More hatred from the Christians

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I want to know what you think.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Vicky32

 

Men and women who have anal sex is a choice too. Is that sodomy?

Why ask me? The issue is gay men. I couldn't care less what men and women do in privacy. (At least, most of them do get the concept of keeping their sex/love lives private.)

Heterosexual couples also don't have yearly parades advertizing what they do in the confines of the bedroom either.

Why should they? Homosexuals have a good reason.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I want to know what you think.

I quoted/replied to you several times telling you what I think. I also asked numerous questions. I'm the one "waiting" in this discussion, not you.

Because neither the Hebrew for homosexual or queer is used for them in the OT. Nor is the Greek terms used for them in the Septuagint.

You said your scholarly study of the Greek and Hebrew is what led you away, you are unaware of this for either story??

Going to answer my questions??

reply to post by bogomil

Why should they? Homosexuals have a good reason.

What is that "good reason" that queers need to advertize their bedroom escapades?

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Shamatt

 

The "christians" need to removed the story's of David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi from their bible. Let's be fair and balanced, christians.

I think you mean "need to remove"... but that's not the main point. The main point is that gay groups have arbitrarily decided to claim that David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi were homosexuals, because (possibly?) to homosexuals all love is and must be sexual! If that's truly how y'all think, then I think that truly fits the definition of 'fundamentally disordered', and further, constitutes a very good argument against gay males being allowed to adopt boy children!
(Elton John and his boyfriend for example).
"Daddy loves you son!"
"But Daddy, it hurts!"
"Just let Daddy get some more lube, and you'll feel fine.."
V

I can help you with the (possibly?) in your post, having had much contact with gays in my life. They are perfectly capable of the same emotional range as everybody else, and the balance between emotions and physical sex is also the same. That is, if they are left in peace. Being pronounced half-criminal or dysfunctional can make anyone bonkers.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

Why should they? Homosexuals have a good reason.

What is that "good reason" that queers need to advertize their bedroom escapades?

In your inimitable way of arranging situations verbally so they lead to your pre-determined answers, do you identify gay-parades with bedroom escapades?

I don't. And any minority group claiming egalitarian rights go through the same processes to achieve those rights. Be it ethnic or ideological minorities. Do you object to those? Then why to gays doing it?

Are we getting into the homophobe department now? I believed, you were not part of that.

reply to post by AQuestion


Hi AQuestion,

while the emotional approach of mud-throwing can be fun (or hurtful, depending on how thick-skinned one is), it seldom leads anywhere.

The problem with establishing a real communication basis is, that it requires common reference-points. Naturally theists with a strong leaning on their own theist values will use their 'absolutes' as THE measure-tape, and often have really big problems with understanding, that there are strong opposing positions on that. It's a plain case of ideological fascism.

I won't deny, that the reverse also takes place. Anti-theists insisting on THEIR exclusive 'absolutes'.

Personally I'm not that keen on ultimate 'absolutes' (a position I also have extended into philosophy), but sometimes 'semi-absolutes' can be useful. In some circumstances/situations some positions/perspectives can be more 'true' than others.

I find egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy such a useful 'semi-absolute', and I doubt that anyone except the most hard-core fanatic with monopoly-aspirations will deny its advantages.

For good or bad there are rules in such a democracy, and if the basic rules (a constitution) are to be changed, this is possible, but not from extremist minority values.

Any extra-parliamentary activity, such as private censorship, is detrimental to the whole democratic system, and is on principle 'bad' from the 'semi-absolute' of democracy.

The only legitimate place to start from in such a context as the present, is to question democracy per se. Or to stay by its rules.

Your thoughts?

all sin is equal in the eyes of God, and all sin can be forgiven.

reply to post by defcon5


Except the consumption of blood, xtianity is a major make it up as you go along cult and I'm constantly amazed to see so many narrow minded, deluded sheep posting on a site whos motto is "Deny Ignorance".

