleep with.
You do, but not what you're attracted to.
Attraction doesn't make you gay or straight, its how you act on those feelings.
Em, no.
ho⋅mo⋅sex⋅u⋅al⋅i⋅ty
   /ˌhoʊməˌsɛkʃuˈælɪti, or, especially Brit., -ˌsɛksyu-/ [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee, or, especially Brit., -seks-yoo-]
–noun
sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

I am attracted to ferrais lol does that make me wanna sleep with that car? No.
No, you're not. Not in the same sense that homosexuals are attracted to member's of their own sex, nor in the same way you, presumably, are attracted to members of the opposite sex.
People love alot of things but they don't take it so far. Some people love animals to the extent of sleeping with them (if you know what I mean) and we all say its wrong but can they help what they feel and do?
I doubt very much they can help what they feel. But having sex with an animal is a rather different matter. They can't consent, or at the very least can't communicate their consent to us. To suggest that practising bestiality is comparable to being gay is basically saying that gays are all rapists.
Same with anything, some dude make like another dude but that don't make him gay. Temptation isn't wrong but only if you fall into it.
Indeed, he may be bisexual.

We all are born with a sinful nature according to God, therefore yeah people are born with gay desires (not related to the research that try and prove people are born gay lol).
Nice work contradicting yourself. If you're born with gay desires then you are gay. Kinda like if you were born liking Ferraris you like Ferraris.
Some people fall into that and others don't. Point God makes in the bible is that we all need Christ no matter who you are because your not going to hell for being gay or straight. You're going to hell if you don't have Christ. Once you have Christ, He will change you now that's what people don't like.
Seems reasonable. Why should I have to change myself from how an almighty creator god made me? Why would he even make me that way?

I know what some may say in reply to this, your comparing homosexuality to beastility.
Well yes, you quite explicitly are.
I can compare it to any sin God says is a sin lol
Of course you can. Won't really be valid, though. I could compare being homosexual with being a sky bison. That wouldn't be any more valid.
Like I said, I am not going to stop anyone from doing what they want, but they won't see me voting for it. Equal rights... Tolerance... I am all for that to an extent.
A very limited extent if you won't vote in favour of it.
I am tolerant of the people... not what they do. As far as I am concerned, gay people can do what they please but don't try to defile the sancity of marriage.
The sanctity of marriage? Oh please, defending the sanctity of marriage is like defending the sanctity of a public toilet. How many wives did Abraham have in the Bible again? Three? Then there's David.
"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." 1 Samuel 18:27

"David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. 1 Samuel 25:39

"David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives." 1 Samuel 25:43

"But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife," 1 Samuel 25:44

"And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house." 2 Samuel 15:16.
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/david/


Living together is basically what the world tells people to do so do that lol
How so?
As far as I am concerned, people are people and will do what they like as I said. But I am not condoning something I KNOW is wrong not just because God says it but also biology and not only biology, homosexuals know its wrong as well at least the ones I talked to.
Then you talked to some very unfortunate homosexuals. You may think it's wrong, and your God may think it's wrong, but I don't, and I'd wager that there are many homosexuals who don't either.

And really, biology? You do know that many many animals engage in homosexual behaviour, right?

Point is, I put my God Lord Jesus Christ, first before anyone. I don't "play christianity" I am christian. I don't follow the Pope or a man made religion. I follow the one true Living God. I know, I know, God isn't real many will say, you've been brainwashed.
Oh have we?
Trust me, a faith isn't faith if you've been brainwashed into it. I know God for myself therefore there's no changing my mind.
Sounds more like you've been brainwashed than us if there's no changing your mind. But that's not really relevant.

Here's what I ask, get to know God no matter who or what you are and talk to Him and HE will help you no matter what you've done in your life. God loves all and seeks to help all, just have to accept it.

I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Beer volcano and stripper factory > all

Don't you think I've heard it before lol You think you don't need help but like everyone else when your in deep trouble your like O GOD or O GOD Help me... or etc.
Unfortunate habit of being raised Catholic.
The world today is a screw up because we've been doing it on our own. We can't even tell what's right or wrong instead we say be tolerant of everything basically.
Who on earth says that?
We need God more than ever right now.
Who's we? I don't need God.
And yes God calls us his children so hey pretty good comparison, but I obey God because I love God.
I don't obey the people I love. Why would I?
You may have enjoyed the days of rebelling against your parents or maybe you just hate them all together but I love my parents therefore I did my best to obey them.

Why? I love my parents but I don't obey them.

Well before I go, going to leave a few remarks here because I can see this has the potential of getting ugly.

It does get ugly where trolls like you are involved.

