I would like to preface this in saying this is coming from a Christian perspective.

Now that thats out of the way, I would say I have thought much of it recently. But then a striking revelation occured today. That is, the matter of whether its natural or of volition is irrelevant.

Because sin is genetic, in a sense in that it is passed on in humans, a supposed genetic abnormality that gives one more ropensiation towards homosexuality than another would be irrelevant because sin is already grandfathered.

Jesus is recorded saying

quote:Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

that it is better to go through life maimed than go to hell. It is customary of Christians to think of this as a euphamism, and not literal. Of course, if the right hand really did take on a life of its own and make you sin, it would be better for the Christian to literally cut off his own hand.

The same in the case of homosexuals, it would be better to castrate oneself than be a sodomite. That way those urges are no longer present.

But I bet upon hearing that most are going to chime in "omg lyke dats n0t fare" or something. Well, 1: the Bible doesnt guarantee that life would be fair and 2: life ISNT fair.

I didnt choose to be white or have blonde hair any more than someone would choose to be straight. No one is born with a straight shot in life and one shouldnt gripe about it.

Discuss. I would be especially keen in listening to the opinions of fellow Christians, excluding trolls like SAMMY.

1. basing morality on ancient Jewish folktales and then using these morals to tell a man that they're sinful for wanting to show their love for another man in a consensual manner that harms no one but those two, if even that, is really fucking pathetic.

2. It doesn't matter either way, whether nature or nurture (which is possibly a false dichotomy, in my opinion) since it harms absolutely no one accept the individuals as long as it is consensual.

3. I myself don't like to be identified by my sexuality for the reason that there are more important things for me to be identified by and to an extent I feel sexual identifications are social structures. I generally have to hide the fact that I've had feelings for both men and women, not because I'm ashamed, but because of people like Masta Thief and HideandSeek(which is why I haven't told my mother, because I know she puts her religion before me and will throw me out of the house) and those who will automatically see me as some sort of "nancy boy".

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 04-03-2007).]

You are basing your arguement off the assumption that homosexuality is a horrible sin. The Old Testament scripture passages that condemn it also prescribe other practices and laws that have long since been deemed too barbaric and archaic to exist in society any more (sacrificed any livestock recently?).

If you base the condemnation of homosexuality as a sin off of the passage Leviticus 18:22 ("No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that") your arguement has one major contradiction in the bible- Deuteronomy 23:1

"No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included in the Lord's people"

If however you believe that the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus condemn homosexuality as being impure, then I would like to see what passages back you up. Jesus was a pretty radical guy for his time, and it's hard to tell for sure whether or not he would sympathize with a group of people whose "sins" didn't harm any one else.

So first prove to me that homosexuality is immoral, then we can discuss the validity of your idea.

quote:Originally posted by anti gravity:

You are basing your arguement off the assumption that homosexuality is a horrible sin. The Old Testament scripture passages that condemn it also prescribe other practices and laws that have long since been deemed too barbaric and archaic to exist in society any more (sacrificed any livestock recently?).

If you base the condemnation of homosexuality as a sin off of the passage Leviticus 18:22 ("No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that") your arguement has one major contradiction in the bible- Deuteronomy 23:1

"No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included in the Lord's people"

If however you believe that the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus condemn homosexuality as being impure, then I would like to see what passages back you up. Jesus was a pretty radical guy for his time, and it's hard to tell for sure whether or not he would sympathize with a group of people whose "sins" didn't harm any one else.

So first prove to me that homosexuality is immoral, then we can discuss the validity of your idea.

No joke, huh? Since you seem to have a difficult time reading, let me say it again:

quote:I would like to preface this in saying this is coming from a Christian perspective.

Secondly

quote: "No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included in the Lord's people"

Why dont you read the rest of the chapter? Specifically:

quote:2: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

3: An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:



Sounds alot like something about not becoming a Jew, not a Christian.

I am not aware of any place in which Jesus contradicted the old Law except where he completes it. It would make as much sense t make a pass at homosexuality as it would sexual deviance of any sort, specifically infidelity and adultery. However, that is not the case:

http://www.epigee.org/pregnancy/bible.html

I would like to PREFACE (http://tinyurl.com/ypt4af) (I provide a link to its definition since some of you cant seem to grasp its concept) that the doctrine in the link is not supported nor condemned by me, but the verses hold significance to the conversation on continuance of the old Law.

irrelevant

If God grants forgiveness for all sins once you accept him as your Saviour ... couldn't a homosexual just repent at the end of his life and it be all good?

Regardless -

Shouldn't the absolute standard of Christian behavior be to love thy neighbor, and judge not lest ye be judged?

Argon: Would you condone Christian parents encouraging castration for their homosexual teenage sons in an effort to protect them from the sins of sodomy?

Why did so many Christians come to support RAWA when the vast reports of female genital mutilations by the Taliban were uncovered in Afghanistan? They butchered their young females for an equally pious reason - to ensure that monogamy would be enforced. Much like the Christian God, Allah tends to frown on extramarital sex.

That said, if you support castration for homosexuals in order to put a stop to sodomy ... would you support genital mutilation in teens who are exceptionally horny? This might prevent pre-marital sex.

What about genital mutilation of married couples who might have the propensity for having an affair? This might prevent adultery.

irrelephant

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

If God grants forgiveness for all sins once you accept him as your Saviour ... couldn't a homosexual just repent at the end of his life and it be all good?

Thats puts a big question mark on your salvation if thats the way you think. The Bible discusses the carnal Christian in detail.

It works on paper, but we dont live in paper.

quote:Regardless -

Shouldn't the absolute standard of Christian behavior be to love thy neighbor, and judge not lest ye be judged?

True. I really posed this to fellow hristians to not get pissed when someone says that homosexuality is genetic because it doesnt matter.

quote:Argon: Would you condone Christian parents encouraging castration for their homosexual teenage sons in an effort to protect them from the sins of sodomy?

Not at all. I would condemn it. I would also condemn the notion of parents not allowing their children freedom of reasoning just the same. Questioning religion makes one ask himself "Is this real?" and allows him to come to some conclusion as to his relationship or nonexistence thereof to God.

Having a child subject to such a practice would be, for lack of a more damaging term, barbaric.

quote:Why did so many Christians come to support RAWA when the vast reports of female genital mutilations by the Taliban were uncovered in Afghanistan? They butchered their young females for an equally pious reason - to ensure that monogamy would be enforced. Much like the Christian God, Allah tends to frown on extramarital sex.

But what does this have to do with Christianity? Allah is more like how God acted to the Jews before Christ anyway.

But now that you know my opinion on forced castration of any sort, you know why I would support such an organization for the same reason.

quote:That said, if you support castration for homosexuals in order to put a stop to sodomy ... would you support genital mutilation in teens who are exceptionally horny? This might prevent pre-marital sex.

Read closely. Jesus did not say to Peter "nigga, why you steal and beat off? Imma cut yo hand off". In the context of his speech, it is a personal choice to go without a part of the body if it gets between him and the Lord.

Thats where I leave it. It is a personal choice and not one that would be prudent to force on anyone.

quote:What about genital mutilation of married couples who might have the propensity for having an affair? This might prevent adultery.

[/B]

I hope that clears some of that up.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Regardless -

Shouldn't the absolute standard of Christian behavior be to love thy neighbor, and judge not lest ye be judged?



i seem to remember a certain special someone saying, when asked by the pharisees, that the most important commandment is to love thy neighbor. so i take that to mean, in this specific issue, that you should in no way maltreat a homosexual. it is more important that you love them then you "correct their behavior/save them from hell"against their will.

also, i would hate to think of a group of christians convincing a homosexual man to sever his own penis "for the good of his soul." i can't imagine that making him much happier. people have been duped into doing similarly idoitic things because their church told them that god wills them to. i'm sorry if that's offensive, i truly don't intend to offend anyone here (though any christian who regularly posts in My God must have some pretty thick skin) but that's just the way i feel.

but basically, i don't really care about how christians (i am an absurdist myself) view homosexuality. the only thing that makes me uneasy about their current opinions is that christians make up most of the population of the US, so there could at one time be laws outlawing sodomy (weren't there some at one point in time already?). keep those kinds of things OUT of politics. we can keep "in god we trust" on the cash and "under god" in the pledge, i couldn't care less. but don't dare try to legally regulate free choices based on "god's will."

i am fairly certain that argon plasma wouldn't want to do that anyways, but i felt like ranting a bit.

There are lots of states that have laws against sodomy, even between heterosexual partners.

Also, I dont want this getting into whether or not homosexuality is right using secular reasoning or whether or not it is learned or natural.

I have already covered the case of genetics in that sin of all types is a pseudo-genetic state in the mind of the Christian.



[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 04-04-2007).]

I was fairly certain he wouldn't support it either, but it's difficult to read someone cite scripture from a book that is supposedly the infallible word of God, and then admit in the same thread, different paragraph, that the infallible word "only works on paper".

This is progress! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

This is ONE of those times where I'm actually not trying to bust his balls about religion - because the more and more you delve into what is "condoned" and "not condoned" by moderate Christians, the more you can see that this infallible word is being reinterpreted to the point of it someday becoming completely irrelevant to the way we live moral lives.

It's not the way I'd personally prefer it, because it'll take longer ... but if we have to belittle the Bible just one scripture at a time by not accepting it's infallibility, then that's inching closer and closer to not taking it with more than just a miniscule grain of salt, anyway. Whatever works!

I did not. Read up on the carnal Christian. "On paper", I mean theoretically. Everyone has that little secret sin they want to wait around till their deathbed to repent of.

But that is not the definition of repent. That act is to seek forgiveness. Unfortunately for you, that sin has ben forgiven thousands of years ago.

Repentance means to acknowledge you have sinned, and to make a concerted effort to not commit the same sin.

Again, read up on what the Bible has to say about those types of Christian. Keep in mind, this isnt Catholicism, as your situation seemed to allow Catholic doctrine of holding off on something to ask forgiveness later, most of which is libertinism. (In layman's terms thats the "I can sin all I want because I'm not going to hell" type of person.) In fact, at one point the Catholic church sold "indulgences" that you could commit any sort of "soft" sin (no killing people) for a price. Hell, back then I bet you could sway a minister to let you kill another man with enough gold.

So, no, I didnt admit the "infallable" Word of God only works on paper because such a situation doesnt really work in the Christian walk. Everyone thinks they can get away with it scot-free till their end of days, but God doesnt always let it happen.

Remember all these scandals of Catholic ministers molesting kids and that fellow snorting crack off a tranny's ass?



[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 04-04-2007).]

1. Castration doesn't guarantee that there will be no urges. One can be castrated and still feel sexual urges. The example of sexual predators who've been chemically castrated comes to mind.

2. Similar arguments can be made for other 'sins of the flesh' which relate to any sexual orientation. Like AngryFemme said, there is adultery, premarital sex, bestiality... Should everyone be castrated so that "those urges are no longer there"?

I have a feeling that even if you had any of those urges, you wouldn't be castrating yourself any time soon.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Castration doesn't guarantee that there will be no urges. One can be castrated and still feel sexual urges. The example of sexual predators who've been chemically castrated comes to mind.

2. Similar arguments can be made for other 'sins of the flesh' which relate to any sexual orientation. Like AngryFemme said, there is adultery, premarital sex, bestiality... Should everyone be castrated so that "those urges are no longer there"?

I have a feeling that even if you had any of those urges, you wouldn't be castrating yourself any time soon.

You would be correct in asserting such. I would also like to point out in the same breath that I'm not the best Christian, either.

I wanted to use the cutting off example as an extreme means to stop ones urge to sin. One can still be whole and be able to resist temptation.

Im not too up on chemical castration. The wiki says that it blocks brain stimulation of the nads so that they stop making testosterone. However, if I remember my basic endocrinology, thats not the only hormone that is secreted by the testes. Testosterone isnt the sole factor in determining secual urges, is it?

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 04-04-2007).]

Who said anything about Catholics?!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I know it helps make your moderate Christianity look good when the fuck-ups of Catholics can so easily be pointed out, but reall and truly ... what did Catholics have to do with this?

And "on paper" means theoretically to me, too. That's exactly what I was implying when I responded. How can anything God said be taken "theoretically" by a Christian?

Did Jesus Christ "theoretically" rise from the dead? Or did he actually rise from the dead? I mean literally - not on paper. Not theoretically. Not metaphorically.

And who said anything about repentance? I'm full aware of the differences between Catholic and Christian doctrines. I said be granted forgiveness by God. Not that they have to ask, but just follow what all Christians claim to be true: That asking the Lord Jesus Christ to come into your heart saves you from hell and puts you in Heaven.

I've personally had 25 years of Christian brainwashing, though I admit that I couldn't remember this passage by heart for this occasion. I had to copy and paste:

Romans 10:9-10.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

What do Christians mean when they use the phrase "born again"? Doesn't that mean that they have asked Jesus into their hearts to free them of sin so that they can be forgiven and let into heaven by God's loving grace?

What about what your boy Peter said regarding forgiveness?

Acts 2:36-41 (ESV) Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." [37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" [38] And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." [40] And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

You're going to have to re-explain to me what the Christian concept of being "saved" is, I suppose. Because it seems to imply by both scripture and Christian tenets that being "saved" means being freed of your sins, full acceptance by Christ, and let into Heaven.

quote:And "on paper" means theoretically to me, too. That's exactly what I was implying when I responded. How can anything God said be taken "theoretically" by a Christian?

God never said that you should wait till the last seconds of your life before you change. He says the opposite.

The concept of being "born again" means a raising of the dead spiritually like Jesus was physically. Before his crucifixion, Jesus had a mortal body. However afterwards, he has an angelic body. (passing through walls and not touching him and that stuff)

Likewise, being born again means that we are to die to our flesh and be given a new spirit by the Holy Spirit.

quote:You're going to have to re-explain to me what the Christian concept of being "saved" is, I suppose. Because it seems to imply by both scripture and Christian tenets that being "saved" means being freed of your sins, full acceptance by Christ, and let into Heaven.

Do point out if I have said something doctrinally fishy.

But what you have said is doctrinally sound. Being saved means that you accept that Jesus died to pay for your sins, accept that as payment in God's eyes, and thus you are allowed into heaven. There is a bit more to it than that, but that is more for the Christian who can understand what it all means, moreso than you as it is an alien concept.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



One can still be whole and be able to resist temptation.

Correct, precisely why castration is a pretty ridiculous "solution" to the "problem".

quote:

However, if I remember my basic endocrinology, thats not the only hormone that is secreted by the testes. Testosterone isnt the sole factor in determining secual urges, is it?