To my mind there can be nothing more ignorant than a person that has to cherry pick an inconsistant contradictory multiple copied book written by who knows how many men hundreds of years ago, in order to be told how to think.

reply to post by bogomil


In case you don't understand where I am going with this, Vicky. do you believe that sodomy is wrong no matter who is doing it? Homosexuals were called Sodomites, so then are men and women who have anal sex sodomites?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


"Clave" is past tense for "cleave", as in a man and woman shall cleave to each other. Naoemi claved to Ruth. Same sex love.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Do you believe that sodomy is wrong, no matter who is engaging in it?

Originally posted by aero56

In case you don't understand where I am going with this, Vicky. do you believe that sodomy is wrong no matter who is doing it? Homosexuals were called Sodomites, so then are men and women who have anal sex sodomites?

Since you won't shut up about it, I'll play your reindeer game... but you won't like my answer!
I've never known any straight couple that practised anal sex, but I'll take your word for it that some do, although for the life of me, I can't fathom why they would, given that they have alternatives, as homosexual men don't..
The word doesn't matter, the practice does. Homosexual men's practices are bad and wrong, and that's all there is to it. If men and women practice anal sex together, and I suppose some might, then it's their business, and I am sure they don't advertise the fact!

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Hi AQuestion,

while the emotional approach of mud-throwing can be fun (or hurtful, depending on how thick-skinned one is), it seldom leads anywhere.

The problem with establishing a real communication basis is, that it requires common reference-points. Naturally theists with a strong leaning on their own theist values will use their 'absolutes' as THE measure-tape, and often have really big problems with understanding, that there are strong opposing positions on that. It's a plain case of ideological fascism.

I won't deny, that the reverse also takes place. Anti-theists insisting on THEIR exclusive 'absolutes'.

Personally I'm not that keen on ultimate 'absolutes' (a position I also have extended into philosophy), but sometimes 'semi-absolutes' can be useful. In some circumstances/situations some positions/perspectives can be more 'true' than others.

I find egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy such a useful 'semi-absolute', and I doubt that anyone except the most hard-core fanatic with monopoly-aspirations will deny its advantages.

For good or bad there are rules in such a democracy, and if the basic rules (a constitution) are to be changed, this is possible, but not from extremist minority values.

Any extra-parliamentary activity, such as private censorship, is detrimental to the whole democratic system, and is on principle 'bad' from the 'semi-absolute' of democracy.

The only legitimate place to start from in such a context as the present, is to question democracy per se. Or to stay by its rules.

Your thoughts?

Dear bogomil,

I hope the analogy is not offensive. When my dog meets other dogs (and he loves other dogs), the first thing they do is a little dance to establish position. When two groups that were unaware of each other first meet, they do the same. We have to accept a little distrust when we first meet new people or begin a new discussion, we don't trust each other. Hopefully afterwards, we increase in trust and discuss deeper what we believe.

After the initial discomfort, we can see who we have common ground with that we can build on. We have common ground with everyone, we all eat and sleep, feel joy and pain. I think the search for knowledge is wonderful, I like the questions more than the answers, all answers are tentative and people should understand that.

As for political systems, all have a time and a place. Because of the extreme complexity of technology, I do not believe exclusive democracy alone is sufficient. Representative democracy for somethings and direct for others. I don't want to vote on which programming languages lend themselves to defeating privacy concerns, I do wish to vote on how much privacy we should have. Be well.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Hi AQuestion,

while the emotional approach of mud-throwing can be fun (or hurtful, depending on how thick-skinned one is), it seldom leads anywhere.

The problem with establishing a real communication basis is, that it requires common reference-points. Naturally theists with a strong leaning on their own theist values will use their 'absolutes' as THE measure-tape, and often have really big problems with understanding, that there are strong opposing positions on that. It's a plain case of ideological fascism.

I won't deny, that the reverse also takes place. Anti-theists insisting on THEIR exclusive 'absolutes'.

Personally I'm not that keen on ultimate 'absolutes' (a position I also have extended into philosophy), but sometimes 'semi-absolutes' can be useful. In some circumstances/situations some positions/perspectives can be more 'true' than others.

