The bible and homosexuality

Closing statements please?300 is our typical cut off point for threads. If you would like to continue the conversations please propose a new topic. I will be closing this one down soon.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Yes, I did. She has a vagina, so I asked her. Did you want me to? Are your ears big enough?The rest of your post doesn't really make sense.

Zachariah responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

the uterine and vaginal tracts acts as one big squeeze tube

---

​

yeah, once a month or during childbirth. Not all the time.

---

Yes, all the time.How do you think menstruation happens? It just follows the natural flow of gravity? That if women just stood on their heads, they'd never have a period?Go take that anatomy and physiology class you suggested. I think you'd be surprised at what you don't know.

quote:

---

You act like the ass and vagina are one in the same.

---

Incorrect. I act like the definition of "The musculature pushes out" applies equally to both the anus and the vagina.

quote:

---

Go figure, an actor, California, gay, liberal, ?religion.

---

Yep, I'm an actor...but I am also a mathematician.I do live in California currently, but I'm an Air Force brat. I'm from everywhere.When was it determined that I'm gay? At least one gay person here is absolutely certain that I'm straight."Liberal"? Ask me about my opinions on affirmative action sometime."?religion"? What on earth does that mean? When was it determined that I'm an atheist?

quote:

---

Why is it sooooooo screwed up there?

---

Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not California but rather you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

The vaginal flow to which you refer isn't the same as "the big squeeze tube".

---

It most certainly is! If the muscular contractions happen constantly and are always in a single direction, how is that not "the big squeeze tube"?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah responds to berberry:

quote:

---

Why is it that homosexuals seem to "almost" always refer to someone with a differnt view of homosexuality (that it is wrong and immoral) that they are a homophobe.

---

Might it possibly be that no person who isn't threatened by homosexuality would react as those who are so described? After all, nobody who doesn't like liver tries to stop other people from enjoying it. They simply don't care. They are perfectly secure in their own gastronomical orientation that they have no qualms living in a world surrounded by people who like liver. Nobody tries to make them eat what they don't want to eat, so there is no threat.Since gay people cause no threat, to behave as if there is something horrendously wrong that needs to be stopped (or what?) is an indication of an irrational fear response.Thus, "fear of homosexuals," or "homophobia."So tell us: If gay people were not interfered with in any way, what would happen? How would your life change?Be specific.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What was the reason for rejecting the verses in Romans about men defiling themselves with each other etc. What was the reason it was rejected. Something about what Paul said?.Also in Timothy 1:9 we read "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"This "Defile themselves with mankind" has been translated as Sodomites. Which is homosexuals. So this is a condemnation of homosexuality. Yes?.

Zachariah asks:

quote:

---

Why is it that homosexuals seem to "almost" always refer to someone with a differnt view of homosexuality (that it is wrong and immoral) that they are a homophobe.

---

You may believe it is wrong and immoral yourself all you want, but when you begin speaking out and actively attempting to deny homosexuals equal rights you become a homophobe. You have an irrational fear and/or hatred of something that poses no threat to you.

quote:

---

What a bunch of cowards you are.

---

So, in your mind, cowardice means NOT hating and/or fearing something that poses no threat to you? That's interesting.

quote:

---

I guess that means you are a heterophobe, and a christianaphobe, devinaphobe, Godaphobe, conservativaphobe, Bushaphobe, Americanaphobe, womanaphobe, etc............

---

I have no hatred or fear of heterosexuals, God, conservatives, Bush, Americans or women. I DO have some fear of Christians, but only because they are a strong voting block and certain groups of them have demonstrated a hatred/fear of gays. I am not so much afraid of them as I am afraid of what they might do to America in order to have their bigotry enshrined into the law. Therefore my fear is not irrational and thus cannot be described as a phobia.Paul is a homophobe because, if we take the word of people like you, Almeyda and truthlover, then Paul shares your irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuality. I'm still not convinced that his words refer to monogamous, loving gay relationships, but if they do then clearly Paul's fear is irrational and thus he is indeed a homophobe.Since I have been kind enough to answer your questions, may I beg that you answer one for me? Why is it that the conservative Christian faiths have always been on the wrong side of history whenever a question of equality for certain groups is raised? Why is it that things like equal rights for women and African-Americans are only supported by conservative Christians long after such rights have become the law of the land?

Rrhain apparently refers to me when he writes:

quote:

---

When was it determined that I'm gay? At least one gay person here is absolutely certain that I'm straight.

---

Not absolutely. I lean in that direction because it's hard for me to imagine a gay person taking the view you did on the issue we were discussing at that time. It sounded like the sort of thing a straight person who is concerned with equal rights but who has no personal experience with the nature of bigotry might say. I do hope you didn't take my comments as insulting; I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. You are a very fair-minded man and if I knew you personally I feel sure we'd be friends. I rarely disagree with you, but in this one case I did and still do.