Like I said, castration doesn't guarantee that there will be no urges.

Testosterone is the most important hormone when it comes to sexual urges in males. The testicles produce other hormones, but none like testosterone. Chemical castration is used as an alternative precisely because of this.

Also, testosterone isn't only produced in the testicles - it is also produced, albeit in lower quantities, in the adrenal glands.

Wonderful. So we agree that being saved means just this:

freed of your sins, full acceptance by Christ, and let into Heaven.

Agreed upon, yes?

NOW back to the topic at hand:

Why would it be necessary to mutilate one's self when the acts committed by those homosexual urges (that may or may not be genetic) could easily be forgiven? Why desecrate your own body, which is supposedly the "temple" of God?

That's not to say that the homosexual in question doesn't believe in God, or worships a plastercast of Yoda, or is also a serial killer.

Just consider the act of sodomy alone, by a Christian who is otherwise faithful to Christ.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

There is a bit more to it than that, but that is more for the Christian who can understand what it all means, moreso than you as it is an alien concept.

I was a Christian for more years than you have been alive. Please do not assume what concepts are alien to me, and which ones I understand. k? Thanks.

quote:Correct, precisely why castration is a pretty ridiculous "solution" to the "problem".

I never said it was a means to an end. However, dont you think that it goes alot further than simply trying to overcome sexual deviancy through sheer willpower?

quote:Why would it be necessary to mutilate one's self when the acts committed by those homosexual urges (that may or may not be genetic) could easily be forgiven? Why desecrate your own body, which is supposedly the "temple" of God?

That's not to say that the homosexual in question doesn't believe in God, or worships a plastercast of Yoda, or is also a serial killer.

Just consider the act of sodomy alone, by a Christian who is otherwise faithful to Christ.

Again, I never said it was a means to an end. It is an effective way to curb one's appetite for sin by eliminating the method by which one commits it in a general sense. It is not necessary, but would be an extreme choice one would make.

I think we should focus on some use of words. First, there are those websites that advertise "curing" homosexuality, however sometimes the clients revert back to their old habits.

If the person was indeed trying his damnedest to not be gay and continued to do so even after failing, I wouldnt call him a homosexual, gay, fag, whatever.

When I use the word, I tend to mean one who lives the homosexual lifestyle the same way heterosexuals live.

So, yes, you can be forgiven, but you cannot live the lifestyle. Carnal Christians dont get far in life, and its rather difficult for me to believe a person habitually living the homosexual lifestyle would be saved. It harkens back to Biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit will convict you of your sin.

But, for one to become saved, a homosexual person would very much know how Christians feel about them. That would be a really tough choice to deny their urges in order to become a child of God.

One who goes to these evangelical laying-on-of-hands monkey shows would be generally paying lip service. We as totseans know how anonimity works. Its really easy to say something and live completely different.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I was a Christian for more years than you have been alive. Please do not assume what concepts are alien to me, and which ones I understand. k? Thanks.



Much animus. How old would you be, then?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

I never said it was a means to an end. However, dont you think that it goes alot further than simply trying to overcome sexual deviancy through sheer willpower?

I don't consider most these things "sexual deviancy" and if people aren't even going to practice it - not even those who preach it - then it doesn't even "go", let alone "further".

Where are your MANNERS?!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

Just kidding. I'm 35, just had a birthday last Saturday (you forgot to send an e-card) and I still get carded for adult purchases. So THERE!

quote:

Again, I never said it was a means to an end. It is an effective way to curb one's appetite for sin by eliminating the method by which one commits it in a general sense.

The means: Cutting off your own penis

for

The end: Eliminating sin

Your first post here stated:

quote: Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



The same in the case of homosexuals, it would be better to castrate oneself than be a sodomite. That way those urges are no longer present.

Thereby suggesting that the means (castration) would be better than just fighting the urges, so you would stand a better chance at salvation, which is the "end".

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I don't consider most these things "sexual deviancy" and if people aren't even going to practice it - not even those who preach it - then it doesn't even "go", let alone "further".

Well I didnt write the Bible, Rust. Thats also why in previous posts I condemned the mutilation of another by superiors.

quote:Thereby suggesting that the means (castration) would be better than just fighting the urges, so you would stand a better chance at salvation, which is the "end".

If I was a klepto, cutting off my hands would solve the problem to a very great extent. Moreso than if I were to resist the urges if I had poor willpower.

But you are mixing up doctrine here and I think I know why. Do you believe that you can lose your salvation?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Well I didnt write the Bible, Rust. Thats also why in previous posts I condemned the mutilation of another by superiors.

Huh? What the fuck does that have to do with anything I said?

You said this would "go further" than 'simply trying to overcome sexual deviancy through sheer willpower'. If people aren't even willing to do it - not even you, the one preaching this ridiculous act - then this doesn't even work as a "solution" let alone one that "goes further".

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

If I was a klepto, cutting off my hands would solve the problem to a very great extent. Moreso than if I were to resist the urges if I had poor willpower.

By using that analogy in regard to what the topic at hand is, you are again seeming to defend what you originally stated, which is that castration would be "better than" fighting off urges. You can't both support and condemn an act.

Could you please point out where I am specifically mixing up doctrine?

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

By using that analogy in regard to what the topic at hand is, you are again seeming to defend what you originally stated, which is that castration would be "better than" fighting off urges. You can't both support and condemn an act.

Could you please point out where I am specifically mixing up doctrine?

You didnt answer the question I posed. I will elaborate if you answer it.

But there is an obvious difference between my cutting off of my own hands and my cutting off of YOUR hands, isnt there?

Read my posts carefully. I try to make every effort to say that the mutilation of oneself should be left as a personal choice and not that of someone else.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Where are your MANNERS?!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

Just kidding. I'm 35, just had a birthday last Saturday (you forgot to send an e-card) and I still get carded for adult purchases. So THERE!...

Happy (belated) birthday!

Thank you very much, truckfixr http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

You didnt answer the question I posed. I will elaborate if you answer it.

I'm confident that I didn't mix up the doctrine. Period.

quote:

But there is an obvious difference between my cutting off of my own hands and my cutting off of YOUR hands, isnt there?

Read my posts carefully. I try to make every effort to say that the mutilation of oneself should be left as a personal choice and not that of someone else.

Are you condemning something that you have already stated God supports?

Tsk Tsk Tsk...

ArgonPlasma2000, I'm having trouble isolating your question / topic of discussion.

It seems as though you're saying the origin of the individual's homosexuality isn't important compared to whether or not it's acted on. Is that right? And that therefore any measures the person takes to suppress or deny temptation are entirely up to them, even to extremities such as mutilation. That although it might be more difficult for some people to resist urges, due to a greater or lesser propensity for homosexual feelings, that doesn't mean they should have it any easier in terms of criteria for forgiveness.

Do I have that right?

One thing I've been unsure about, while following this exchange, has been where exactly the line is drawn with regards to repenting and forgiveness. Are there degrees of salvation? If you repent earlier are you "more" saved? God urges people to repent whole-heartedly and as soon as possible; do you get more credit for that than for waiting till you're on your deathbed? Just an academic point I'm interested in...

Are you condemning something that you have already stated God supports?

Tsk Tsk Tsk...

Again, read the verses. Nowhere does it say that some thrid party is to cut off your hand or gouge out your eye. God doest necessarilly support it, he just obviously doesnt condemn it. (A double negative does not always imply a postitive.)

He leaves it as a personal choice by which to deny yourself opportunity to sin. Thats where I leave it.

But you still did not answer the question. Do you or do you not believe one can lose his salvation?

It seems as though you're saying the origin of the individual's homosexuality isn't important compared to whether or not it's acted on. Is that right? And that therefore any measures the person takes to suppress or deny temptation are entirely up to them, even to extremities such as mutilation. That although it might be more difficult for some people to resist urges, due to a greater or lesser propensity for homosexual feelings, that doesn't mean they should have it any easier in terms of criteria for forgiveness.

That is what I have stated and what I have implied, respectively. (your post poses two different concepts, therefore necessitating two different answers)

One thing I've been unsure about, while following this exchange, has been where exactly the line is drawn with regards to repenting and forgiveness. Are there degrees of salvation? If you repent earlier are you "more" saved? God urges people to repent whole-heartedly and as soon as possible; do you get more credit for that than for waiting till you're on your deathbed? Just an academic point I'm interested in...

Repentance and forgiveness are two completely difference concepts, therefore there is no "line" between the two except the barrier of meaning.

As to the rest of the question, thats a yes-and-no question. I have the same salvation that Paul, Bill Keller, the Pope (assuming he is indeed saved. Lets not get started into Catholic doctrine), et al have.

Credit is not a very articulate way to word it. For starters, you are not guaranteed God will send a semi flying into your bedroom within ten seconds of reading this. Supposing you were to put off repenting of sin until tomorrow, you dont fare too well in God's eyes.

The real point of repenting early is to maximize your effectiveness of serving God. Who has more effectiveness, the person who did drugs once and repented, or someone who did them all his life but repented only after contracting AIDS and now has 3 years to live?

So in a way, one does get more credit, in that he can, potentially, give more of his life over to the Lord's work and not to his own desires. Its not exactly a karmic relationship, however the norm tends towards it.

Thanks for that clarification. I'm kind of glad that, according to the system as I now understand it, repentance and forgiveness themselves -- just *saying* you'll be good -- aren't as important as then going out and *acting* on that commitment. Makes the whole deal a little less flippant.
[moot point from my view, of course, but meh.]

It's an interesting point of view (that homosexual urges themselves aren't sinful in comparison to their indulgence), especially given some of the rhetoric the churches throw around about how any sort of same-sex attraction is Evil!Evil!Evil! I'm thinking here, also, of how certain establishments won't accept gay priests even if they're celibate. They're not actually acting on these urges, they are in fact resisting temptation, but for some people that's not good enough. *sigh* As if no straight priests ever had "sinful" thoughts or desires they didn't act on.

Again, read the verses. Nowhere does it say that some thrid party is to cut off your hand or gouge out your eye. God doest necessarilly support it, he just obviously doesnt condemn it. (A double negative does not always imply a postitive.)

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not evoking third parties into this. We already discussed how cruel and barbaric it was in other cultures who did it to people by force. I am speaking of the faithful person who makes the decision to castrate himself. I found it curious how you made the comparison between that metaphorical scripture on the "cutting away of evil" and homosexual castration. I find it even more curious that now you're backpeddling to make it seem like God "neither supports it or condemns it".

I'll have to say that this has got to be the first instance where I've heard a Christian God is on the fence on a moral issue

You quoted Mark 9:43 where God makes clear that He finds it better to cut off your hand if it were evil. And then you followed up immediately with your own supportive assertion:

The same in the case of homosexuals, it would be better to castrate oneself than be a sodomite. That way those urges are no longer present.

So you first posted God giving his support of it, and then you attempt to drive it home further by making it applicable to homosexuality and castration.

So why are you stating now that God doesn't necessarily support it or condemn it, and neither do you? You changed your stance on it mid-thread! What prompted you to change your stance on it was when other sexual deviations were agreed to be sins of the same caliber as homosexuality, and Rust pointed out that although you seem to believe it's the word of God, you obviously don't believe it enough to have it pertain to yourself.

Forgiveness was a matter to deal with also. Now God either forgives, or he doesn't. You either get to enter Heaven, or you don't. Carnal Christian or not, are you suggesting that God only forgives up until a certain point?.

Christian doctrine states differently. Christian doctrine says anyone, with any amount of sin, can ask Jesus Christ into his heart and accept Him as their Saviour and those sins are absolved. We agreed on this point already, remember?

Using political double-speak like "God neither supports nor condemns it" is just loose, and is a refutation of the entire topic you started!

But you still did not answer the question. Do you or do you not believe one can lose his salvation?

I'll answer the irrelevant question about my (obvious) opinion on "lost" salvation when we clear up this issue. Or are you just trying to change the subject?

I'll answer the irrelevant question about my (obvious) opinion on "lost" salvation when we clear up this issue. Or are you just trying to change the subject?

It has issue with the doctrinal misunderstandings that you were wanting me to point out.

Why so quick to say that I am out of answers and want to change the subject?

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not evoking third parties into this. We already discussed how cruel and barbaric it was in other cultures who did it to people by force. I am speaking of the faithful person who makes the decision to castrate himself. I found it curious how you made the comparison between that metaphorical scripture on the "cutting away of evil" and homosexual castration. I find it even more curious that now you're backpeddling to make it seem like God "neither supports it or condemns it".

I'll have to say that this has got to be the first instance where I've heard a Christian God is on the fence on a moral issue

Not so as the topic is not a question of morality. If it was moral to cut your dick off you'd have alot of people in third world countries doing it. (See also: Catholics beilieveing in that de Jesus guy)

I think we are focusing on this act far too much. I didnt call for anyone to be mutilated, nor will I. I simply point out that there is not a compelling excuse why a Christian could be homosexual.

No man that I know (of course, BME does it ALOT) wants to cut off their pecker, at least a person in his right mind. Doing that for the case of God or trying that much harder to resist sinning: which would you prefer?

So you first posted God giving his support of it, and then you attempt to drive it home further by making it applicable to homosexuality and castration.

Making a comparison does not mean one supports such. It is better to have surgery to remove cancer than it is to die, but not everyone supports surgery to do so. (Just yesterday someone posted their mother having tongue cancer and she would rather die than have it removed)

So why are you stating now that God doesn't necessarily support it or condemn it, and neither do you? You changed your stance on it mid-thread! What prompted you to change your stance on it was when other sexual deviations were agreed to be sins of the same caliber as homosexuality, and Rust pointed out that although you seem to believe it's the word of God, you obviously don't believe it enough to have it pertain to yourself.

What you and Rust dont understand is that I can comment on the Bible without having followed every point to the t. Jesus doesnt say cut off your hand if it sins.

I dont see how you can think I actually WANT someone to cut off some part of themselves. I have tried to take a neutral stance on that throughout the entire thread leaving it completely to that person. I dont have to support it, I dont have to condemn it. Likewise, God does not have to support nor condemn it, but leaves it up to you if you want to show that much dedication.

Forgiveness was a matter to deal with also. Now God either forgives, or he doesn't. You either get to enter Heaven, or you don't. Carnal Christian or not, are you suggesting that God only forgives up until a certain point?.

Christian doctrine states differently. Christian doctrine says anyone, with any amount of sin, can ask Jesus Christ into his heart and accept Him as their Saviour and those sins are absolved. We agreed on this point already, remember?]/quote]

God must be granting me ever so much patience with this. I highly suspect you have some funny doctrinal thinking because you seem to not understand a word I am saying.

