My Confession (part 2)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually the Bible does mention homosexual women, but cause your a Noob, you dont know that. This is the point that you seem to be having trouble with, for it is a concept that requires some thought and discernment. For christians we ourselves cannot kill anyone, an unborn child, adult, homosexual, anyone. is this point quite clear? we ourselves ...[text shortened]... duress to accept the act of homosexuality, for it is strongly condemned, do you understand this?

"actually the Bible does mention homosexual women, but cause your a Noob, you dont know that."
Then you have to tell me where.

In the future, think about your attitude, you're beginning to sound that you despice everyone not sharing your thoughts. You show no christian humbleness anymore. Is this your intention or do you think you have the right in this?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]"actually the Bible does mention homosexual women, but cause your a Noob, you dont know that."
Then you have to tell me where.

In the future, think about your attitude, you're beginning to sound that you despice everyone not sharing your thoughts. You show no christian humbleness anymore. Is this your intention or do you think you have the right in this?[/b]

are you sure you can take it, i dont want you getting offended 🙂

actually Fabs, i in terming you a noob, was just having fun, i will make allowance for the Swenska no nonsence approach to life 😉 your point is valid and noted, although Fabian, you must believe me, i am not being pedantic nor arrogant, i am just making sure there is no room for misconstruing the matter, for as you are aware, it can be a very volatile and emotive subject.

here is the passage that you seek,

(Romans 1:24-27) . . .Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.  That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;  and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

strong words are they not? i hope you can take them standing up.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually the Bible does mention homosexual women, but cause your a Noob, you dont know that. This is the point that you seem to be having trouble with, for it is a concept that requires some thought and discernment. For christians we ourselves cannot kill anyone, an unborn child, adult, homosexual, anyone. is this point quite clear? we ourselves ...[text shortened]... duress to accept the act of homosexuality, for it is strongly condemned, do you understand this?

It's interesting that you say here that you are to condemn homosexuality but not the person. But, before, you claimed that homosexual persons are defined by their sexuality. Well, if the person is defined by their sexuality; and if you condemn their sexuality; what survives your condemnation?

I'm sure if you think on what survives your condemnation, then you will see clearly that your previous claim that gay persons are defined by their sexuality is obviously false. Like I said, gay persons are no more defined by their sexuality than straight persons are defined by theirs. It's only if there exists discrimination and exclusion of gay persons expressly because of their sexuality that gay persons become, in an artificial way, "defined" by their sexuality to any greater degree than straight persons -- which is just a way of saying that gay persons would have to suffer more for their sexuality than straight persons.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary, the gay community has been relentless in persuit of its aims and has systematically used sexuality as a tool for political posturing and to further its agenda, to such an extent, that in Scottish schools it can now be promoted, through literature and other means, as an alternative lifestyle, let me ask the same of heterosexualy? has ...[text shortened]... ment is somehow a victim, au contrare, it is self evident that it is aggressive and subversive..

on the contrary, the gay community has been relentless in persuit of its aims and has systematically used sexuality as a tool for political posturing and to further its agenda

Could to you tell me more Robbie?!

Originally posted by LemonJello
It's interesting that you say here that you are to condemn homosexuality but not the person. But, before, you claimed that homosexual persons are defined by their sexuality. Well, if the person is defined by their sexuality; and if you condemn their sexuality; what survives your condemnation?

I'm sure if you think on what survives your condemnation, aying that gay persons would have to suffer more for their sexuality than straight persons.

now if you go back and read the text, you will notice, if you read carefully, that i stated that my deductions were based on my experience, are you willing now to dispute my experience? i think not? nor can you. For your argument to have any credence whatsoever, you must also agree that homosexuals are defined by their sexuality, is this now the case? if not then your argument is mute and unsubstantiated. Are you willing to admit therefore that homosexuality has no bearing whatsoever and is not synonymous with gay culture???, that it has not produced a politically active movement and that sexuality has nothing to do with the intentions of this movement ??? for that is what your argument amounts to,

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]on the contrary, the gay community has been relentless in persuit of its aims and has systematically used sexuality as a tool for political posturing and to further its agenda

Could to you tell me more Robbie?![/b]

yes. the repeal of section 28 comes to mind, you remember that, dont you noobster.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you sure you can take it, i dont want you getting offended 🙂

actually Fabs, i in terming you a noob, was just having fun, i will make allowance for the Swenska no nonsence approach to life 😉 your point is valid and noted, although Fabian, you must believe me, i am not being pedantic nor arrogant, i am just making sure there is no room for ...[text shortened]... ch was due for their error.

strong words are they not? i hope you can take them standing up.

In my Eng-Swe dictionary I cannot find the term noob. Can you explain what this mean?

Okay, I read "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;"
Can I really read in homosexual female activities? Why not read in oral heterosexual activities? Please explain further.

Why do think St Paul (if you are right in this) that female homosexual activities are sinful? In what source does he found this opinion? Or is it nothing more than his opinion?

St Paul says something funny about jews in Romans 2:9 "9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew". Was St Paul the first Nazi in the history? Can we really trust his words?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes. the repeal of section 28 comes to mind, you remember that, dont you noobster.

Bit before my time Robbie, but i've had a quick catch up.

So kids are now told there are gay people in the world. What's the big deal?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In my Eng-Swe dictionary I cannot find the term noob. Can you explain what this mean?

Okay, I read "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;"
Can I really read in homosexual female activities? Why not read in oral heterosexual activities? Ple irst for the Jew". Was St Paul the first Nazi in the history? Can we really trust his words?

Lol, its very funny, i dont think you will find it in your English Swenska dictionary.

