09 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999More like, you cannot give any answers that are even marginally reasonable.
I am following and I am answering you. Its just that I cannot give you the answer you want to hear.
If someone does not want to love God and be a good Christian simply because they think its more important to satisfy their fleshly desires then thats their choice. They are beyond help. Let them move on with their life.
Good grief! Either God has good reasons backing a blanket denouncement of homosexual relationship; or not. If He does, then what the heck are they?!? If not, then why the heck would He make such a denouncement?!?
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KOh .. now I get it .. You want me to say that God is cruel.
You're not following. I am not asking you to say that homosexuality is morally permissible. I am not asking you to approve of any 'fleshly desires'. I am simply asking you whether you believe God decides moral precepts arbitrarily. In short, do you think that there is any reason for any moral precept other than 'Scripture says'? If not, then how can God be seen as anything other than cruel, even by the most chaste Christian?
Either way it proves what I have been saying all along; which is that this thread is all about gays and their desire to get support from the Christian community.
Well, you are wasting your time.
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloDo you realise the total stupidity of your statement.
More like, you cannot give any answers that are even marginally reasonable.
Good grief! Either God has good reasons backing a blanket denouncement of homosexual relationship; or not. If He does, then what the heck are they?!? If not, then why the heck would He make such a denouncement?!?
Its either God has a reason or he does not. Now thats fine.
Then you want someone to tell you waht it is?
Go ask him ... 🙂
Is it your opinion that Christians know all of Gods reasons and plans for everything under the sun?
You people are jokers. Go grow some balls and live your life to suit you.
If God is evil and cruel then forget about him and Christians.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999I personally am not interested in the support of the Christian community. I think it is a tragic fact that many Christians consider homosexuality an abomination and this jeopardises the mental health of those gays who are raised in a conservative Christian family. From what you have basically said to me, God is cruel. There is no reason against homosexuality. God apparently just doesn't like it. I would prefer that brand of Christianity simply didn't exist. Why would I want it's support?
Oh .. now I get it .. You want me to say that God is cruel.
Either way it proves what I have been saying all along; which is that this thread is all about gays and their desire to get support from the Christian community.
Well, you are wasting your time.
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat brand of Christianity would you like then? Should Christianity change its moral values becuase a few gays will have mental health problems? I dont think so.
I personally am not interested in the support of the Christian community. I think it is a tragic fact that many Christians consider homosexuality an abomination and this jeopardises the mental health of those gays who are raised in a conservative Christian family. From what you have basically said to me, God is cruel. There is no reason against homos ...[text shortened]... I would prefer that brand of Christianity simply didn't exist. Why would I want it's support?
Originally posted by Rajk999Is it your opinion that Christians know all of Gods reasons and plans for everything under the sun?
Do you realise the total stupidity of your statement.
Its either God has a reason or he does not. Now thats fine.
Then you want someone to tell you waht it is?
Go ask him ... 🙂
Is it your opinion that Christians know all of Gods reasons and plans for everything under the sun?
You people are jokers. Go grow some balls and live your life to suit you.
If God is evil and cruel then forget about him and Christians.
Of course not. It is my opinion that some Christians are stunted in their moral development and exhibit childlike deliberations well into their adulthood, where they simply uncritically swallow stuff they take to be handed down by God, even if it just amounts to ridiculous crap. It's quite irresponsible on their part to not think for themselves and to not strive for some contact with the underlying justification behind such endorsements (not that there is necessarily any to be found), but perhaps they just do not know any better.
Crazy me, if I am intent on endorsing some regimen that constantly reinforces that some persons will have to suffer more in this life for something like their sexuality (of all things), I would want to know that I have good reasons for this. Of course, there are no good reasons for this; but this fact will not detract from your delusion that God has some magic bag of mysterious justifying reasons only known to Him (else on pain of His just being arbitrary and irrational).
I hope you are ashamed of yourself, in your childish and irresponsible ignorance. I hope you start having a healthier questioning attitude toward the judgments that you take as handed down by God. "What justifying reasons did you have for sanctioning genocide there, God?" "What justifying reasons do you have for judging that homosexual acts are abominable, God?" "What justifying reasons do you have for suggesting that women ought to be treated as chattel, God?" You know, stuff like that. If He cannot or fails to provide any, instead of taking up the dubious assumption that He has some that are otherwise profoundly elusive, why don't you grow up and start thinking for yourself?
If God is evil and cruel then forget about him and Christians.
I can forget about God; He doesn't exist anyway. Harder to forget about you and your ilk, though, and the bad and harmful practices that you reinforce.
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloAmen.
[b]Is it your opinion that Christians know all of Gods reasons and plans for everything under the sun?
Of course not. It is my opinion that some Christians are stunted in their moral development and exhibit childlike deliberations well into their adulthood, where they simply uncritically swallow stuff they take to be handed down by God, even if it ...[text shortened]... t about you and your ilk, though, and the bad and harmful practices that you reinforce.[/b]
09 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloPeople like you are weakminded because you cannot even be a good atheist without allowing the rest of the world to bother you. Atheists are a ball-less, gut-less bunch of jokers. Fortunately the harmful practices you reinforce are nothing compared to the power of God. So you and your type would never bother me because my mind is stronger than yours. God takes care of His own. Good luck to you and enjoy your short existance in this world. It wont be long again ...😀
.. Harder to forget about you and your ilk, though, and the bad and harmful practices that you reinforce.
09 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI'll take that as a big, fat "NO," to my request for links that show lesbian relationships exist in the animal kingdom.