I have already said all sins are forgiven. If you would pick up and read the Bible once for this thread, at least read this one chapter: http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/romans/6.htm

[quote]Using political double-speak like "God neither supports nor condemns it" is just loose, and is a refutation of the entire topic you started!

Such a thing is not the tpic of this thread. Thus said, why are we still talking about a tangent point?

:rolleyes:

Moderates: Always picking and choosing from the Bible what fits best into their scenario of life, and blithely skipping over the rest of it when it doesn't apply comfortably to them.

I think we are focusing on this act far too much.

Then why, pray tell, did you make a thread about it?

Making a comparison does not mean one supports such. It is better to have surgery to remove cancer than it is to die, but not everyone supports surgery to do so. (Just yesterday someone posted their mother having tongue cancer and she would rather die than have it removed)

You mean that one where you were the first to mock his grief and tell him that he probably had cancer, too? Oh yeah, I rememberthat one.

It's good that God granted you patience for this thread, because he sure didn't grant you any empathy or kindness in the other one.

What you and Rust dont understand is that I can comment on the Bible without having followed every point to the t.

Just like you can claim to be a Christian, even when your actions prove otherwise? I see, said the blindwoman.

Jesus doesnt say cut off your hand if it sins.

I always thought Mark was an embellisher. Thanks for backing me up on that, even though you used his text to make a point about what God suggested as a "betterment".

Guess the Bible is infallible at times!

What you and Rust dont understand is that I can comment on the Bible without having followed every point to the t.


And on what exactly are you basing this wonderful assumption of what I do and do not understand? The fact that I have said nothing of the sort?

I understand perfectly that you can comment on the bible without 'having followed every point to the t'.

The points I have been making through out this thread are:

1. That castration does not mean a complete elimination of urges as you originally implied.

2. That castration isn't even alternative to willpower (let alone a better one) if nobody is going to go through with it - not even those who preach this outrageous act.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth.

The concept of sin seems to encapsulate a measurement of decision-making or free will to choose on the part of the sinner. Otherwise, how are we to place blame on such an individual? We can only keep them from continuing harmful deeds by keeping them apart from those they harm, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of a higher moral standard such as sin.

I will not take this argument down the road of 1)questioning free will, nor even 2)accepting that christian philosophy is incompatible with free will, NOR 3)that it is fallacious to argue that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it is unnatural(even if we were capable defining and agreeing on the term "natural"). Rather, I am going to take the high road and defeat the concept of homosexuality as sin(which includes a conscious decision by an agent) from a phenomenological perspective.

Most of you, I assume, are heterosexual and so therefore I will use as my example a heterosexual account of the 'phenomenology of sex' which is based upon the continuing and rising sexual arousal by each of the partners. This is not literally two adults seeing other at a bar->meeting->talking->flirting->having sex, rather the basic account of arousal or desire that one feels. Imagine you are a six year old boy and have until this point had no feelings which could be categorized as sexual in nature, only neutral encounters with both boy and girls. One day as you are sitting in class, you notice beside you a girl which you tend to find quite pleasant to look at, attractive even. As I'm sure all of males here experienced before, suddenly you are sticken by the feelings which you were until this point unaware of, both in your groin and in your general emotions. You look to this girl and this is what has attracted you: x color eyes, x color hair, a certain shaped face, a certain smell, et cetera. I'm sure any of you would figure this to be similar to your own first experience of a girl visually turning you on in person, whether or not you actually remember it. Now, I ask those of you whom condemn homosexuals for their states of attraction, when did this heterosexual male decide those are the physical traits he would like to be attracted to? Obviously, the answer would be never. None of us ever choose these things, they happen to us and after the fact, we attempt to rationalize our actions on a conscious level. But even then, we are assuredly unable to formulate any logical reasoning for why, besides relating our current attraction to past experiences. So why should the homosexual be stamped with sin when there was no conscious decision made by the agent?

In this argument, I haven't argued that free will never exists, is incompatible with christian theology, or that the argument from nature is insufficient and a fallacy, but that atleast in the department of whom we are attracted and why we are attracted to them, there is no conscious agent making aforementioned decisions.

KikoSanchez, I myself practice/study phenomenology (Husserl and Heidegger being two of my favourite philosophers), although I haven't been doing so for that long of a time, and I'm curious as to what method you were using. I take it you were doing something somewhat similar to what Sartre did in "Being and Nothingness": use the Epoché to suspend all belief in whether the phenomena is real in itself or not, then used the Eidetic Reduction to remove all things that aren't essential for the experience to be classed as what it is, in this case attraction, and then put your results into a sort of situational story which people can then compare to their own lives to see whether they've experienced it or not and then if they have, they'd have to accept it based off of the fact that they have actually experienced it... am I right?

Anyways, the problem with your argument is that Christians can get out of it very easily by saying "God doesn't hate homosexuals, he hates the act of homosexual intercourse". But in reality, the reason the passage was "man shall not lay with man" instead of "being a homosexual is wrong" is because back when the Tanakh was written, people weren't labeled a sexuality; only the sex acts themselves were labeled, not the actor.

The OT and NT are filled with a lot of anger and bigotry, in my opinion, so I'm glad most Christians are like the OP, who pick and choose, otherwise the world would probably be more fucked up than it already is.

The OT and NT are filled with a lot of anger and bigotry, in my opinion, so I'm glad most Christians are like the OP, who pick and choose, otherwise the world would probably be more fucked up than it already is.

I agree that the world would be in sad, sad shape if every Christian was of the fundamentalist/creationist variety, and I'm grateful that's not the case.

But doesn't it irk you how the pickers and the choosers take so much pleasure out of pointing out the flaws in other people's morality (such as homosexuality), while ignoring their own little slip-ups? If they weren't so fond of finger-pointing like that, I'd probably ease up on them a bit more.

Argon, I love your new Vb signature. That would have been most appropriate a few threads back where we were debating the violent tendencies of Moderate Christians, and the attitudes/beliefs that made them unwitting proponents of a violent religion.

Remember that one?

KikoSanchez, I myself practice/study phenomenology (Husserl and Heidegger being two of my favourite philosophers), although I haven't been doing so for that long of a time, and I'm curious as to what method you were using. I take it you were doing something somewhat similar to what Sartre did in "Being and Nothingness": use the Epoché to suspend all belief in whether the phenomena is real in itself or not, then used the Eidetic Reduction to remove all things that aren't essential for the experience to be classed as what it is, in this case attraction, and then put your results into a sort of situational story which people can then compare to their own lives to see whether they've experienced it or not and then if they have, they'd have to accept it based off of the fact that they have actually experienced it... am I right?

Anyways, the problem with your argument is that Christians can get out of it very easily by saying "God doesn't hate homosexuals, he hates the act of homosexual intercourse". But in reality, the reason the passage was "man shall not lay with man" instead of "being a homosexual is wrong" is because back when the Tanakh was written, people weren't labeled a sexuality; only the sex acts themselves were labeled, not the actor.

The OT and NT are filled with a lot of anger and bigotry, in my opinion, so I'm glad most Christians are like the OP, who pick and choose, otherwise the world would probably be more fucked up than it already is.

It seems to really beg the question to say the act is wrong, but the actor is not wrong in doing it. Why even criticize an act, there is no conscious agent to blame and no being to criticize of wrong doing. It as if we could imaing a homosexual act with no actors involved, simply saying a penis going into a bum is sinful.
I'd agree that I would be immoral to murder another man, but a knife falling from a tree and through a man's skull thus causing his death seems morally ambiguous. It is not deemed murder, since there was no intent. A blind act of sodomy has no intention tied to it, so how can it be considered sinful, right, or wrong?

1. That castration does not mean a complete elimination of urges as you originally implied.

2. That castration isn't even alternative to willpower (let alone a better one) if nobody is going to go through with it - not even those who preach this outrageous act.

1: Fair enough
2: You shouldnt empirically state that no one will go through with it. But it is an alternative, nonetheless, regardless of whether or not anyone actually does chose it. There are many alternatives to day-to-day actions that you would never chose in your right mind, but that doesnt necessarilly mean they are disqualified as alternatives. Risktaking?

AngryFeme:

Moderates: Always picking and choosing from the Bible what fits best into their scenario of life, and blithely skipping over the rest of it when it doesn't apply comfortably to them.

If you are to make accusations like that, you must have some sort of explanation to back it up. I know I fuck up on a daily basis and go against God's word, but that doesnt mean that the consequences are any less real for me or anyone else. It also doesnt mean that God doesnt hold me accountable for it.

Then why, pray tell, did you make a thread about it?

The topic is not castration, its the irrelevance of aquirement of homosexual tendancies as seen by a Christian. Do read all the text between the two lines of the first post. :rolleyes: (I wish the smiley actually did roll his eyes.)

You mean that one where you were the first to mock his grief and tell him that he probably had cancer, too? Oh yeah, I rememberthat one.

It's good that God granted you patience for this thread, because he sure didn't grant you any empathy or kindness in the other one.

Yea that one. I would have been much more accomodating to him had he posted elsewhere. It may not have been the right thing, but that doesnt mean I have no empathy for others. I have feed the homeless before, even though I call them pieces of trash.

Just like you can claim to be a Christian, even when your actions prove otherwise? I see, said the blindwoman.

But Christianity isnt a works-salvation, Ms. Paragon of Biblical knowledge. I thought we went through this?

I always thought Mark was an embellisher. Thanks for backing me up on that, even though you used his text to make a point about what God suggested as a "betterment".

I, nor the Bible, ever says it is a betterment (defined as "improvement") to do such an act. Jesus says its better to cut ones hand off if its going to send him to hell, not that it makes him closer to God.

I'm so glad we could have this conversation where you didnt inject your own backwardsness into the mix. Such a tactic would be something akin to political mudslinging. I am glad you are above such petty things.

KikoSanchez:

So why should the homosexual be stamped with sin when there was no conscious decision made by the agent?

Likewise, this thread isnt to debate whether homosexuality is sinful or not, but rather commentary on the act from a Christian perspective.

The Bible says its immoral, so from the Christian perspective this is considered truth. Its a sort of causal "tough shit" situation that we do indeed have no control over, but nevertheless is divinely stated as sinful.

Again, this thread's purpose is not to condemn homosexuality as sin (even though I believe such), but to comment of its irrelevance to Christian thinking.

Hare Gheist:

Anyways, the problem with your argument is that Christians can get out of it very easily by saying "God doesn't hate homosexuals, he hates the act of homosexual intercourse". But in reality, the reason the passage was "man shall not lay with man" instead of "being a homosexual is wrong" is because back when the Tanakh was written, people weren't labeled a sexuality; only the sex acts themselves were labeled, not the actor.

Isnt that circular logic?

Christians can get out of it very easily by saying "God doesn't hate homosexuals, he hates the act of homosexual intercourse"

people weren't labeled a sexuality; only the sex acts themselves were labeled

Arent those two statements saying the exact same thing?

AngryFemme:
But doesn't it irk you how the pickers and the choosers take so much pleasure out of pointing out the flaws in other people's morality (such as homosexuality), while ignoring their own little slip-ups? If they weren't so fond of finger-pointing like that, I'd probably ease up on them a bit more.

You seem to be quite the black kettle there. I do not ignore my own shortcomings, nor do I excuse them. Neither am I condemning anything in this thread, except for forcing one's beliefs on another in a greivous bodilly harmful manner.

I would love to hear you say where I have picked and chosen.

Argon, I love your new Vb signature. That would have been most appropriate a few threads back where we were debating the violent tendencies of Moderate Christians, and the attitudes/beliefs that made them unwitting proponents of a violent religion.

Remember that one?

Actually I do not. My sig comes from a /. post I made recently in which I said the same thing sarcastically.

Just because I have a sarcastic bumpersticker does not mean I literally believe something. In any case, I DO believe violence can solve most anything, but that does not mean that I am violent. Quite the contrary to be precise.

Arent those two statements saying the exact same thing?

If you honestly think being a homosexual is about nothing but fucking other men, then you are an ignorant fuck.

http://groups.msn.com/GayChristianSurvivalGroup/gcsghomepage.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/GayChristianSurvivalGroup/gcsghomepage.msnw

I do applaud the authors of that site for their objectivity concerning use of the KJV Bible, which is quite surprising given the nature of discussion there.

The author is quite knowledgible, but makes a severe logic jump here: http://groups.msn.com/GayChristianSurvivalGroup/bibleverses.msnw

He says he will not play word games, but still shuffle words around without quoting the exact Hebrew text. The KJV Bible which he agrees is the correct translation is still misused by him to supprt his stance there.

His logic completely assumes something the verse doesnt say.

Example. Here we see the verse he refers to:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with a woman:
it is abomination."

This verse is used to say that homosexuality is ok.

In the same page:
"Thou shalt not lie with a beast AS WITH A WOMAN".

Which he admits that "as with a woman" means in a sexual manner. If the same author says the exact same phrase multiple times and it is assumed that the same meaning is carried and its plainly obvious that the verse he uses which carries said phrase must mean the same thing: "in a sexual manner".

I received this as an email forward and figured somebody would find it amusing (I know, I know, I know. Spare me the "zomg email forward"s.) I find it's good to remind people that while there are occasional verses in the Bible that condemn, say, homosexuals, there are far more condemning heterosexuals, and plenty of verses endorsing acts that even the most conservative of Christians today find reprehensible.

-----
Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.


Your adoring fan,

Homer J. Simpson
-----


I personally think if God hadn't wanted homosexuals, he wouldn't have made so damn many of them.

2: You shouldnt empirically state that no one will go through with it. But it is an alternative, nonetheless, regardless of whether or not anyone actually does chose it. There are many alternatives to day-to-day actions that you would never chose in your right mind, but that doesnt necessarilly mean they are disqualified as alternatives. Risktaking?

When I say noboby will go through it I'm not being literal. I'm saying that the amount will be so little that it is basically meaningless.

That it's an "alternative"? Maybe. Since you can't conclude that all urges will be gone the only thing you can say that it may stop the urges better than willpower. This, of course, ignores the shitload of other things that make this an idiotic "alternative".

But even then, who gives a shit? Was that your reason for mentioning it? That it may be an "alternative"? Because I have a million other hair-brained "alternatives"...

One other alternative would be to put yourself in a chemilly-induced coma... Shooting yourself in the face (not to kill of course, we wouldn't want suicide)... cutting your eyes out...

Compared to the heterosexual population, there arent that many.

When I say noboby will go through it I'm not being literal. I'm saying that the amount will be so little that it is basically meaningless.