The word newbie is a variant of 'new boy' and comes from British public school and military slang. In the 1960s the term "newbie" also had a limited usage among U.S. troops in the Vietnam War as a slang term for a new man in a unit. Its earliest known usage on the Internet may have been on the USENET newsgroup talk.bizarre. The term is believed to have entered online usage by 1981.

it simply means someone who is unaccustomed to the environment. noob is a derivative.

ummm i am not sure what you are implying, if it is what i think it is, then yes, oral sexual activities are also deemed to be unclean.

he wrote under inspiration, therefore his source is Holy spirit, not so easy to dispute i think.

no Paul realised that the Jews had a covenant relationship with God and if they broke this off they would be subject to persecution from others, which now is self evident. He himself was a Jew, from the tribe of Benjamin.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Bit before my time Robbie, but i've had a quick catch up.

So kids are now told there are gay people in the world. What's the big deal?

its not that there are gay people Noobster, the act now means that homosexuality can be 'actively promoted', as an alternative lifestyle or choice. how does one do this, other than through the use of propaganda?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
now if you go back and read the text, you will notice, if you read carefully, that i stated that my deductions were based on my experience, are you willing now to dispute my experience? i think not? nor can you. For your argument to have any credence whatsoever, you must also agree that homosexuals are defined by their sexuality, is this now the ca ...[text shortened]... othing to do with the intentions of this movement ??? for that is what your argument amounts to,

For your argument to have any credence whatsoever, you must also agree that homosexuals are defined by their sexuality,

I see. So you think that for my argument to have any credence, I must agree with you. Maybe you don't understand how debates work. Mine is basically a counter-argument to yours. In case you are not understanding, your claim that gay persons are "defined by their sexuality" is exactly what is under debate. So, you cannot just insist that we agree on its truth value before any fruitful debate can occur: that really just amounts to some sort of begging the question. You need to bring some argument for it, and I am arguing against it. Understand now? Don't like the fact that I am not going to just lie down and agree with your claim? Tough titty.

Are you willing to admit therefore that homosexuality has no bearing whatsoever and is not synonymous with gay culture???, that it has not produced a politically active movement and that sexuality has nothing to do with the intentions of this movement ??? for that is what your argument amounts to,

WTF? No, my argument amounts to the supported denial of your claim that gay persons are defined by their sexuality. Learn to read, robbie!

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]For your argument to have any credence whatsoever, you must also agree that homosexuals are defined by their sexuality,

I see. So you think that for my argument to have any credence, I must agree with you. Maybe you don't understand how debates work. Mine is basically a counter-argument to yours. In case you are not understanding, your claim ...[text shortened]... enial of your claim that gay persons are defined by their sexuality. Learn to read, robbie![/b]

why not, it would be so much easier 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, its very funny, i dont think you will find it in your English Swenska dictionary.

The word newbie is a variant of 'new boy' and comes from British public school and military slang. In the 1960s the term "newbie" also had a limited usage among U.S. troops in the Vietnam War as a slang term for a new man in a unit. Its earliest known usage on ...[text shortened]... n from others, which now is self evident. He himself was a Jew, from the tribe of Benjamin.

So noob is not intended to be pejorative then? Only Newbee? Then why do you call me the derivative of 'new boy'? Do you think you know me enough to give me that name? If not - don't.
If I call you a christian fundamentalist in its most pejorative form, wouldn't you be upset? Be a good example of a real christian and behave properly in the future. Alright?

Under inspiration of the holy spirit? Okay, I get it. It's his opinion. Because if he have read his sources in depths, he cannot find anything about female homosexual activities.
So we don't know if he is talking about lesbian activities, or just giving a man a blowjob, right?
Back to my question: I say that female homosexual activities are not mentionned anywhere in the bible. You say it indeed does. I ask you where. You gave me on verse where your personal sexual fantasies went public. I'm not interested in your sex life, I'm interested in where we can find a notion about lesbian behaviour. (Do christians always interpret the texts so heavily?)

You say that St Paul was a jew? I thought he was a christian. So we can disregard his words because he is a jew. Right, get it. Why do we read his jewish letters in a christian bible? Isn't that sneaky?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So noob is not intended to be pejorative then? Only Newbee? Then why do you call me the derivative of 'new boy'? Do you think you know me enough to give me that name? If not - don't.
If I call you a christian fundamentalist in its most pejorative form, wouldn't you be upset? Be a good example of a real christian and behave properly in the future. Alright ...[text shortened]... ght, get it. Why do we read his jewish letters in a christian bible? Isn't that sneaky?

i use the term affectionately in your case! you may call me what you like, i dont take it personally, fundie, or Jehovah loaf are two simple suggestions you may wish to incorporate. (Hovis, rhyming with Jehovah is a make of bread in the U.K)

under inspiration means that it is Gods opinion, Paul tells us when he states his own opinion.

No he clearly states that we are talking of Lesbian activities, for if you read it states 'for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise...males with males, thus it is clearly discernible that he is talking of Lesbian activities, perhaps you missed this in your ardour to dismiss it, who can tell?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i use the term affectionately in your case! you may call me what you like, i dont take it personally, fundie, or Jehovah loaf are two simple suggestions you may wish to incorporate. (Hovis, rhyming with Jehovah is a make of bread in the U.K)

under inspiration means that it is Gods opinion, Paul tells us when he states his own opinion.

No he cl ...[text shortened]... king of Lesbian activities, perhaps you missed this in your ardour to dismiss it, who can tell?

you know in the past people who have been so publicly anti-gay have in fact harboured internal feelings towards people of the same sex, it is also more often than not that these being are told by their religion that homosexuality is wrong.