I find egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy such a useful 'semi-absolute', and I doubt that anyone except the most hard-core fanatic with monopoly-aspirations will deny its advantages.

For good or bad there are rules in such a democracy, and if the basic rules (a constitution) are to be changed, this is possible, but not from extremist minority values.

Any extra-parliamentary activity, such as private censorship, is detrimental to the whole democratic system, and is on principle 'bad' from the 'semi-absolute' of democracy.

The only legitimate place to start from in such a context as the present, is to question democracy per se. Or to stay by its rules.

Your thoughts?

Dear bogomil,

I hope the analogy is not offensive. When my dog meets other dogs (and he loves other dogs), the first thing they do is a little dance to establish position. When two groups that were unaware of each other first meet, they do the same. We have to accept a little distrust when we first meet new people or begin a new discussion, we don't trust each other. Hopefully afterwards, we increase in trust and discuss deeper what we believe.

After the initial discomfort, we can see who we have common ground with that we can build on. We have common ground with everyone, we all eat and sleep, feel joy and pain. I think the search for knowledge is wonderful, I like the questions more than the answers, all answers are tentative and people should understand that.

As for political systems, all have a time and a place. Because of the extreme complexity of technology, I do not believe exclusive democracy alone is sufficient. Representative democracy for somethings and direct for others. I don't want to vote on which programming languages lend themselves to defeating privacy concerns, I do wish to vote on how much privacy we should have. Be well.

Your analogy is quite good. Mankind is also still mostly a bunch of talking monkeys, who generally are slightly greedy and mentally lazy. But that's not 'bad' (or evil as theists sometimes call it).

But I'm sorry, I do not think an 'as to political systems' is secondary in this context. It's the first question to ask, once the existence of hierarchy or territorial instincts are agreed on.

We must soon find social models equalent to the challenge of our technology, because technology it is, and technology it'll stay (not my personal request of life, but of most of mankind).

Quote: ["Representative democracy for somethings and direct for others."]

If I understand you correct, an excellent idea. Mostly disliked by politicians and similar power-seeking minorities.

But in the present context; do we relate to democracy in its common representative form, accepting its principles of mixed freedom and obligations or are there other better reference-points, as it is now.

Even in a direct vote system on specifics, a constitution is still the heart of it. It wouldn't mean that much difference for the basic principles.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Hi AQuestion,

while the emotional approach of mud-throwing can be fun (or hurtful, depending on how thick-skinned one is), it seldom leads anywhere.

The problem with establishing a real communication basis is, that it requires common reference-points. Naturally theists with a strong leaning on their own theist values will use their 'absolutes' as THE measure-tape, and often have really big problems with understanding, that there are strong opposing positions on that. It's a plain case of ideological fascism.

I won't deny, that the reverse also takes place. Anti-theists insisting on THEIR exclusive 'absolutes'.

Personally I'm not that keen on ultimate 'absolutes' (a position I also have extended into philosophy), but sometimes 'semi-absolutes' can be useful. In some circumstances/situations some positions/perspectives can be more 'true' than others.

I find egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy such a useful 'semi-absolute', and I doubt that anyone except the most hard-core fanatic with monopoly-aspirations will deny its advantages.

For good or bad there are rules in such a democracy, and if the basic rules (a constitution) are to be changed, this is possible, but not from extremist minority values.

Any extra-parliamentary activity, such as private censorship, is detrimental to the whole democratic system, and is on principle 'bad' from the 'semi-absolute' of democracy.

The only legitimate place to start from in such a context as the present, is to question democracy per se. Or to stay by its rules.

Your thoughts?

Dear bogomil,

I hope the analogy is not offensive. When my dog meets other dogs (and he loves other dogs), the first thing they do is a little dance to establish position. When two groups that were unaware of each other first meet, they do the same. We have to accept a little distrust when we first meet new people or begin a new discussion, we don't trust each other. Hopefully afterwards, we increase in trust and discuss deeper what we believe.

After the initial discomfort, we can see who we have common ground with that we can build on. We have common ground with everyone, we all eat and sleep, feel joy and pain. I think the search for knowledge is wonderful, I like the questions more than the answers, all answers are tentative and people should understand that.