That it's an "alternative"? Maybe. Since you can't conclude that all urges will be gone the only thing you can say that it may stop the urges better than willpower. This, of course, ignores the shitload of other things that make this an idiotic "alternative".

But even then, who gives a shit? Was that your reason for mentioning it? That it may be an "alternative"? Because I have a million other hair-brained "alternatives"...

One other alternative would be to put yourself in a chemilly-induced coma... Shooting yourself in the face (not to kill of course, we wouldn't want suicide)... cutting your eyes out...

I already said I didnt remember why I brought it up, and to be honest to spend so much time on it was a rather bad move on my part.

If you are to make accusations like that, you must have some sort of explanation to back it up. I know I fuck up on a daily basis and go against God's word, but that doesnt mean that the consequences are any less real for me or anyone else. It also doesnt mean that God doesnt hold me accountable for it.

I'm not accusing you of being an imperfect human being. I'm accusing you of being an imperfect Christian. I never once gave thought to or insinuated that God would or would not hold you accountable. The consequences weren't even in question. In short: wtf are you talking about? I can state that you pick and choose facets of Christianity to adhere to and facets of Christianity to NOT adhere to - like consistently displaying kindness to others, for starters. But if you still require "backed up evidence" of why I feel you're an imperfect Christian, then you can re-read for yourself the second sentence in the item above that I quoted you on.

How can you admit in writing that you consistently fuck up and go against God's word, then accuse me of making a false accusation about your tendency to pick and choose which parts of the Bible (God's word) that you adhere to?


The topic is not castration, its the irrelevance of aquirement of homosexual tendancies as seen by a Christian.

You spent as much time (if not more) on castration as you did the irrelevance of aquirement. I read beyond the first two lines. Maybe YOU should go back and read your entire first post, which went down like this, in short:

You announced your Christian perspective. You shared how you've realized that the cause of homosexuality was irrevelant. You quoted Jesus saying it was better to mutilate yourself than have sin, you made a comparison to homosexuals castrating themselves for "betterment". Then you gave a "life ain't fair" spiel, which I guess was to prep your readers to know that you have already considered what they were probably going to say regarding your ridiculous comparison between the Jesus quote and homosexual castration.

So it kinda was about castration. And you've already admitted to spending a good amount of time on it.


I have feed the homeless before, even though I call them pieces of trash.

Why not just love thy neighbor and not think of people in terms of garbage? Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do?



But Christianity isnt a works-salvation, Ms. Paragon of Biblical knowledge. I thought we went through this?

Now, was the Ms. Paragon comment even necessary? I don't believe one has to be a Biblical scholar just to understand basic tenets of Christianity, do they?

I am so glad you brought up works-salvation, though - and how you believe that one can act like a heathen and still call himself a Christian by insisting that salvation through your actions isn't necessary. Why can't we apply this to the homosexual as well? Since you're so confident that actions don't matter, as long as they believe themselves to be Christian and love God - why would castration assure them that they at least wouldn't go to hell?

I, nor the Bible, ever says it is a betterment (defined as "improvement") to do such an act.

You did say it. Do I need to quote you again? What could "betterment" possibly imply, other than improvement?


Jesus says its better to cut ones hand off if its going to send him to hell, not that it makes him closer to God.

Wouldn't you consider NOT going to hell being an "improvement" or a "betterment" above anything?


You seem to be quite the black kettle there.

How so?


I would love to hear you say where I have picked and chosen.

Already covered that.


In any case, I DO believe violence can solve most anything, but that does not mean that I am violent. Quite the contrary to be precise.

No, that just means that you support violence. Whether or not you have the gall or the guts to actually carry through with it personally (except for on the internet, because no one can really *get* you ) does not change the fact that you support it. If you support it, but just don't carry through with it, then that just means that you lack the gumption to do so, not that you're non-violent.

I know you're really a sweet, sensitive guy. Your internet tough-guy act doesn't fool me. ;) Neither does your preach-but-not-practice Christianity front.

I already said I didnt remember why I brought it up, and to be honest to spend so much time on it was a rather bad move on my part.

I think you know fullwell why you brought it up: because you thought it would be an answer as to why it would be irrelevant if homosexuality was genetic. If homosexuality were genetic then homosexuals just have to castrate themselves... they have no excuse, right?

However, now that you know that castration doesn't guarantee an end of urges, what's the answer? What grueling procedure does your god intend homosexuals carry out? Should they also pluck their eyes out? Subject themselves to torture every time they have an impure urge?

Please enlighten us: How should homosexuals not consider it "relevant" if homosexuality is genetic yet they will still be judged because of it?

i dont know why people spend so much time thinking and arguing about homosexuality... it isnt particuarly any of your business mayne, you dont spend hours writing about the "nature" of heterosexuality, and im sure most gays dont either, so i dunno why you need to write about faggotry

I honestly can't understand how anyone can rationalize the idea that the act of homosexual intercourse is immoral outside of using the fallacious appeal to authority argument.

Disease

I think you know fullwell why you brought it up: because you thought it would be an answer as to why it would be irrelevant if homosexuality was genetic. If homosexuality were genetic then homosexuals just have to castrate themselves... they have no excuse, right?

Not at all. If you were to piece together the ideas of my posts concerning this, you would find that I make mention of it to show there is no excuse for continually being homosexual as a Christian.

You seem to think I am one of these moralist dictators that believe everyone should be subject to the Bible regardless of religious affiliation, when I am not. I pose everything in this thread, unless obviously otherwise, through the Christian perspective. I would ask that you keep your sarcasm in check, Mr. Rico.

However, now that you know that castration doesn't guarantee an end of urges, what's the answer? What grueling procedure does your god intend homosexuals carry out? Should they also pluck their eyes out? Subject themselves to torture every time they have an impure urge?

Please enlighten us: How should homosexuals not consider it "relevant" if homosexuality is genetic yet they will still be judged because of it?

Because the matter is definitively irrelevant from the Christian perspective. Whether one dwells on it or not is up to personal whim.

If the Christian God exists, homosexuality is to be overcome. It is a sin one is disposed to like many others. It is irrelevant because the sin condition is seemingly genetic. It is just one more sin that we are subject to.

If some other god exists, then that god would have his punishment or not on this matter which is not the scope of this thread.

If any god does not exist, it is irrelevant by default as a non-issue in terms of religious beliefs.

Now, since there is no female analog to male castration to defeat homosexuality, assuming it will work as Rust points out it may not, might we consider this thread hijack on mutilation dropped if I were to state that the verse I quoted should only be used to show the "ends of the earth" attempt a Christian should give to please God?
================================================== ====

I'm not accusing you of being an imperfect human being. I'm accusing you of being an imperfect Christian. I never once gave thought to or insinuated that God would or would not hold you accountable. The consequences weren't even in question. In short: wtf are you talking about? I can state that you pick and choose facets of Christianity to adhere to and facets of Christianity to NOT adhere to - like consistently displaying kindness to others, for starters. But if you still require "backed up evidence" of why I feel you're an imperfect Christian, then you can re-read for yourself the second sentence in the item above that I quoted you on.

How can you admit in writing that you consistently fuck up and go against God's word, then accuse me of making a false accusation about your tendency to pick and choose which parts of the Bible (God's word) that you adhere to?

Because making the accusation that I pick and choose means that I consider parts of the Bible to have absolutely no consequence to myself, which I do not. Some parts of it are not subject to me, such as legalism of the Jewish nation of yore and burning cattle, for instance.

To say I pick and choose is greatly insulting. I say that I do make mistakes to show that I do consider it important, lest it be of no consequence, and therefore not a mistake at all.

You spent as much time (if not more) on castration as you did the irrelevance of aquirement. I read beyond the first two lines. Maybe YOU should go back and read your entire first post, which went down like this, in short:

You announced your Christian perspective. You shared how you've realized that the cause of homosexuality was irrevelant. You quoted Jesus saying it was better to mutilate yourself than have sin, you made a comparison to homosexuals castrating themselves for "betterment". Then you gave a "life ain't fair" spiel, which I guess was to prep your readers to know that you have already considered what they were probably going to say regarding your ridiculous comparison between the Jesus quote and homosexual castration.

So it kinda was about castration. And you've already admitted to spending a good amount of time on it.

Good paraphrase, but I did not expect to have this much time devoted to the matter and you would see that by reading the first post, which I would have expected you to gather seeing as though you read it for at least a second time.

Why not just love thy neighbor and not think of people in terms of garbage? Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do?


Because some of them do not want to better themselves. Societally, they ARE pieces of trash addicted to the bottle or the pipe. However, I try not treat them any less of a person when they ask of my help.

Now, was the Ms. Paragon comment even necessary? I don't believe one has to be a Biblical scholar just to understand basic tenets of Christianity, do they?

I am so glad you brought up works-salvation, though - and how you believe that one can act like a heathen and still call himself a Christian by insisting that salvation through your actions isn't necessary. Why can't we apply this to the homosexual as well? Since you're so confident that actions don't matter, as long as they believe themselves to be Christian and love God - why would castration assure them that they at least wouldn't go to hell?

I suppose I was wrong to say that, as your post evinces you to not be that which I stated.

If you read my posts, I have stated it is possible for the Christian to be homosexual; the two states are not mutually exclusive. Neither have I stated castration gets one to heaven. Even still, believing themselves to be Christians and God's love exists doesnt make one a Christian, nor does it make access to salvation. You already know this, so I would implore you to think back to whatever Biblical background you have when you say these things. You made yourself to be quite knowledgible on the Bible, yet those should be things every Christian knows.

You did say it. Do I need to quote you again? What could "betterment" possibly imply, other than improvement?

"Betterment" != "it is better"

"Betterment" seemingly implies absoluteness, which Rust has pointed out is not always the case, even if every homosexual man did such a thing.

Likewise, "it is better" does not even imply a physical action.

Apples and oranges.

Already covered that.


I was actually calling for specific quotes of what I say next to Biblical record.

Now this is intersting:
No, that just means that you support violence. Whether or not you have the gall or the guts to actually carry through with it personally (except for on the internet, because no one can really *get* you ) does not change the fact that you support it. If you support it, but just don't carry through with it, then that just means that you lack the gumption to do so, not that you're non-violent.

I know you're really a sweet, sensitive guy. Your internet tough-guy act doesn't fool me. Neither does your preach-but-not-practice Christianity front.

This results from not being able to discern between Christian and human thinking. Determination, whether violent or diplomatic, solves problems.

The statement of this truth is just that; a statement. To be more specific to this case, a sarcastic one.

But dont let me stop you from bending further backwards into your own ass.

Even still, believing themselves to be Christians and God's love exists doesnt make one a Christian, nor does it make access to salvation.

Beautifully put! Now let's apply that to heterosexuals as well and we're ( --- ) much closer to being on the same page.

Then let's hold hands and say together in unison:

"God doesn't hate fags. Christians hate fags."

I tend not to think of homosexuality as genetic. In fact, many gays seem to think along the same lines (http://www.queerbychoice.com/). However, I would have to agree with ArgonPlasma2000 that as far as Christianity goes, it is largely irrelevant. The Christian Bible is Christianity's moral code; it forbids homosexuality, therefore homosexuality is immoral to Christians. Paul says that even though a Christian is saved, he shouldn't continue in sin, so that applies to gay Christians as well. The idea that God gives us our own personal moral challenges and temptations is an idea common to most religions that I know of. I do not see why, for those Christians, Jews, or Muslims who believe homosexual feelings are the result of genetic influences, that holding should be so controversial on just this issue. Without temptation, there would be no sin; therefore, every sin must have an accompanying temptation: the yetzer harah or bad inclination as they say in Hebrew. The question of whether that temptation is delivered to us through our genes or through the counsel of the Adversary in our hearts, while perhaps touching on other theological issues, does not change the fact that, as far as God is concerned, a sin is a sin.

Now, in so far as I understand Christianity to hold that all sins are at least in practical effect equal (i.e., no matter how few or how slight your moral imperfections, they are enough to damn you, and that salvation through Jesus, once obtained, will make recompense for all one's sins no matter how grave or numerous they are), I do see it as somewhat unfair that they should give homosexuality so much singular attention. This is, of course, partially because Judaeo-Christian culture has seen homosexual behaviour as especially deviant, owing largely to the description of homosexual sex as "an abomination" in Leviticus, a hold-over from Judaism, which is a faith+works religion and therefore does place gradations of severity on those acts it identifies as sinful.

However, there is another reason, to wit that in recent years homosexuality has become a sort of identity, which is a rather unique and, from a religious perspective, disturbing phenomenon. Never before in Western History have a group of people made their decision (or, if you prefer, their genetic disposition) to engage in a certain kind of sinful behaviour a part of their public identity on par with their ethnic and religious backgrounds. Nobody, for instance, would identify his/herself as a Lying-American or an Adulterous-American in the same way that we might hear the terms Chinese-American or Jewish-American tossed around, and certainly nobody guilty of either of the above moral infractions would petition in a court of law to receive special status as a "suspect class" shielded from discrimination as homosexuals have done.

This is a trend that has in large part contributed to the present and special discomfort of religious Americans with homosexuals. Certainly the original cultural and religious opprobrium and this present phenomenon have fed into eachother, but in noting both we can gain a better understanding of how we have come to our present position in this debate.

Your post horrifies me, Sephiroth.

Not at all. If you were to piece together the ideas of my posts concerning this, you would find that I make mention of it to show there is no excuse for continually being homosexual as a Christian.

You say "not at all" yet you just corroborated what I said! Please read what I said again and you'll see that I've said nothing different: You mention it to show how, according to you, "it would be irrelevant if homosexuality was genetic".

That's exactly what I said!

"I think you know fullwell why you brought it up: because you thought it would be an answer as to why it would be irrelevant if homosexuality was genetic."

I'd also like to point out that you said previously that you didn't even remember why you mentioned it. Did you remember just now?


You seem to think I am one of these moralist dictators that believe everyone should be subject to the Bible regardless of religious affiliation, when I am not. I pose everything in this thread, unless obviously otherwise, through the Christian perspective. I would ask that you keep your sarcasm in check, Mr. Rico.

1. There was no sarcasm. All of these questions were legitimate.

As for you being a "moralist dictator" it's not you who is being one, it's obviously your god. Since castration isn't a surefire "solution" to the issue of sexual urges, then what else should be done?

3. "Mr. Rico"? Is that suppose to be an insult? :confused:



If the Christian God exists, homosexuality is to be overcome. It is a sin one is disposed to like many others. It is irrelevant because the sin condition is seemingly genetic. It is just one more sin that we are subject to.

That doesn't make it irrelevant. That, in fact, makes it entirely relevant.