How so?
All those amoeba reproducing asexually... um... penguins?

where?



really? you are actually claiming that people choose to be discriminated against, attack, treated like pedophiles, run into people like fred phelps, ect?



you know what? fuck you. I am tired of people claiming homosexuality is like beastiality and such WHEN IT IS NOT.



I do not believe in your god. so back the fuck off when the claims your religion should run my life.



Its your hell. you burn in it. you talk about "tolerance" when you dont even respect people. 50% divorce rate and you cry sanctity of marriage? read your own book and get the plank out of your eye first before you get the splinter from others.



beside "my fake god says so" why is it wrong? procreation? where is the requirement in law for kids? why is it pleasurable? generally if you're not supposed to be able to do something with your body pain is the result.



You be christian. dont try to FORCE others into YOUR version of a fake guy in the sky.



People like you are one of the reasons I stopped believing.

Its people like you that keep my faith strong. Humanity wouldn't exist without man/woman relationships. This is a discussion board, not forcing just voicing my opinion or do you have a problem with that? Why don't you ban Christianity then you might accomplish something but then the law wouldn't stop me either lol.

Is a person forced to sleep with another because they have to or because they want to? Ask yourself that then come back and say, "I am tired of people claiming homosexuality is like beastiality and such WHEN IT IS NOT."
people sleep with one another because THEY WANT TO not because they have to. get that through your head.

Well before I go, going to leave a few remarks here because I can see this has the potential of getting ugly. Your mistakes are always your own lol I don't know what your talking about but if you choose to go to hell then that's your choice no one is making you go.

Whether you believe or not isn't the case, fact is you don't know and need to know. I apologize for offending anyone but nonetheless I will not take back what I said. Blind obedience is bad not saying you should be blind but on the contrary. What I am saying is that, God will give you all the evidence you need if you trust Him.

The problem is human beings in God's eyes are indeed children. You got the ones who wanna go off on their own and others who want to serve. Unlike when you left your parents, you can't fight Satan on your own that's why your so rebellious now is because you've chosen another father which is him. You want to do whatever you like whether its right or wrong and look at the screw up generation that we have now. We all screwed up but we are making the next generation even worse than our own.

Kids having kids, increase in domestic violence, divorce, murder, etc, etc, etc the list will go on in what evils we've brought upon ourselves. If we all listened to God we wouldn't have such issues but that day will not come till Jesus comes back. People desire wicked things instead of the things of God. God can prevent STDs, hunger, etc but yet we reject Him and try and do it on our own and see how good we're doing.

Without God, none of us would be breathing air or exist period. I'll be praying for one and all because without God we will only bring further doom upon ourselves. Man will destroy man because of his own stupidity, you know the things mentioned in revelation only happened because we chose to rebel. In a sense its saying we will destroy ourselves because of our own carelessness and wickedness.

So basically, God made us stupid, and gave us free will, and will allow us to suffer horribly and bar us from heaven for all eternity if we don't do what the Bible says that he says for most of our lives? God sounds like an awful dick when you put it like that.

<some stuff, including>
God can prevent STDs, hunger, etc
I'm intrigued... are you saying that those who really, truly, Believe and follow the teachings of your God don't get hungry or are somehow immune to sexually transmitted disease?

Also, I keep seeing "lol" in all sorts of places throughout your posts... are you actually laughing out loud as you type? I ask, because I just have this vision of someone sitting at their keyboard, cackling madly as they type the kind of stuff you've been coming out with and I can't decide whether to be amused or disturbed.

Ah hell... I'll lol.

Humanity wouldn't exist without man/woman relationships.

Well.. we could do quite a bit with cloning and artifical insemination, but yes - normal sex is much easier, cheaper and can be more fun.
However - that just means that EVERYONE being exclusively gay would not be that great for society. Last time I checked, not everyone was. So no problems there ;)

Why don't you ban Christianity

Too risky. Many Christians do not understand why one should not plunder, rape and murder if God was not constantly looking. Some of those even dwell on these very forums.
Religions like Christianity were invented partly to control such beasts.

Is a person forced to sleep with another because they have to or because they want to? Ask yourself that then come back and say, "I am tired of people claiming homosexuality is like beastiality and such WHEN IT IS NOT."
people sleep with one another because THEY WANT TO not because they have to. get that through your head.

The keyword here is EACHOTHER. When was the last time you heard a chicken say "I do" ?