As for political systems, all have a time and a place. Because of the extreme complexity of technology, I do not believe exclusive democracy alone is sufficient. Representative democracy for somethings and direct for others. I don't want to vote on which programming languages lend themselves to defeating privacy concerns, I do wish to vote on how much privacy we should have. Be well.

Your analogy is quite good. Mankind is also still mostly a bunch of talking monkeys, who generally are slightly greedy and mentally lazy. But that's not 'bad' (or evil as theists sometimes call it).

But I'm sorry, I do not think an 'as to political systems' is secondary in this context. It's the first question to ask, once the existence of hierarchy or territorial instincts are agreed on.

We must soon find social models equalent to the challenge of our technology, because technology it is, and technology it'll stay (not my personal request of life, but of most of mankind).

Quote: ["Representative democracy for somethings and direct for others."]

If I understand you correct, an excellent idea. Mostly disliked by politicians and similar power-seeking minorities.

But in the present context; do we relate to democracy in its common representative form, accepting its principles of mixed freedom and obligations or are there other better reference-points, as it is now.

Even in a direct vote system on specifics, a constitution is still the heart of it. It wouldn't mean that much difference for the basic principles.

Dear bobgomil,

I am still pondering what type of system I think would be best, have been for most of my life. Arnold Toynbee did an excellent series on the rise and fall of societies ("A Study of History"). Oddly enough he focused on the societies as a whole less than their forms of government. In my opinion, based on what I have seen, the type of government (for lack of a better word) that is best depends on many factors.

We currently have the technology to allow everyone to vote on everything right from the phone; but, the question then becomes which issues should be voted on directly and which require a degree of knowledge. I don't the answer, just considering the possibilities. I do fear this is all too off topic, perhaps we should start a new thread.

reply to post by AQuestion


As a former (formal) student of social sciences, I'm aware of the difficulties of finding encompassing/inclusive models for mankind.

And your comments here and elsewhere (in spite of our differences on theism) make you a respectable sparring partner for me, so I look forward to further communication.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Divide and conquer!

In a very old war for souls, the best vehicle for battle is often one that is disguised as the righteous carriage of God.

Be silent Christians, and watch as your faith is destroyed by those who exploit your faith.

Jesus said If they love you it is because they recognize one of their own.
If they hate you - remember they hated me first.

This is my commandment, That you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.

These things I command you, that you love one another. If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own. But you are not of the world.

If they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. But they will do all these things to you for my name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent me.

They hated me without a cause. But when the Comforter comes, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about me. And you also will bear witness because you have been with me from the beginning.

I am telling you these things so you are not offended. They will put you out of the synagogues. The time will come when whoever kills you will think that he does God a service.

And they will do these things to you because they have not known the Father nor me.

John 15-17
The Final Discourse and Prayer of Jesus
www.practicegodspresence.com...

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Do you believe that sodomy is wrong, no matter who is engaging in it?

No. Types of sex are a moot point.

If you have sex at all man or woman, you are saying I choose to be more human than holy.
HOLY people have no sex because the very orgasm is disgraceful to God. To God making babies is like belching, farting or any other necessary bodily function. Not a sin but not fit for where God Himself should occupy.

If you are the most pure and Holy, your mind body and soul, all your elation and that includes sexual, will be for God.
None of us are required or asked to be this way either, in this lifetime, although I think that is where we are heading, if not in this lifetime, in the next.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Why do heterosexuals play out their sexual escapades on TV and the movies?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by aero56

 

Would you care to explain why I should not think they were in same sex relationships?

Because neither the Hebrew for homosexual or queer is used for them in the OT. Nor is the Greek terms used for them in the Septuagint.

You said your scholarly study of the Greek and Hebrew is what led you away, you are unaware of this for either story??

Going to answer my questions??

edit on 5-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

The word "clave" is used in the book of Ruth. Ruth "clave" unto Naomi. "Clave unto" when speaking of human relationships, such as a man and wife "cleaving" to each other, implies a sexual relationship. Read the book.