Whether homosexuals have little or no control over their urges - as would be the case if it were a genetic condition - is most definitely relevant.


If some other god exists, then that god would have his punishment or not on this matter which is not the scope of this thread.

If any god does not exist, it is irrelevant by default as a non-issue in terms of religious beliefs.

I never once mentioned another god or the lack of gods. I am assuming - and always have since the beginning of this thread- that the Christian god exists for the sake of argument.


Now, since there is no female analog to male castration to defeat homosexuality, assuming it will work as Rust points out it may not, might we consider this thread hijack on mutilation dropped if I were to state that the verse I quoted should only be used to show the "ends of the earth" attempt a Christian should give to please God?


1. Talking about mutilation isn't "hijacking" the thread: it follows directly from the line of reasoning you've given for castration.

2. No, it wouldn't be dropped. That would change nothing.

The Christian Bible is Christianity's moral code; it forbids homosexuality, therefore homosexuality is immoral to Christians. Paul says that even though a Christian is saved, he shouldn't continue in sin, so that applies to gay Christians as well. The idea that God gives us our own personal moral challenges and temptations is an idea common to most religions that I know of.

The issue is not that the Christian god wouldn't judge someone based on a genetic condition (assuming it is actually genetic), the issue is that he would! That is the problem!

You and Argon are talking as if the issue of it's relevance suddenly comes to an end if the Christian god would be so disgustingly evil that he would judge someone negatively for a genetic condition he/she has little or no control over. No, the issue begins at that moment.

You and Argon are talking as if the issue of it's relevance suddenly comes to an end if the Christian god would be so disgustingly evil that he would judge someone negatively for a genetic condition he/she has little or no control over. No, the issue begins at that moment.

Which goes back to my intentions, Argon, of pointing out the imperfect state of YOUR Christianity - so that you might pause for a moment and think to yourself:

Why am I focusing so much on God's disdain for homosexuals, when I should really be focusing on God's disdain for my own sins?

If God is going to judge homosexuals so harshly on a condition THAT MAY BE GENETIC AND BEYOND THEIR CONTROL - aren't you making light of your own sins, which are totally within your control?

It wasn't meant to insult you, just to prompt you think about your own flaws so that maybe you can be a little more lenient on the homos. After all, we've already established that sin is sin. It would be better to clean up your own backyard before calling the Neighborhood Patrol and reporting your neighbor's untidyness, eh?

Forgive me? For it certainly wasn't meant as an insult.

(I hope this doesn't mean any future Fiero/Firebird discussions will cease between us) :D

The issue is not that the Christian god wouldn't judge someone based on a genetic condition (assuming it is actually genetic), the issue is that he would! That is the problem!

You and Argon are talking as if the issue of it's relevance suddenly comes to an end if the Christian god would be so disgustingly evil that he would judge someone negatively for a genetic condition he/she has little or no control over. No, the issue begins at that moment.And your position assumes that genes are destiny, that a mere inclination is so controlling it is inescapable. Morality of any kind, religious or secular, may sometimes require you to refrain from doing something that is desirable, expedient, or pleasurable, even if the source of that disposition is your genetic makeup. I am genetically disposed to eat. In fact, if I don't, I die. It would not however be some great injustice for God to require me to fast. Homosexuals will not die for a lack of anal sex.

To use an example closer in kind, infidelity in a relationship is fairly roundly condemned, even by secular moralists. It is a betrayal of the person you're with, and for the religious it is certainly an infraction of Divine Law. Indisputably, heterosexuals at least, are genetically inclined to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. This feeling does not distinguish between the one you are with and other, perhaps even more physically attractive people. It is rarely argued that it is unfair to expect people to abstain from adultery. Why? Because we, as human beings with free will, are able to stop ourselves from acting upon our natural desires and remain faithful to the person we are with. Some people are entirely abstinent. This is fairly uncontroversial. Why is it suddenly too much to expect self-discipline in this variant of the same principle? Are homosexuals that different from heterosexuals? Are their desires so strong that they cannot refuse to act on them where heterosexuals are able to? I don't think so.

To say so would be to reduce them to a subspecies of mankind with lesser wills, operating on inescapable instincts. Or maybe you consider homosexuals to be stricken with a mental ailment, as did the American Psychiatric Association until fairly recently, believing that they were stricken with an irresistible compulsion brought on by abnormal and deficient brain functions? The issue is avoided entirely in my opinion, however, because I do not believe homosexuality is genetic, no more than theft or lying are.

"God doesn't hate fags. Christians hate fags."

Rather, God "hates" sin. Since He has declared ALL sin abhorrent in His sight, so too are homosexuals guilty of disobeying Him. As with all sin, it must be repented of, and the ultimate repentance is found in the Messiah. The purpose of repentance is to lay the sin at God's feet, so to speak, never to do it again. That does not mean we will not be tempted to do so, but we have to try, or else our repentance wasn't genuine.

Christians are not to lie, cheat, steal, murder, worship other gods, commit adultery, engage in homosexual sex, lust, etc.

To live in constant contradiction to ones beliefs makes those beliefs superficial and worthless.

Rather, God "hates" sin. Christians are not to lie, cheat, steal, murder, worship other gods, commit adultery, engage in homosexual sex, lust, etc.

Yep, I feel you. I was being facetious here, using *homosexuality* as an example since that's what this topic has been focusing on. In case you haven't noticed, I've been hitting my head against a brick wall trying to drive a point home with your boy Argon.

And thank you for lending a sincere Christian testament to this:

To live in constant contradiction to ones beliefs makes those beliefs superficial and worthless.

^ Argon - This is what I'm screaming. Now that you've heard it from a fellow Christian and not a defiled Atheist like myself, could ya quit focusing on the homosexuals and their sin, and start focusing on your own?

Is there actually a reason given in the Bible for why homosexual sex is wrong, or does it just state man shall not lay with man?

I would also like to point out that it is the burden of the Christian to rebuke and teach his fellow brothers in Christ. We have to hold each other accountable, because temptation is often too much for us to bear alone.

Ephesians 4:15 - Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. (NIV)

2 Timothy 4:1-5 - In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Galatians 6:1 - Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

I could provide more scriptures illustrating our responsibilities to each other as Christians, if you'd like. The message is clear: we are doing each other a disservice if we do not give each other guidance and acknowledge sin when we see it. This is why Universalist's and Methodist's are in direct violation of Biblical commandments, because they embrace sin and do not rebuke it. Christians are encouraged to sin openly and without guilt in their churches.

The problem with a lot of Christians is that they have too much pride when it comes to addressing the sin of others. They feel righteous in their rebuke of sin that is more extroverted (homosexuality), all while ignoring their own private sin. That is why we are instructed not only to rebuke GENTLY and in LOVE, but to be mindful of our own sins.

The extroverted nature of the sin of homosexuality is what sets it apart from all others. If liars and adulterers formed coalitions, petitioned the government, filed lawsuits, tried to manipulate public school curriculum to be more accepting of their sin in textbooks, it would be the responsibility of Christians to try and stop them as well.

Our reaction isn't bigotry or gay bashing (for the most part...a fringe exists for any group). This is an appropriate reaction. Christians do not go to great lengths to chastise or reject liars and adulterers, because those types of sins are easily/readily hidden. The fact that homosexuality is literally shoved in our faces (TV, magazines) elicits the determined response it has received.

Is there actually a reason given in the Bible for why homosexual sex is wrong, or does it just state man shall not lay with man?

I think the reasoning is implicit: God created man, and then woman. For every animal, there was a male and a female. The purpose of our gender differences is procreation. If God had created man to spontaneously reproduce, then females wouldn't have been necessary.

It is also well established in scripture that sex was not created for pleasure. That it is pleasurable is only a bonus. The primary purpose for sex between homosexuals is pleasure.

Yep, I feel you. I was being facetious here, using *homosexuality* as an example since that's what this topic has been focusing on. In case you haven't noticed, I've been hitting my head against a brick wall trying to drive a point home with your boy Argon.

Since when is he my boy ? I didn't get the memo ! *covert op rolls out the door, down the hall, and into the elevator*

And thank you for lending a sincere Christian testament to this:

^ Argon - This is what I'm screaming. Now that you've heard it from a fellow Christian and not a defiled Atheist like myself, could ya quit focusing on the homosexuals and their sin, and start focusing on your own?

You're welcome, though it is necessary to point out that you only thank me when I agree with your opinions. All other times, you consider me a nut. LOL

Also, I should mention the fact that by an atheist's standards, a Christian must be "perfect" in every way in order to earn the right to rebuke others. That is not the case. We have to remain as blameless as possible, and be in constant repentance of our transgressions. This is all we are capable of. After that, we have every right to rebuke our fellow Christians.

Are you asserting that you know what sort of sins Argon commits, and the frequency with which he commits them ? What about repentance ?

I think the reasoning is implicit: God created man, and then woman. For every animal, there was a male and a female. The purpose of our gender differences is procreation. If God had created man to spontaneously reproduce, then females wouldn't have been necessary.

It is also well established in scripture that sex was not created for pleasure. That it is pleasurable is only a bonus. The primary purpose for sex between homosexuals is pleasure.

So it's not really homosexual sex that is wrong then, but sex that doesn't have the aim of reproduction in mind? I can't imagine why God would mind though.

So it's not really homosexual sex that is wrong then, but sex that doesn't have the aim of reproduction in mind? I can't imagine why God would mind though.

No, it is action outside of God's design that is "wrong". Since it is obvious He intended for us to procreate, engaging in sexual behavior that doesn't accomplish that is going against the design/purpose of it. You are also ignoring that He directly commanded against homosexual sex.

It is also clear, from a biological perspective, that anus' are not for entry, while the vagina is receptive to penetration. Just something else to think about.

If God is going to judge homosexuals so harshly on a condition THAT MAY BE GENETIC AND BEYOND THEIR CONTROL - aren't you making light of your own sins, which are totally within your control?

God would not consider homosexuality an abomination (sin) if it were genetic....

No, it is action outside of God's design that is "wrong". Since it is obvious He intended for us to procreate, engaging in sexual behavior that doesn't accomplish that is going against the design/purpose of it. You are also ignoring that He directly commanded against homosexual sex.

I don’t think I’m ignoring that at all. I’m just trying to understand why he said it. Anyways, does this mean that sex with contraceptive devices and people who can’t have children having sex is also wrong? I guess it would be, because it goes against sex’s purpose, but I dunno.

It is also clear, from a biological perspective, that anus' are not for entry, while the vagina is receptive to penetration. Just something else to think about.

Well, I can’t imagine ears being designed for earrings, skin for being tattooed or even beards for shaving, does that make that wrong too? I guess this also means oral is wrong, since the mouth was designed for eating and breathing…

And your position assumes that genes are destiny, that a mere inclination is so controlling it is inescapable.

No, my position does not assume that at all. It does not require for genes to be a destiny or homosexual acts inescapable. The mere fact that there would be a propensity for such acts to occur is enough to make punishment based on those acts appalling.


Morality of any kind, religious or secular, may sometimes require you to refrain from doing something that is desirable, expedient, or pleasurable, even if the source of that disposition is your genetic makeup. I am genetically disposed to eat. In fact, if I don't, I die. It would not however be some great injustice for God to require me to fast. Homosexuals will not die for a lack of anal sex.


1. "Other things require you to do (not do) X so it's okay if this thing requires me to do (not do) X" is not a defense.

Not only could we believe that those things (e.g. fasting) are also disgusting, but we could just believe that they are justified for other reasons that do not apply to this particular scenario.

2. Who are you to say that it would not be some great injustice for God to require to to fast? I would most definitely consider a god needlessly requiring you to withhold nourishment from your body a pretty fucking horrible request.

Even if it wasn't in the case of fasting, does that automatically mean that isn't in the case of homosexuality? Of course not.

Some people are entirely abstinent. This is fairly uncontroversial. Why is it suddenly too much to expect self-discipline in this variant of the same principle? Are homosexuals that different from heterosexuals? Are their desires so strong that they cannot refuse to act on them where heterosexuals are able to? I don't think so.


The problem being that you cannot take a group of people that are abstinent and then conclude that everyone has the willpower to remain as such. The very fact that in recent years there has been an outrageous amount of cases where those very "abstinent" people - have come out as sexual predators should tell you just how difficult a task that is. To then condemn human beings for these failures they are likely to do is disgusting; especially when it is needlessly done.

It is also clear, from a biological perspective, that anus' are not for entry, while the vagina is receptive to penetration. Just something else to think about.

It is also clear, from a biological perspective, that the anus is an erogenous zone of the body, which thousands of nerve endings that can give pleasure when stimulated - to the point of orgasm.

It is also clear, from a biological perspective, that the anus is an erogenous zone of the body, which thousands of nerve endings that can give pleasure when stimulated - to the point of orgasm.

People can achieve orgasm in various different ways. That does not mean they were intended to used for that purpose.

It's not just the fact that humans can achieve an orgasm through it's stimulation. Like I said, it's an erogenous zone. It has a high concentration of nerve endings that exist there to give pleasure.

You're picking and choosing when to see "intent" and when not to. When you can claim it's "insert only" - well that's definitely intent! But when it has thousands of nerve endings that exist there to give pleasure, then that's conviniently not.

Digital Saviour:
That is why we are instructed not only to rebuke GENTLY and in LOVE, but to be mindful of our own sins.

The "gently" and "with love" portion is where your bo.. I mean, Argon falls short.

The fact that homosexuality is literally shoved in our faces (TV, magazines) elicits the determined response it has received.

Love it! I hear my own words echoing there, usually when I'm defending outspoken atheists who piss and moan about having Christianity shoved in their faces daily. O How The Wheel Goes 'Round! (irrelevant to the topic, but I couldn't not see the similarities there)

You're welcome, though it is necessary to point out that you only thank me when I agree with your opinions. All other times, you consider me a nut. LOL

Yes, well ... erm - uh. Okay. You got me there. But for the record: I never thought you a bonafide nut when you were championing J.C. in here. I thought you a bonafide nut when your unhealthy obsession with Ann Coulter started rearing it's ugly head in PLRC and you stopped visiting this forum as much. Would it make you feel incredibly uncomfortable if I actually said I missed your posts in here? :D

Also, I should mention the fact that by an atheist's standards, a Christian must be "perfect" in every way in order to earn the right to rebuke others. That is not the case. We have to remain as blameless as possible, and be in constant repentance of our transgressions. This is all we are capable of. After that, we have every right to rebuke our fellow Christians.