I don't believe your statement to be valid. I believe you have made a statement with no backing. Why don't you give me that proof you all are always wanting. Tell me about all the nasty conservatives that tried to get in the way of the civilrights and womens movements. The womens movements that take away from the mother figure would be blocked be Christians because it harms the family in some cases. Not saying that working mothers is a bad thing I'm saying that the groups that take away the father figure and say its not needed are bad. If I recall the democrate Bird I think is his name (not sure) was in the KKK. He's no conservative. It a typical stereotype that you have alowed yourself to get brainwashed by. The things mainstreem conservatism is agaisnt are things that harm the family unit, country, and take away from independence. I and (I would say) many others in both parties would be for civil rights and womens rights and gay rights. But not if they are going to FORCE them onto us. And I'm only to people like you. I have no problem with the whole left alone idea. But it was the gays that brought the lifestyle to the front page not us. Mistreated by people who hated gays? Yes they have been. But now we see that the tables have turned because there are no people left with balls enough to go against them. Now whwn we have a gay man killed it is the topic of conversation for 2 weeks or more. ANd when a child is raped , tortured and murdered by two homosexuals it is back page news. Never even hear a whisper about it. You want it fare? ME TOO!!! If you want it balanced them make a stand when something like this happens show some disgust. Hell, make some anti-homosexual people aware that you think that things like that are just as bad as when it happens to one of your friends.

Well, I'm satisfied with what I've said on the whole issue, but Berberry had a well-justified objection that I need to explain: Berberry's point is that by saying this I'm lying about my statements about the Bible.I couldn't even find this quote by me. I'm sure I said it back at the beginning of this discussion, maybe three, four, or five posts ago, when I was putting a comment by Paul about effeminacy in the context I think it belongs in. In that situation, I was simply giving a context for Paul.Since then, Berberry has somehow been determined to make an issue about Genesis not saying something negative about Lot's actions in Sodom. I cannot imagine what that has to do with anything at all, much less with anything we're talking about, and that is what I have said repeatedly.Using the Scriptures in general as a context for something Paul said and trying to prove the Bible is for or against something are two completely different things in my eyes. Nor do I use Scriptures and Bible interchangeably, except when I'm talking with Christians, because they do (so sometimes I use their terminology). I don't and have not for a long time held to a "Bible" condemnation or approval of anything at all. This does not stop me from using the Scriptures in general (which to me consist of writings both in and not in the Bible) as a context for Paul or others who I believe to be the same spirit as Paul.The question of this thread, and the one I addressed, was "does the Bible condemn homosexuality explicitly anywhere." I answered that satisfactorily, in my opinion.And if Berberry doesn't feel he admitted that, then that's okay. I misinterpreted him. Because of his constant references to Paul as "homophobic," I made an assumption that he agreed. It seems bizarre to call someone homophobic and then to suggest he approved of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, but if that's what he says he's doing, then I'll grant that.

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

But it was the gays that brought the lifestyle to the front page not us.

---

Let me see if I understand your logic:Person A discriminates against Person B.
Person B makes a stink about it and manages to get a significant amount of people to rail against the discrimination.
This somehow means it is Person B's fault that there is now a national discussion about the issue rather than the discrimination perpetrated by Person A.You seem to be upset that you're being called to the carpet for your unconscionable behaviour...all the while never stopping to consider the possibility that it would all go away if you would simply stop.

quote:

---

Now whwn we have a gay man killed it is the topic of conversation for 2 weeks or more. ANd when a child is raped , tortured and murdered by two homosexuals it is back page news.

---

(*snort!*)You can't even remember their names, can you?Dirkhising. The little boy's name was Jesse Dirkhising.And he made national news, too.The difference between Shepard and Dirkhising is that nobody claimed that Dirkhising "brought it on himself" the way it was claimed Shepard did.Shepard's death was a hate crime which in our political atmosphere, is a national issue. It directly goes to the question of how we as a society treat an entire class of people. Shepard's killers tried to use a "gay panic" defense: The torture and murder was reasonable and acceptable because Shepard came on to them.Dirkhising's was a sex crime which, alas, is not considered a national issue. People die from sex crimes every single day. The sexual torture of children is an important issue, but nobody ever tried to say that it was justifiable.Did you know that the week before the "Central Park Jogger" was attacked, a man was viciously attacked in Central Park in much the same way? Why was his attack not a national news story but hers was? There are all sorts of reasons why some stories manage to acquire legs and others remain local news.

quote:

---

Never even hear a whisper about it.

---

Then you simply didn't look.And I notice that your attempt to claim that gay people are never portrayed as perpetrators of crime seems to have ignored Andrew Cunanan and Jeffery Dahmer.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What's your point? I still don't see how you could equate pedophilia with homosexuality. Actually, there are more straight pedophiles than gay ones. The only difference is we don't hear about the straight ones as much, and people like you seem to turn a blind eye on the straight ones while sound the alarm for the gay ones.Talking about ignorance and hate.Hey Admins, I think this thread has taken its course. Please direct people to round 3. I'd be more interested to see people respond to the 2 passages I put in that thread.

---

The Laminator

​

Speaking of Jeffery Dahmer, one of my ex-prof of Law used to work at a firm that had someone defended the guy.

---

The Laminator

​

Lam,I gotcha beat: My cousin went to high school with him. He was from La Jolla, after all...just up the road.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Wow! I need to find your cousin and laminate him/her.

---

The Laminator

​