Oh, silly me. I thought that homosexual sexual activity was defined as same-sex sexual activity. Please feel free to gerrymander the definition to suit your rhetorical purposes. Just let me know what definition you end up with. If you want to know about homosexual sexual activity in the animal kingdom, you might want to Google it, and then look for scienti look up the wikipedia entry 'homosexual behavior in animals' and then read the cited sources.
You yourself made a claim that homosexual activity is rife in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality (as has been made painfully clear in this very thread) is not defined as same sex sex. Homosexuality is a condition of the mind.
Again, just because an excited animal humps another animal doesn't make that animal homosexual. In fact, the closest human act that it comes to is male on male rape. Obviously not bona fide homosexuality.
And again, if bona fide homosexual relationships are prevelant in the animal kingdom as you propose, then we should see just as many lesbian relationships as we do gay relationships.
I simply asked you to back up your claim and you diverted and cast accusations again. I guess that's your MO, but, as I said probably in my first post to you. For some reason I just expect better.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidYou yourself made a claim that homosexual activity is rife in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality (as has been made painfully clear in this very thread) is not defined as same sex sex. Homosexuality is a condition of the mind.
I'll take that as a big, fat "NO," to my request for links that show lesbian relationships exist in the animal kingdom.
You yourself made a claim that homosexual activity is rife in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality (as has been made painfully clear in this very thread) is not defined as same sex sex. Homosexuality is a condition of the mind.
Again, ...[text shortened]... MO, but, as I said probably in my first post to you. For some reason I just expect better.
Just a preliminary question, what would then be the requisite proof of homosexuality? What minimal evidence would you need to convince yourself of animal homosexuality? If it is not same-sex sexual activity, then what? Would you also deny heterosexuality among animals, if a heterosexual condition of mind cannot be demonstrated?
And again, if bona fide homosexual relationships are prevelant in the animal kingdom as you propose, then we should see just as many lesbian relationships as we do gay relationships.
Why would we? There is no evidence that gay and lesbian same-sex attraction are essentially the same nor is it even known whether the proportion of gays and lesbians is the same. Why would you ask bbar to prove this?
09 Nov 11
One last point bbarr...
When my dog humps the visitor's leg, does that necessarily mean my dog is into bestiality and physically attracted to humans? The obvious answer is no. So why then when an animal humps another male animal conveniently within close proximity, is that animal automatically a bona fide homosexual?
I'm just asking because you have come forth with a claim, which leads me to believe you are well-studied in the matter... perhaps even an expert. So I'm looking to you for the answers to these and many other questions. Sure, I could do as you request and just query a search engine, but again, you've made a claim and as the claimant, you are also by default claiming knowledge of your own.
Anyone can answer any question with "Google it," but does that legitimize claims or legitimize charges against the integrity of others?
sumy: "RJH is a total jerk. 😠"
RJH: "Brother! Where did that come from? Why do you think such a thing?"
sumy: "Google it, jerk! 😠"
Not very effective is it. At the very least, it sure ain't impressive.
(RJH I used you because if I used someone else they could claim to take it serious and quote me and take me to task for it. You know I don't really think that)
09 Nov 11
7 edits
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]The only authority I need to pronounce that the Biblical character, God, is horrific, is that which attends having grasped the meaning of the term 'horrific'. The argument is just the correct application of this term to those acts attributed the Biblical character, God. Words don't suddenly start meaning different things when applied to this character.
illing of young children, or kill young children Himself? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question.
The only authority I need to pronounce that the Biblical character, God, is horrific, is that which attends having grasped the meaning of the term 'horrific'.[/b]
I don't think that is adaquate. We could talk about the World War II being "horrific" which we all agree was. The deeper questions are about its necessity.
We could speak of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as "horrific". The deeper questions are concerning what was accomplished.
When my little baby girl was tested for Meningitis I had to hold her tightly in my arms while they inserted a needle into her spinal area. That was a "horrific" thing I had to do in holding my baby for the doctors' treatment.
The deeper questions are:
What did it prevent?
What did it heal ?
Was it necessary ?
The argument is just the correct application of this term to those acts attributed the Biblical character, God. Words don't suddenly start meaning different things when applied to this character.
Any woman who has given birth to a child might discribe the ordeal as approaching "horrific". One woman told me it was like running a knife up her spine.
Sure, that was a "horrific" experience for some women. The deeper questions involve what came out of the experience. And in many cases the most wonderful closeness of the mother / child love relationship.
We'll do this dialectically, for the sake of clarity.
My first question: At any point in the Bible does God either order the killing of young children, or kill young children Himself? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question.
Since you choose to refer to what the Bible says then you cannot object to me pointing out what ELSE the Bible says.
Yes. There are instances in the Old Testament where God instructed that the army of Hebrews should kill babies along with the adult parents. And in your reply explain why you think God did not do so every time. Why in the case of Ninevah did He rather scold the prophet of many innocent children and even cattle ?
"And Jehovah said, You had pity on the tree that you did not labor for ... And I, should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and many cattle ? (Jonah 4:10a,11)
Here, God even knew the number of infants that could not discern their right hand from their left hand - more than a hundred and twenty thousand. Obviously God took pity on these young children and also the cattle. How do you explain that God did not do in Ninevah as He did with the Amalekites ?
Is ONE instance among many adaquate to assess the whole character of God ?
Or should the fair minded reader take into account other and all similar cases in order to make a character judgment ?
If He is "horrific" why is He not consistently "horrific" in every instance ?
And why does it not give rise to suspicion that He could have valid reasons why one case was so severe and another case was tempered with such mercy ?