Please don't group me in with the anarky!!!1111 teenage atheists, and I won't group you in with the likes of ... Masta Thief. k? Fair enough. I don't believe that any human being has it inside of them to be "perfect" in every way as applied to the Christian standard. However, there is that whole "blameless" aspect that many just can't avoid, no matter how hard they try. And anyone who posts in this forum is putting themselves in the line of fire to be rebuked by others, whether it's earned or not. Believe it or not, "atheist standards" are about as wide and diverse as all the denominational religious standards.

If a self-professed vegan is going to bust my chops about eating tasty, scrumptiously grilled dead animals while sneaking in bites of a chicken wing while I'm not looking - then I'm going to call them a hypocrite.

I don't give a shit if this entire board disagrees with me. I'm not asserting that AP2000 might have homosexual tendencies, but why even point out the flaws of a homosexual when there is so much you could be working on personally? Seems to me it would be time better spent in God's eyes to worry about one's self first, and THEN start pointing fingers at others.

And at what point DOES it become hypocrisy? Do Christians even consider themselves prone to hypocrisy? That's what gets me wound up.

Are you asserting that you know what sort of sins Argon commits, and the frequency with which he commits them ? What about repentance ?

Gosh no. I wish I had that kind of time on my hands, and if I did, I can promise you I wouldn't be using it to keep up with the sins of a totse.com teenaged moderator. Argon has admitted to being a "less than perfect" Christian:

"I know I fuck up on a daily basis and go against God's word"

... and I commend him on that! But it's very difficult for me to see ANYONE act one way, and then preach another. I've witnessed him use phrases like "go die" in a suicide thread, tell a person whose mother is dying of cancer "you probably have it to!" .... I've witnessed him be racist, hateful, and quite hostile towards others ... while in this forum, he laments the preachings of Christ while looking down his nose at homosexuals and non-believers. Now don't get me wrong, I think AP is a funny guy. A totse gem. Quick to wit and actually enjoyable to converse with on anything besides faith.

I've searched in my head for the particular verse which pretty much incapsulated the entire point I was trying to make, and I'll be damned if it didn't hit me on the way home today. Didn't Jesus say something about:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ??

I don't know the particular scripture off the top of my head, so if you could fill in any blanks I've omitted or actually give the correct passage - I'd be forever in your debt.

Know what this whole fiasco reminds me of? And maybe this is why it has left such a bad taste in my mouth and why I've been (perhaps - maybe - possibly) a tiny bit hard on ArgonPlasma in this thread-

It reminds me of Abrahim, in here preaching the sanctity of his Reality God and the "purity" of himself while he tried to chat naked from a webcam on messenger to anyone who would give him 5 seconds of air time.

Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go flip on the Cartoon Network so I can get those disgusting images of Abrahim wiped outta my head.

Which goes back to my intentions, Argon, of pointing out the imperfect state of YOUR Christianity - so that you might pause for a moment and think to yourself:

Why am I focusing so much on God's disdain for homosexuals, when I should really be focusing on God's disdain for my own sins?

If God is going to judge homosexuals so harshly on a condition THAT MAY BE GENETIC AND BEYOND THEIR CONTROL - aren't you making light of your own sins, which are totally within your control?

It wasn't meant to insult you, just to prompt you think about your own flaws so that maybe you can be a little more lenient on the homos. After all, we've already established that sin is sin. It would be better to clean up your own backyard before calling the Neighborhood Patrol and reporting your neighbor's untidyness, eh?

Forgive me? For it certainly wasn't meant as an insult.

(I hope this doesn't mean any future Fiero/Firebird discussions will cease between us) :D

Not at all. I try to leave topics and shitflinging in their respective threads. That goes for you, Rust, Gus, and many others.

You do have a point, and it is valid by Biblical standards; Sin is between a person and God, as long as it doesnt affect another. The real reasoning behind posting this at all was to stop fellow Christians on this board from stirring up shit when someone says homosexuality is genetic. It distracts from the topic at hand and, as I try to point out, is irrelevant even from their own religion, and therefore should be left alone.

This thread really has made me stop and think about what I do. I have two main sins that I have to deal with, one being cursing and a full hard drive... You have served a purpose beyond simply someone to yell at.

Now that Digi and Sephiroth have joined the thread, I have much reading to do.

Pssst, Argon:

And maybe this is why it has left such a bad taste in my mouth and why I've been (perhaps - maybe - possibly) a tiny bit hard on ArgonPlasma in this thread-

I hope you can read the apology between the lines there. That's the best I can muster up.

As with addictions (not saying that gay sex is addictive, but it's got a similar thread), there's two parts to it:

1) Genetic predisposition

2) Choice to act on it

Just because both parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc. are alcoholics doesn't mean that you are automatically one as well. You can choose never to drink, effectively solving that problem.

IF you decide to drink, there's a higher risk for you to be an alcoholic.

If you have the genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, you don't have to be gay. You can ignore those urges and force yourself into a 'normal' life, preserving appearances and any perceived normalcy.

If you decide to engage in homoerotic behaviors, there's a higher risk for you to be a homosexual.

It's very simple.

If you're not predisposed, you can be as gay as you want, with relatively little chance of it being permanent.

Bisexuality proves this point.

If you never have a homosexual relationship, but are predisposed, you're straight for all intents and purposes.

You have to make the choice, that's the bottom line.

(Unless you don't believe that any of us has any free will whatsoever. Then you're just retarded)
----------------------------------------------------------

Now that I've thoroughly incensed everyone strongly opinionated about it, Stopping them from acting on one isn't going to stop them from acting on the other.

Homosexuality doesn't own up to any moral code, outside of some obscure old-testament passages, because consensual sex isn't a moral choice, it's just a choice. You choose to have sex, unless you're raped. In a best-case scenario, you're both choosing to have sex.

Sex is sex is sex is sex. It doesn't matter who you bang, but it should be your choice, their choice, and in the privacy of wherever you're going to do it.

Does two men having sex harm you in any way? How about two women?

Is it really any of your business to tell them that they are behaving immorally? Who are you to judge that behavior as immoral?

You can't legislate love, and we should keep congress and large, opinionated groups of people out of the bedroom.

Just a thought.

================================================== =========

Also: There's no user manual for the body. What we choose to do to it or with it remains our choice. We don't have to do it, but we're free to do it if that's our choice.

I'd love to see some non-biased research stating that the anus or any other orifice wasn't designed to be penetrated.

Seriously, show me the money, DigitalSaviour.

Never make a claim without backing it up, dude. Also, make sure that your research isn't religiously oriented. That'll disqualify it from being objective in this area.

I don’t think I’m ignoring that at all. I’m just trying to understand why he said it. Anyways, does this mean that sex with contraceptive devices and people who can’t have children having sex is also wrong? I guess it would be, because it goes against sex’s purpose, but I dunno.

Just because the intended purpose of a bodily function does not produce the desired result does not automatically make the bodily function a sin.

The fundamental issue here is God's will. I used the biological perspective to illustrate the purpose of sex organs and gender differences. If God intended sex to be for pleasure only, which is the reason homosexuals engage in it, it stands to reason that males and females wouldn't be necessary at all. There are a plethora of other ways procreation could have been designed to take place in humans.

Well, I can’t imagine ears being designed for earrings, skin for being tattooed or even beards for shaving, does that make that wrong too? I guess this also means oral is wrong, since the mouth was designed for eating and breathing…The problem with your analogy is that it is too simplistic. Engaging in debaucherous activity cannot be likened to piercing ones ear. God never made a commandment against shaving beards, getting tattoo's, or piercings. He does say to respect your body (temple), so that must be taken into consideration among all things. However, specific commandments should be adhered to, and scripture specifically shuns homosexuality.

As for oral, I have not read a scripture against it. There ARE scriptures against sodomy, even within a heterosexual relationship. It is clear that the anus is not to be utilized for sexual purposes.

EDIT: I have found a scripture regarding tattoo's...

Leviticus 19:28 - " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD." LOL !!

Anyway, that is a Judaic law, so...doesn't really apply to Christians. The "temple" scriptures would apply to us, though.

As for oral, I have not read a scripture against it. There ARE scriptures against sodomy, even within a heterosexual relationship. It is clear that the anus is not to be utilized for sexual purposes.Says who? The bible?

Gimme something a little more up-to-date.

What's the problem with using the anus? It's tighter than pussy, and most homosexual men don't engage in anal. BJ's are the coin of the realm, in nearly every situation.

I've got a dozen or so gay uncles (extended family, not blood), who're all pretty candid about everything.

What, outside the bible, makes you say that anal sex is out of the question?

Just because the intended purpose of a bodily function does not produce the desired result does not automatically make the bodily function a sin.

So is it wrong for people who cannot reproduce at all and those who use contraception to have sex when the former know they cannot reproduce and the latter are purposely stopping themselves from being able to reproduce whilst still having sex?… They are doing what homosexuals are doing, rejecting and avoiding God's purpose for sex.

As for oral, I have not read a scripture against it. There ARE scriptures against sodomy, even within a heterosexual relationship. It is clear that the anus is not to be utilized for sexual purposes.

I know scripture says sodomy isn't allowed, that's why I’m trying to understand why it is not supposed to be used. You’ve said because it’s not designed for sex, yet the mouth isn’t either, right? You’ve said because sex is meant for reproduction, so oral and contraception shouldn’t be allowed either, right? Or is all of this stuff OK, but only in marriage?

It's not just the fact that humans can achieve an orgasm through it's stimulation. Like I said, it's an erogenous zone. It has a high concentration of nerve endings that exist there to give pleasure.


Arguably more than a vagina. What does that lead you to conclude, from a biological standpoint ?

You're picking and choosing when to see "intent" and when not to. When you can claim it's "insert only" - well that's definitely intent! But when it has thousands of nerve endings that exist there to give pleasure, then that's conviniently not.



And you're conveniently deciding what "pleasure" is, based on nerve count. It is more likely that the higher concentration of nerves in the anus are intended to give a heightened sense of reaction to violation or entry, to protect it. The skin there is some of the most delicate on the entire body, and it is EASILY damaged. Thus, it would make sense that the reflex for defense is heightened in that area, thus the necessity for a greater number of nerve cells.

In contrast, the vagina can take a pretty good beating, and recover quickly. Anal tearing etc. can have long lasting effects that are none too beneficial.

Anal sex exposes the participants to hazards of two kinds: infections, due to the high number of infectious microorganisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganisms) not found elsewhere on the body, and physical damage to the anus and the rectum due to their vulnerability. An insufficient amount of lubricant can make it especially painful or injurious. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex)

You'd think that if it were so "natural", natural lubricants would be produced from the anus, or that the lubrication naturally secreted would be enough to ensure low risk of damage or pain.

The vagina does.

Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, hemorrhoids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemorrhoid), anal fissures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_fissure),[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#_note-20) anal fistula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fistula) and rectal prolapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectal_prolapse). Same source.

Incontinence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_incontinence) has also been reported; the result of the anal sphincter losing its tonus.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#_note-21) A 1993 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that out of a sample of forty individuals receiving anal intercourse, fourteen experienced episodes of frequent anal incontinence. Same source.

Instead of taking queue's from our bodies and understanding that this behavior is damaging (hence the pain experienced when extreme precautions aren't taken), we try and find ways to make it work (artifical lubrication, going slowly, perfecting technique). Traditional intercourse between a man and a woman vaginally doesn't take this much effort, nor is there as much risk (I am not referring to venereal diseases, rather actual long term physical damage).

Seems pretty clear to me: the anus is an exit only orifice. If a person chooses to utilize it in other ways than intended, that is up to them, but it doesn't change it's fundamental purpose.

Seems pretty clear to me: the anus is an exit only orifice. If a person chooses to utilize it in other ways than intended, that is up to them, but it doesn't change it's fundamental purpose.

It truly is up to them. Why do Christians hassle them about it? It's not their assholes tearing.

Do you ever dye your hair? Because I'm sure the hair follicles closest to your scalp scream in protest over the harsh chemical treatment, all in the name of vanity.

It truly is up to them. Why do Christians hassle them about it? It's not their assholes tearing.

I honestly don’t understand the problem with “man laying with man” and it seems pretty clear to me that by that they mean more than sodomy. I expect oral, mutual you know, kissing and even holding hands is out of the question. Yet none of these things seem harmful; except for the oral, if precautions aren’t taken. I just can’t get my head around it because if you have feelings for men only, you have feelings for men only so it’s not likely you’re going to reproduce, so surely God should be concerned more about other things, like saving souls than making arbitrary laws that will possibly send more good people to hell. I dunno, it just makes no sense to me.

It truly is up to them. Why do Christians hassle them about it? It's not their assholes tearing.

I agree with you 100%. But when homosexuals openly practice and attend church, it is the responsibility of their fellow Christians to rebuke them, per the scripture.

They need to give up homosexuality to follow God. A house cannot stand divided against itself.

I honestly don’t understand the problem with “man laying with man” and it seems pretty clear to me that by that they mean more than sodomy. I expect oral, mutual you know, kissing and even holding hands is out of the question. Yet none of these things seem harmful; except for the oral, if precautions aren’t taken. I just can’t get my head around it because if you have feelings for men only, you have feelings for men only so it’s not likely you’re going to reproduce, so surely God should be concerned more about other things, like saving souls than making arbitrary laws that will possibly send more good people to hell. I dunno, it just makes no sense to me.

Look, you are simply refusing to see the whole picture all at once. I used the biological evidence to prove that it's not natural. If it's not, it's simply a choice. Since God created humanity, that the anus is not naturally receptive to penetration, it is logical to assume that He did not intend it to be.

However, in context with Christianity and Judaism, it is forbidden by God, period. From a Christian perspective, homosexuality is not genetic, and is therefore something that can be resisted, as far as sins are concerned. According to the Bible, it is a choice.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for a reason.

All of the smooth tissues in that general area heal pretty quickly, and the prostate is a very big erogenous zone in men, only accessible through the anus, I might add.

DS, Basically nothing could get to the anus without some giving. There's nothing to back up the "It's for protection" theme, unless you can provide an unbiased link.

Also, Vaginas are pretty delicate as well. after a good cock-reaming, there's likely to be bruising of the labia minor and the vaginal wall, possibly some tearing or some fissuring.

Also, vaginal prolapse occurs from time to time as well.

The Anus does secrete its own lubricant: colo-rectal mucus. It's thicker and much more effective than vaginal lubrication because it doesn't dry out as fast when exposed to air.

Also: Lubricants are a common part of nearly every sexual partnership that goes on long enough.

Vaginas dry out very quickly when exposed to air, as you should well know, and vigorous intercourse without lubrication will lead to more problems than just fissures, fistulas and tearing (oh my!)

