bible and homosexuality

[Paisleyspeaker]

We have been discussing homsexuality (some of you for a long time). Many have said it is sin, and that the bible says it's wrong. I have a few hairs to split. The only place I myself have read, and had others read to me is Leviticus 18:22 " Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." All the sexual rules preceding that clearly warn against sex. "Do Not have sexual relations". But this one says do not lie with. So is it really an admonision against sex? when it doesn't say sex. And it says not to lie with a man, so does it address lesbianism at all? If there are other passages that repeat that same admonission, please post them.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

" Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." All the sexual rules preceding that clearly warn against sex. "Do Not have sexual relations". But this one says do not lie with. So is it really an admonision against sex?


If it is not against sex, then how would you interpret its meaning?


when it doesn't say sex. And it says not to lie with a man, so does it address lesbianism at all?


Back in those days the actions of men were the only thing that the people running things cared about. Women had very little place in society, including literature. I'd say that lesbianism was inherently applied, but nobody cared to consider it.

[jonilaine]

I agree with BBO..people just have to remember that homosexuality is a forgiveable sin...I try not to get too worked up over it.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

All sins are forgivable, as long as you truly are sorry for commiting them. But I don't think that following one's sexual preference is a sin. It doesn't really fall within the big ten, and any others are really just sins that have been created by the church itself, with no real higher power taking credit.

[General Septem]

It doesn't really fall within the big ten, and any others are really just sins that have been created by the church itself, with no real higher power taking credit.
It falls into the whole adultery thing, which, in the context of the Ten Commandments, encompasses all aspects of lust. Also, since Christ initiated the Church, it is the final say as to what's morally right and wrong. Plus there's that whole Leviticus thing. When it all comes down to it, the sin is not homosexuality. The sin is when two people of the same gender have sex.

[General Septem]

Back in those days the actions of men were the only thing that the people running things cared about. Women had very little place in society, including literature. I'd say that lesbianism was inherently applied, but nobody cared to consider it.
Actually I think it was more a matter of, at the time it was only men who really read the Bible. In fact not everyone could even read back then. The women were way too busy taking care of their families to read the Bible. They were just taught these things as they grew up.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I had kinda figures that a patriarcal, phallocentric society just didn't think it was sex unless there was a penis involved. One of the other things the other sexual sins in Leviticus was that they all have a penis involved. And what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah was also a penis centered event.

[General Septem]

I had kinda figures that a patriarcal, phallocentric society just didn't think it was sex unless there was a penis involved. One of the other things the other sexual sins in Leviticus was that they all have a penis involved. And what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah was also a penis centered event.
That's a very ultra-feministic assertion. Just because only the male side of the equation was described doesn't mean the Bible was "patriarchial" or chauvenistic. Perhaps back then there was no word for "homosexual intercourse"; it likely would've been taboo back then even if there was such word. So instead of saying "two men or two women", they just simplified it by saying "do not lie with another male," assuming, based on the society Abraham lived in, that only men would ever read it, and until recently he was right. Back in the golden days of the Catholic Church, nobody really read the Bible except for the scholars.

[Paisleyspeaker]

It wasn't an ultra-feminist statement. The Romans, and they Jews of that era lived in the Roman world, were phallocentric. They had them painted and carved onto walls. And if you read the old testament women were chattel or property. They had no value unless attached to a man, be it a husband or son. One of the wonderful things about Jesus was that he treated women far, far, better than the men of that age. Your just being too sensative. The culture that the produced the bible was chauvanisitic, and you can't argue against that. You can say that the bible isn't chauvanictic, but the Romans and Jews were.

[freakazoid]

We have been discussing homsexuality (some of you for a long time). Many have said it is sin, and that the bible says it's wrong. I have a few hairs to split. The only place I myself have read, and had others read to me is Leviticus 18:22 " Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." All the sexual rules preceding that clearly warn against sex. "Do Not have sexual relations". But this one says do not lie with. So is it really an admonision against sex? when it doesn't say sex. And it says not to lie with a man, so does it address lesbianism at all? If there are other passages that repeat that same admonission, please post them.

I believe it is in Romans Chapter 1 Verses 24 to 27 ...

24. Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves,

[/URL]25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

(http://bible.cc/romans/1-25.htm)26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.

[URL="http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm"]27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

[beelzebub]

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and now when someone tries to defend homosexuality, for example, I will simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other laws in Leviticus and Exodus and how to best follow them. To wit:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

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

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

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Canadians, but not Mexicans. Can you clarify?