Whether you believe or not isn't the case, fact is you don't know and need to know. I apologize for offending anyone but nonetheless I will not take back what I said. Blind obedience is bad not saying you should be blind but on the contrary. What I am saying is that, God will give you all the evidence you need if you trust Him.
You consider blind obedience to be bad and do it anyways...
Isn't that pretty much the definition of evil? Knowing something is wrong/bad and doing it anyways?

you can't fight Satan on your own that's why
True, but that's because he's make belive as well

God can prevent STDs, hunger, etc but yet we reject Him and try and do it on our own and see how good we're doing.
So in your make-believe world only unbelievers get STDs or go hungry?

But I won't argue this any further lol you've only proven my point not take away from it. In response to Ifrean, you may be rebellious by nature lol your parents may have alot to say about you but as a child I tried to stay out of trouble not look for it. Likewise with God, God says something is wrong for a reason and those reasons and shown all around. You may say something else but the consquences that happen will definately shut your mouth if you look.

I don't support the people who hate homosexuals because they are just people why hate them? Should I support something I believe to be wrong? No. Should you vote for God in schools because of the religious people who want it? No because that is your decision. I am not asking you to accept my God, only to look into Him. There's no changing my mind because I know God to be true for the facts that I've seen in life lol God brainwashed me then? lol He's the only one I'd trust and not question now. Later people I really hope you stop being stubborn and ask God why.

I will not give them my vote to do something that goes against God's Will.
How would you know what God's Will is? On what basis do you treat one claim as to what "God's Will" as being more legitimate than another?

Besides the consitution recognizes marriage only between a man and woman don't try and change that lol.
Whose constitution, and where? And why do we have to accept it?

Don't compare homosexuality with being black or white. You have a choice in what you sleep with.
For what it's worth I think it's a weak analogy too; I don't think discrimination against gays is as severe as that against blacks has been... but sexual orientation ISN'T who (or "what") you sleep with, it's the attractions, which are genetic, much like skin colour.

I am attracted to ferrais lol does that make me wanna sleep with that car?
As in romantically/sexually attracted to that car? O.o

No. People love alot of things but they don't take it so far.
There's a difference between inanimate objects and human beings.

Some people love animals to the extent of sleeping with them
Animals aren't part of human society. Except maybe pets, in which case the relationship is supposed to be one of nurturing by the owner. In any case comparing sex among humans to sex with animals is a bit over-the-top... it's something both those who are for and those who are against animal rights agree is wrong.

We all are born with a sinful nature according to God
How do you know it's this "God" who says so?

Point God makes in the bible
Again, what makes you think this "God" wrote it?

You're going to hell if you don't have Christ.
Ah yes, the old cliched threat of eternal torture after death. Good thing I know enough biology to know that consciousness is a function of interaction of neurons in the brain and that when we die, that's kaput, so I probably wouldn't "go to" hell whether I "had" Christ or not.

I can compare it to any sin God says is a sin
Again, what makes you think "God" says it?

As far as I am concerned, gay people can do what they please but don't try to defile the sancity of marriage.
What sanctity? What are you talking about? Half of marriages already end in divorce, same sex marriage would be like a drop of water in a flood.

But I am not condoning something I KNOW is wrong not just because God says it but also biology and not only biology, homosexuals know its wrong as well at least the ones I talked to.
Wait... what? I kind of got a little lost in that mess there.

Its people like you that keep my faith strong.

Say what you want troll. you really should stop throwing stones. what with claiming to be such a good christian and all.

Say what you want troll. you really should stop throwing stones. what with claiming to be such a good christian and all.

He could at least wait until I've blown this whistle :(

Everything I've seen in my homosexual acquaintances indicates that it is a choice, not a pre-ordained thing. They're exercising their free will to do what they want. Biological homosexuality is a myth made up to try to reduce the seriousness of it.

Hi, I'm Ki Baratan. I'm gay too, and I can assure you I did not choose to be public enemy #1. I tried for 13 years of my life to try and become heterosexual so people like YOU would stop treating me like a piece of shit that crawled into their home.
I'm over that now, I'm proud of who I was born to be, and I'll be damned if people like you try to take my rights away.
You say that your almighty God will pass judgment on us all when we die, I hope you enjoy yours, your savior Jesus Christ preached tolerance and inclusiveness towards all peoples, and you've corrupted His message to spread hate and sadness throughout the world. I wonder which of us will face the worse judgment from your God?

But I won't argue this any further

Argue what? all you have is "my fictional man in the sky says so" and that fall apart with the words "i dont believe".




Jesus is coming.....bring a towel.

your savior Jesus Christ preached tolerance and inclusiveness towards all peoples

Small nitpick: he did no such thing. As pointed out in the happy holidays topic, Jesus was a hate-inciting jerk where it came to atheists and people of other faiths.

However, he indeed did not seem to have any problems whatsoever with homosexuals. In fact, his whole attitude towards sex seemed to be pretty relaxed, as long as one does not cheat on their partner.