Look, you are simply refusing to see the whole picture all at once. I used the biological evidence to prove that it's not natural. If it's not, it's simply a choice. Since God created humanity, that the anus is not naturally receptive to penetration, it is logical to assume that He did not intend it to be.

God designed sex for reproduction and contraception goes against what it was designed for, so is using contraception wrong too?

However, in context with Christianity and Judaism, it is forbidden by God, period.

I know that, but I’m trying to understand why it is forbidden. "I just can’t get my head around it because if you have feelings for men only, you have feelings for men only so it’s not likely you’re going to reproduce, so surely God should be concerned more about other things, like saving souls than making arbitrary laws that will possibly send more good people to hell. I dunno, it just makes no sense to me."

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for a reason.

Come on, you can’t compare all homosexuals to rapists, can you? I hope God destroyed them more because of raping than being gay...

I agree with you 100%. But when homosexuals openly practice and attend church, it is the responsibility of their fellow Christians to rebuke them, per the scripture.

But when my 'fellow' Christians attend church, yet act like heathens outside it's doors ... then the same rebuke doesn't apply? Does the responsibility to point out a fellow human's shortcomings only work if you're a Christian?

Also, you mentioned earlier that it should be done in a "loving" and "gentle" way, a way that will get these fallen Christians back into the arms of the Lord with the quickness. I hope you don't mean the "loving" and "gentle" way that Christians deal with those mean ole' abortion doctors and their clinics - that is, with pipe bombs/plastic explosives.

Arguably more than a vagina. What does that lead you to conclude, from a biological standpoint ?


Anything except that it was not designed for pleasure...



And you're conveniently deciding what "pleasure" is, based on nerve count. It is more likely that the higher concentration of nerves in the anus are intended to give a heightened sense of reaction to violation or entry, to protect it. The skin there is some of the most delicate on the entire body, and it is EASILY damaged. Thus, it would make sense that the reflex for defense is heightened in that area, thus the necessity for a greater number of nerve cells.


1. I haven't even mentioned a "nerve count", let alone "decide what pleasure is" based on it...

2. It isn't just that there are nerves, is that those nerves specifically stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain. If those nerve endings were there merely for a "heightened sense of reaction" they wouldn't stimulate the centers of the brain which are most likely to accept that "violation"! Pleasure is not indicative of a defense mechanism.

Moreover, one doesn't need a high amount of nerve endings to determine "entry". The buttocks themselves offer ample protection and detection capabilities. So not only do they stimulate the wrong areas of the brain, but they would be utterly worthless in defense since the buttocks already do a much better job.

3. The pleasure is derived from much more than just those nerve endings. The vagina itself can be stimulated through anal sex. In men it can stimulate the prostate. Again, both leading to orgasms through physical stimulation.


You'd think that if it were so "natural", natural lubricants would be produced from the anus, or that the lubrication naturally secreted would be enough to ensure low risk of damage or pain.I'm not saying it's "natural"; that's a meaningless term when describing human actions and emotions. I'm just stating the facts. It is you who are then conviniently concluding that it's "exit only" and then wildly speculating on its purpose to hastly justify the fact that (if it was "designed") it was "designed" to give pleasure.

Am I on ignore by a large portion of this website? I've posted large portions of text lambasting larger sections of bullshit.

Is there nothing that I've said even remotely worth noticing?

Nothing at all?

All of the smooth tissues in that general area heal pretty quickly, and the prostate is a very big erogenous zone in men, only accessible through the anus, I might add.

Men get off just fine without anal penetration.

DS, Basically nothing could get to the anus without some giving. There's nothing to back up the "It's for protection" theme, unless you can provide an unbiased link.

Nothing could get to the anus without some giving ? What are you on about ?

Also, I guess since there is no evidence of just what earlobes are for, we should assume they are for...say...intergalactic communication with alien life. Yeah, that's it.

Since when is Wikipedia not an unbiased source for totseans ? Haha...

Also, Vaginas are pretty delicate as well. after a good cock-reaming, there's likely to be bruising of the labia minor and the vaginal wall, possibly some tearing or some fissuring.

I happen to have a vagina. I've had three children, as well. I know very well the abuse they can endure, and to what size they can expand to accommodate childbirth. Tearing is no problem for a vagina. As designed, they heal incredibly fast.

Vagina's aren't anywhere NEAR as delicate as the anus. Not even close.

Not to mention the fact that there isn't fecal matter coming out of the vagina on a daily basis. It is much more difficult to keep wounds in the anus clean, and the daily aggravation of evacuation retards healing.

Also, vaginal prolapse occurs from time to time as well.

Not as a result of intercourse. We are not discussing medical issues in general.

The Anus does secrete its own lubricant: colo-rectal mucus. It's thicker and much more effective than vaginal lubrication because it doesn't dry out as fast when exposed to air.

As the rectum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectum) has no natural lubrication, artificial lubrication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_lubricant) is most often required or preferred when penetrating the anus, either with natural appendages or artificial devices. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex)

Also: Lubricants are a common part of nearly every sexual partnership that goes on long enough.

I suppose what humans did prior to the advent of artificial lubrication shouldn't be taken into consideration. :rolleyes:

Vaginas dry out very quickly when exposed to air, as you should well know, and vigorous intercourse without lubrication will lead to more problems than just fissures, fistulas and tearing (oh my!)

So, you do know I am a female, then. Interesting that you felt compelled to tell me what vagina's are capable of. :confused:

Strawman. Vagina's are naturally moist, ALL the time. Intercourse can cause drying, this is true, but the vagina's natural state is moist. The anus is not naturally moist. In fact, it is the moist nature of the vagina that makes it superior when it comes to healing in comparison to the anus.

Your vested interest in protecting the lifestyle choices of your uncle's is touching, but seems to make you biased to the obvious.

Am I on ignore by a large portion of this website? I've posted large portions of text lambasting larger sections of bullshit.

It's your shitty attitude, I'm guessing.

But I will only speak for myself.

But when my 'fellow' Christians attend church, yet act like heathens outside it's doors ... then the same rebuke doesn't apply? Does the responsibility to point out a fellow human's shortcomings only work if you're a Christian?

As I already explained, homosexuality is one of the MOST IDENTIFIABLE sins.

If people went around flaunting their sins (lying, cheating, commiting adultery, etc.), then certainly they would be rebuked as well.

Also, you mentioned earlier that it should be done in a "loving" and "gentle" way, a way that will get these fallen Christians back into the arms of the Lord with the quickness. I hope you don't mean the "loving" and "gentle" way that Christians deal with those mean ole' abortion doctors and their clinics - that is, with pipe bombs/plastic explosives.

You can use extremely fringe cases if you want, but the majority of people professing to be Christian are kind, generous, and loving.

Anyone claiming to be a Christian who bombs a clinic to prove a point clearly doesn't understand Christ's ministry, and is therefore not representative of the faith.

If people went around flaunting their sins (lying, cheating, commiting adultery, etc.), then certainly they would be rebuked as well.

Come now! What is more common, Digital? Liars, cheaters, whores .... or homosexuals? Those things are just "flaunted" so much, and performed so regularly by even the holier-than-thou Christians, that it just tends to get overlooked, and downplayed.

Like it is now. We're rating sins here. Last time I checked, there were only a small number of "deadly" ones. And aren't a good portion of those forgiveable with repentance?

You all can argue amongst yourselves about what's forgiveable and what's not. It varies so much from person to person on here that I can't keep up.

*applies Aloe Vera to the wicked burns from DS*

Ouch, sista! That shit stings!

I mean that the anus is rather thoroughly protected by two sides of ham. You basically have to give who(or what, if you're into that sort of thing)ever free reign to reach it.

(Citing the straw-man fallacy)

Earlobes are fatty deposits surrounded by skin. There's nothing but a nerve, blood, and fatty tissue there. No structures capable of receiving or transmitting a high-band transmission of any sort are present there, or anywhere else.

Anuses, on the other hand, have nerves hard-wired to the pleasure center of the brain, and anal stimulation (in both sexes) produces dopamine and norepinephrine (Sex neurochemicals)

Also, your anus and colon heal as quickly as the rest of your digestive system. Incredibly fast, and incredibly efficiently.

Artificial lubricants vary from rendered fat to saliva to corn syrup to petroleum products. Take your pick as to which were available for folks to use 'back in the day.'

Indeed, vaginas are naturally moist, but nobody's contradicting that. Anuses are moist as well. Colo-rectal mucus makes sure that they stay (relatively) clean and non-irritated. There's gotta be something to neutralize the potent gastric acids present in the chyme as it enters from the small intestine, and the mucus provides a barrier to this, and does lubricate on its own.

(Also, my attitude isn't any worse than your own, but I don't base my arguments on a book written 2000 years ago by *stoners wandering the desert.)

*Psychotropic herbs and extracts were widely used to commune with god on the whole, by most of the population, in that era.

God designed sex for reproduction and contraception goes against what it was designed for, so is using contraception wrong too?

That is what the Catholics believe.

However, there is no commandment stating "thou shalt not prevent thyself from becoming impregnated". At least I've never read it.

There is scripture condemning homosexuality.

Come on, you can’t compare all homosexuals to rapists, can you? I hope God destroyed them more because of raping than being gay...

I haven't compared anyone to anything. I am illustrating how God dealt with sin in the past, and homosexual sex was one of the charges against Sodom and Gomorrah.

The new, stoner god isn't like that.

He'll talk to you, but fuck if he'll do anything.

Old Testament god burned shit, rained destruction and all that good stuff.

New Testament god is all mellow and easygoing.

The new god was elected between those eras, it's very simple: a new God is elected between Testaments. One's all "KILL THE FAGS AND BURN THE SINNERS" like Republicans, the other's all "Let it be, and what will be will be, like the birds and the bees, man." like the democrats.

It just depends on what kind of god is needed.

The 3rd Testament (The Koran, for y'all not in the know) shows that the Republican god was elected this time around, now it's Jihad fever.

Next time, who knows?

Page 11.

However, there is no commandment stating "thou shalt not prevent thyself from becoming impregnated". At least I've never read it.

Well you said that homosexuality was wrong because it went against reproduction, so I just thought that God would be consistent and say using contraceptive devices is choosing to reject God's purpose for sex and merely using it for pleasure, so it would be wrong too... I dunno, but don't you think it's a little bit funny too that tattooing skin, which wasn't designed for that probably, is OK when it can lead to all sorts of problems but sodomy is not? I know you said about having to be careful with the temple, but that wasn't a very good answer, was it?...

There is scripture condemning homosexuality.

Yes, and I'm trying to understand why. I'm beginning to feel like there is no given reason, so you're having to do a lot of the interpreting, is that just me or?...

I haven't compared anyone to anything. I am illustrating how God dealt with sin in the past, and homosexual sex was one of the charges against Sodom and Gomorrah.

Come on. You really believe there's a God that kills people because of Sodomy?...

Incredible, isn't it?

Brace yourself, Hare Geist.

They need to give up homosexuality to follow God.

I'm sorry, but I was quite taken back when I read this. By "homosexuality" do you mean sodomy or having feelings for people of the same sex? Because I kind of feel as if you meant the latter, which isn't exactly controllable.

No, my position does not assume that at all. It does not require for genes to be a destiny or homosexual acts inescapable. The mere fact that there would be a propensity for such acts to occur is enough to make punishment based on those acts appalling.By your logic it is appalling that we punish the thief, who, naturally disposed as we all are to value the comforts of wealth, breaks into a house to steal the owner's belongings. You present the exception that swallowed the law. Nobody is prone to refrain from wrongdoing: it is the struggle against our natural pleasure-seeking and self-serving inclinations that defines a moral life. Knowing, as I do, that you are hardly an anarchist, or a hedonist for that matter, I find it curious that you should present a standard so indiscriminate that it maligns rational thought (the essence of which is discerning the better of multiple options) as a terrible injustice and bigotry.



1. "Other things require you to do (not do) X so it's okay if this thing requires me to do (not do) X" is not a defense.My argument was predicated on the assumption that you accepted my point of reference as a given. My assumption was correct. You do not see the very idea of laws or even self-imposed restrictions on human behaviour as an injustice, despite your current assertions to the contrary for the sake of argument, so my point stands. We restrain ourselves in any number of areas, because that is the essence of rational behaviour, and those restraints are only restraints because of our temptation to go beyond them.

Even if it wasn't in the case of fasting, does that automatically mean that isn't in the case of homosexuality? Of course not.
It was a hermeneutic comparison, designed to demonstrate the same principle in action in another area. However, I note that you do not address my second example, that of infidelity, which is far closer in kind to the sexual restraint required here. This leads me again to conclude that you do not take the position that all human restraints are unjust, simply because we are inclined to overcome them from time to time, so this half-hearted argument on your part does nothing to advance your position.



The problem being that you cannot take a group of people that are abstinent and then conclude that everyone has the willpower to remain as such.I do not take that position, and I do not take the position either that everyone has the willpower to refrain from committing murder. It does not however follow then that it is unjust to punish those who don’t. Willpower is a function of free will. It is the strength of our personal commitment to resist our temptations that determines how strong our “will” in a given area will be.

The very fact that in recent years there has been an outrageous amount of cases where those very "abstinent" people - have come out as sexual predators should tell you just how difficult a task that is.The latest examples are those of people who rape children. That’s not just yielding to the temptation of having sex: that’s yielding to the temptation of a particular sexual preference. Is it unjust to punish paedophiles for their lack of willpower? I think you’d agree it is.

To then condemn human beings for these failures they are likely to do is disgusting; especially when it is needlessly done.There is no human failure that does not carry with it a certain likelihood of finding expression in the human condition. That we are often tempted to do wrong by no means establishes that “wrong” is not “wrong.” It is not unreasonable to ask human beings to exercise discretion in their activities, rather than operating on their most base instincts: it is the basis of all civilisation.

By your logic it is appalling that we punish the thief, who, naturally disposed as we all are to value the comforts of wealth, breaks into a house to steal the owner's belongings. You present the exception that swallowed the law. Nobody is prone to refrain from wrongdoing: it is the struggle against our natural pleasure-seeking and self-serving inclinations that defines a moral life. Knowing, as I do, that you are hardly an anarchist, or a hedonist for that matter, I find it curious that you should present a standard so indiscriminate that it maligns rational thought (the essence of which is discerning the better of multiple options) as a terrible injustice and bigotry.

Only by your twisted interpretation of what I've said does "my logic" necessitates that I believe it is appalling to punish a thief. A thief, stealing private property from an individual, does not equal a homosexual having sex with a consenting adult. The two are not even remotely similar.

You cannot even begin to say that a thief is genetically predisposed to stealing. You can only bring up a sweeping generalization - a mirror of your own thoughts on the human condition - that says we all value wealth to the point of being prone to stealing... A generalization which ends up being yet another argument against the Christian god.

Not to mention the fact that you're comparing human punishment on Earth, to the punishment of a god - two very different things. I could easily consider the human punishment of theft justified in that it serves a necessary purpose on Earth (that of preventing theft of private property) while also considering the needless punishment of homosexuals by the Christian god appalling.


My argument was predicated on the assumption that you accepted my point of reference as a given. My assumption was correct. You do not see the very idea of laws or even self-imposed restrictions on human behaviour as an injustice, despite your current assertions to the contrary for the sake of argument, so my point stands. We restrain ourselves in any number of areas, because that is the essence of rational behaviour, and those restraints are only restraints because of our temptation to go beyond them.

1. What "current assertions to the contrary"? Where have I ever stated that I see all laws or all cases of self-imposed restrictions, as injustices?

2. I said that simply because there are other restrictions you feel are similar to restricting homosexuality in society does not automatically mean that doing the same to homosexuality is fine. That does not follow. Mentioning fasting isn't a defense.



It was a hermeneutic comparison, designed to demonstrate the same principle in action in another area. However, I note that you do not address my second example, that of infidelity, which is far closer in kind to the sexual restraint required here. This leads me again to conclude that you do not take the position that all human restraints are unjust, simply because we are inclined to overcome them from time to time, so this half-hearted argument on your part does nothing to advance your position.

1. I didn't address it because there is no need. The same arguements I've given elsewhere would also apply there. Would you have me repeat myself?

2. If you're whole argument is to show that I don't take the position that all human restraints are unjust, then you've wasted your time; you could have had your answer by asking a simple question. That I don't consider all laws an injustice does not refute my point.


It does not however follow then that it is unjust to punish those who don’t. Willpower is a function of free will. It is the strength of our personal commitment to resist our temptations that determines how strong our “will” in a given area will be.

You're forgetting a genetic predisposition which would make it so that these individuals are more likely than not to commit the forbidden acts. The odds are against them, and against them through no fault of their own.



The latest examples are those of people who rape children. That’s not just yielding to the temptation of having sex: that’s yielding to the temptation of a particular sexual preference. Is it unjust to punish paedophiles for their lack of willpower? I think you’d agree it is.

Temptations which were likely exacerbated precisely because of their suppression of the natural sexual urges they felt.

No, it isn't unjust to punish pedophiles for raping children. That is not equivalent in the least to homosexuals having sex with other consenting adults. That you are even comparing the two and/or that the Christian god would consider these two "sins" equal, is appalling in and of itself.


There is no human failure that does not carry with it a certain likelihood of finding expression in the human condition. That we are often tempted to do wrong by no means establishes that “wrong” is not “wrong.” It is not unreasonable to ask human beings to exercise discretion in their activities, rather than operating on their most base instincts: it is the basis of all civilisation.

1. It's not just a "temptation" to wrong, it would be a genetic predisposition to wrong.

2. Humans asking other humans to exercise discretion in their activities is a long ways from a god needlessly punishing his creation for participating in acts he has essentially programmed them to like.

I'm sorry, but I was quite taken back when I read this. By "homosexuality" do you mean sodomy or having feelings for people of the same sex? Because I kind of feel as if you meant the latter, which isn't exactly controllable.

Since the feelings are what drive them to engage in homosexual sex, what do you think ?

Well you said that homosexuality was wrong because it went against reproduction, so I just thought that God would be consistent and say using contraceptive devices is choosing to reject God's purpose for sex and merely using it for pleasure, so it would be wrong too...

I said that God created our genitalia to be different (male/female) for the purpose of reproduction. The intended purpose of our genitalia is a testament to what type of sex we should be having.

Also, it was only ONE example.

I dunno, but don't you think it's a little bit funny too that tattooing skin, which wasn't designed for that probably, is OK when it can lead to all sorts of problems but sodomy is not? I know you said about having to be careful with the temple, but that wasn't a very good answer, was it?...

Who said tattooing is ok ? Sin is sin. However, Judaic law does not apply to Christians, and I don't speak for the Jews.

The only reason that the OT references are applicable to Christians with regard to homosexuality is because Paul reaffirms God's disdain for debauchery of ANY kind, to include homosexuality.

I never said we had to be "careful" with our temples. I said we have to take care of them.

Yes, and I'm trying to understand why. I'm beginning to feel like there is no given reason, so you're having to do a lot of the interpreting, is that just me or?...

I don't know what else I can say to make it any clearer to you. I've done no interpreting. The scriptures are clear. Homosexuality is a sin. Perhaps you don't want to understand it.

Come on. You really believe there's a God that kills people because of Sodomy?...

God gives life, and He can take it away. He doesn't even need a reason. If that is a reality you cannot accept (provided you even believe He exists), then Christianity is not for you, and I suggest you stop trying to understand it.

Since the feelings are what drive them to engage in homosexual sex, what do you think ?

Honestly? That it's a horrible belief system either way.

God gives life, and He can take it away. He doesn't even need a reason. If that is a reality you cannot accept (provided you even believe He exists), then Christianity is not for you, and I suggest you stop trying to understand it.

Well at least you're honest and finally show the true colours of Christianity.

I'm done with this thread. It actually makes me feel ill that people can believe this.

Honestly? That it's a horrible belief system either way.

Christianity is based on the concept that sin is in our hearts, not our actions. Actions are simply a manifestation of what is in our hearts.

Well at least you're honest and finally show the true colours of Christianity.

I'm done with this thread. It actually makes me feel ill that people can believe this.

I have never been dishonest, nor have I ever tried to hide the "true colors" of Christianity. If you were truly curious about it, you could have just read the NT yourself. You read complicated philosophy books, yet can't bring yourself to crack open a Bible...and yet you want to understand ? Seems like a contradiction to me.

I am sorry that you feel that way, but it shouldn't have escaped your attention that God can do what He pleases, any time He pleases, due to His nature. That doesn't mean He delights in murdering people, or that this method of cleansing the earth of sinners is in practice today.

There are very intricate reasons behind His methodology in the OT times, but they are outside the scope of this thread.

If you truly sought to understand, you'd have realized this, and asked me in private to explain.

You do not seek knowledge. You seek ways in which to justify your rejection of Him. Suit yourself.

You do not seek knowledge. You seek ways in which to justify your rejection of Him. Suit yourself.

Hare specifically asked for the reasoning behind the assertion that homosexuality is an abomination. How is that not seeking knowledge?
That reasoning is nowhere to be found in scripture. You may choose to believe arbitrary commands, but knowledge doesn't enter into this belief. You are harldy the one to accuse anyone of not seeking knowledge.

Hare specifically asked for the reasoning behind the assertion that homosexuality is an abomination. How is that not seeking knowledge?

I gave him the answer, and he asked again, and again, and again. His question was thus rhetorical in nature, and intended to illustrate the illogical nature of the answer I gave.

That reasoning is nowhere to be found in scripture. You may choose to believe arbitrary commands, but knowledge doesn't enter into this belief. You are harldy the one to accuse anyone of not seeking knowledge.

Oooh ! A baseless claim ! Allow me to tremble at the volume of evidence you have presented ! LOL

"Nuh uh" isn't a good argument...instead, offer a better conclusion to the fact that God created a man and a woman, and not two men or two women.

Hare Geist is clearly trying to understand outside the scope of his own belief system, in order to gain a greater understanding of the Christian God's view on homosexuality.

That he is asking genuine questions and seeking your tutelage regarding the Christian faith shows his level of respect for you, yet you treat him like a little child who, for asking questions, shows insolence and a lack of wanting to comprehend.

You seem incredulous that he doesn't understand the scripture as clearly as you do. Surely in your internet career of showing atheists the error in their thinking, you have stumbled upon many who just can't accept a 2,000 year old document to be FACT.

Instead of chastising them for not being able to just whole-heartedly embrace the Bible, you could maybe seek to understand their predicament (which is the *affliction* of rational thinking) and just help them admit what you know to be true - that the Bible is vague, contradictory at times, and can only really be sincerely embraced by those who have already resigned to thinking rationally about it.

You came mighty close to that when you said:

I am sorry that you feel that way, but it shouldn't have escaped your attention that God can do what He pleases,

(No matter how illogical, cruel, unjust or ridiculous)

Any time He pleases

(No matter how illogical, cruel, unjust or ridiculous)

due to His nature.

Which is illogical, cruel, unjust and ridiculous.

I gave him the answer, and he asked again, and again, and again. His question was thus rhetorical in nature, and intended to illustrate the illogical nature of the answer I gave.

I believe your answer was in the likeness of "it's in scripture and that's it". Your failure to provide a reasoning (or rather the scripture's failure) doesn't mean the question was rhetorical.


Oooh ! A baseless claim ! Allow me to tremble at the volume of evidence you have presented ! LOL

"Nuh uh" isn't a good argument...instead, offer a better conclusion to the fact that God created a man and a woman, and not two men or two women.

The "fact" that God created? Sure, now THAT's not a baseless claim! Please, do provide what is the actual REASON for why homosexuality is wrong/harmful/abomination/whatever. If you can't, then you simply can't claim that knowledge has any actual part in your beliefs.

The bible is a book, written by men who would be in the middle of a Jihad today. It's not like the bible has anything relevant to today to say, so people need to stop relying on it as anything other than a collection of stories and commandments and rebukings that are written haltingly and awkwardly.

It's not like Gay sex is going to hurt anyone.

As long as it's between two consenting partners, there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual sex.

. It's not like the bible has anything relevant to today to say,

I agree, 'don't murder', don't fuck another guy's woman', ' don't steal', 'wash your hands after you've touched something icky before you eat','don't misuse a public office', are soooooo 200BC.

No relevance whatsoever today.

Thankfully today we know better.

We've got movies and shit to say that for us, Ketch, we don't need some preachy book to do that and hide that shit amongst some fucked up syntax and nonexistant diction.

Anyway, It's not like that book doesn't contradict all of that at least twice.

Nature and nurture..... In the brain, homosexual males have smaller INAH-3s than heterosexual males, and vice versa for females. However, Nurture is also part of it. I know identical twins, one's bi, one gay. I also know another set where one's straight and one bisexual...

It obviously has to be slightly genetic, or neurological if not genetic, because ANIMALS are gay (some). They don't have the higher thought processes we do.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

http://brainmind.com/Homophobia.html

We've got movies and shit to say that for us, Ketch,

Uhm so what you are saying is that you won't listen to a 2000 year old book but that you will follow the wisdom of Hollywood...the Gospel According to Chuck Norris?

I mean I think Tarantino is a god too but I don't know if I'd want to base my moral code around his movies...

I agree, 'don't murder', don't fuck another guy's woman', ' don't steal', 'wash your hands after you've touched something icky before you eat','don't misuse a public office', are soooooo 200BC.

Common sense and reciprocal altruism.

Gee, they could have conserved a whole lotta papyrus and stone tablets back then and paraphrased it:

"Humans are capable of both. It is wise to use them consistently."

The rest of the book is chock full of "OR ELSE....!!" warnings, which is just a scare tactic that people have taken farrrrrr too literally over the ages. Some of those scare tactics have backfired on the authors and defeated their original purpose. Murder is often committed in the name of these holy texts.

Common sense and reciprocal altruism. .

Yes..if only common sense was common.

Yes..if only common sense was common.

If only! Right on.

It truly is a shame that more people don't exercise it. The way I see it - if common sense can't be learned from the experience of personal trial and error, coupled with childhood lessons and the observing of other people's mistakes - it's unlikely that reward/punishment in the afterlife will have much bearing on how people choose to use it in the here and now.

Of course, there will always be those who cannot be bothered to use it without some kind of spiritual incentive to help them realize the benefit of it.

You like Tarantino?

*mind boggles*

I wasn't meaning that seriously, though. I do wish that more people would just keep their rampant opinions to themselves, not to say that it isn't fun sometimes, but when you get into the whole "This is a sin because..." aspect, you're telling people (who really don't have much choice in the matter) that they're going to hell over something as trivial as who they sleep with?

You can't legislate love, and you can't tell people that loving someone is immoral. Does love even follow a morality?

I mean, I wouldn't want a 50 year old guy to be banging a 12 year old, but if he truly loves her, is there anything in the world we can do to change that?

NOT to say that I support pedophilia in any way, but that's another extreme aspect of the whole love meets Nature/nurture angle.

EDIT: I MEAN CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE LOVES HER, YOU SICK FUCKERS!

I mean, I wouldn't want a 50 year old guy to be banging a 12 year old, but if he truly loves her, is there anything in the world we can do to change that?

Just...NO.

Public flogging is in order.

Edit: Twelve?!?

...the Gospel According to Chuck Norris?

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at that.

I mean, I wouldn't want a 50 year old guy to be banging a 12 year old, but if he truly loves her, is there anything in the world we can do to change that?

EDIT: I MEAN CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE LOVES HER, YOU SICK FUCKERS!

A couple of 9mm rounds to the old bastard's temple would cure the problem.

Who gives a shit if he loves her? You're talking about a 12 year old child.

I'd say "gut him" if he fucked her, but if he genuinely loved her, there's nothing we could do about it.

Plain and simple. As wrong and as fucked up as that is, there's no way any of us (short of killing him, that is) could change the fact that he loved her at that point. Not telling him that it was immoral, or that he'd go to hell for it, or that it's a sin.

He can't choose who he loves any more than he can choose what gender he was born with.

I'd say "gut him" if he fucked her, but if he genuinely loved her, there's nothing we could do about it.

Plain and simple. As wrong and as fucked up as that is, there's no way any of us (short of killing him, that is) could change the fact that he loved her at that point. Not telling him that it was immoral, or that he'd go to hell for it, or that it's a sin.

He can't choose who he loves any more than he can choose what gender he was born with.

Kill him then, if that's what it would take. If he can't resist his urges , regardless of his love for her, he is a threat to society.

You are not talking about sex between two consenting adults. You are talking about child molestation. Hell and sin are irrelevant. And don't try to use the excuse that "he can't choose who he loves". That argument may be valid when talking about two consenting adults (regardless of gender or sexual orientation), but it falls apart when talking about children

This may seem harsh to some, but I harbor no forgiveness for anyone who would willingly harm a child (either physically or mentally).

I never said anything about him being unable to control himself. This hypothetical dude is all with it, but he still loves a 12 year old.

I never said anything about him being unable to control himself. This hypothetical dude is all with it, but he still loves a 12 year old.

If your hypothetical dude was "all with it", he wouldn't fall in love with a 12 year old child.