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?

A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight or if I am a midget or broken foot or if I have a flat nose. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[General Septem]

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and now when someone tries to defend homosexuality, for example, I will simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
Did you happen to catch the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thread?

[beelzebub]

Did you happen to catch the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thread?

Yes I did but I don’t think anyone here did. How can a Christian think that it is OK to select only the parts of the bible that they feel are important and ignore all the rest of the dumb shit?

It is amazing that people still call homosexuality a sin! I just don’t understand how ethical people can sit and judge others on something that DOES NOT AFFECTS THEM and HURTS NO ONE.

The only conclusion is that they are ignorant and dont have anything going on in their own life.

[General Septem]

Yes I did but I don’t think anyone here did. How can a Christian think that it is OK to select only the parts of the bible that they feel are important and ignore all the rest of the dumb shit?
Did you happen to catch the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thread?

[beelzebub]

Did you happen to catch the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thread?

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ?

I said YES!

[General Septem]

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ?

I said YES!
Then why did you ask the very question already answered in that thread? Maybe you should go back and read it again, to refresh your memory.

[beelzebub]

Then why did you ask the very question already answered in that thread?

It was not answered to my satisfaction.... and.... I was using the LONG LIST of bible bullshit to undermine the authority of the dumb book. You idiotic Christians believe in a bunch of bullshit and should not be able to only pick out what you deem fit for public knowledge.

[General Septem]

It was not answered to my satisfaction.... and.... I was using the LONG LIST of bible bullshit to undermine the authority of the dumb book. You idiotic Christians believe in a bunch of bullshit and should not be able to only pick out what you deem fit for public knowledge.
We don't pick and choose; we simply interpret. Just because we don't kill people for crimes anymore doesn't mean the entire book of Leviticus is obsolete - it means the point is not to do X, rather than stone Y for X.

[beelzebub]

We don't pick and choose; we simply interpret. Just because we don't kill people for crimes anymore doesn't mean the entire book of Leviticus is obsolete - it means the point is not to do X, rather than stone Y for X.

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

[General Septem]

So tell me how you interpert this:
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as stated in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I would interpret it as, "give me the actual quote because I don't feel like looking it up".

[beelzebub]

I would interpret it as, "give me the actual quote because I don't feel like looking it up".

You lazy bitch::rolleyes:

21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

[General Septem]

I don't see how that says to sell your daughter to slavery.

[beelzebub]

I don't see how that says to sell your daughter to slavery.

UHHHH, ok here is another reason that I find you idiotic.

IT SAYS "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Interpret it.

[General Septem]

IT SAYS "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
It's a regulation regarding slavery.

It doesn't mean to actually do so. At the most all it implies is that the action is justified, and in the old Jewish civilization it was.

[beelzebub]

It's a regulation regarding slavery.

Let’s expand this: It is a regulation of the proper way to conduct slavery with your own daughter.

God then condones slavery & the selling of your own daughter into slavery.

That is not a god for me.

[General Septem]

Let’s expand this: It is a regulation of the proper way to conduct slavery with your own daughter.

God then condones slavery & the selling of your own daughter into slavery.

That is not a god for me.
Slavery back then wasn't even the same as what we think of it now. You will also note that mistreating slaves is also said to be a sin.

[beelzebub]

Slavery back then wasn't even the same as what we think of it now. You will also note that mistreating slaves is also said to be a sin.

Slavery itself, regardless of how people are treated, is a sin. Selling your daughter into slavery is a horrible, unforgivable sin. Therefore god condones and even gives SOP for a sin.

[General Septem]

Slavery itself, regardless of how people are treated, is a sin. Selling your daughter into slavery is a horrible, unforgivable sin. Therefore god condones and even gives SOP for a sin.
Like I said, slavery was different back then than what we think of. Nowadays we'd probably just call them workers. Regardless, slavery as we think of it is against Catholic teachings.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Buzz,
We can agree that what slavery became on American shores is an abomination in the eyes of all thinking and feeling beings. But historically it played an important role, stronger and more prosperous nations would absorb people from poorer nations. But these people still had some rights and respect, they could own property and buy their freedom. This remnant of respect was probably aided by the fact that slave and master looked the same. Slavery here had more to do with racism and hatred then anything else. Honestly that passage also reminds me of the raw deal marriage was for women of that time anyway, it was the eqivilent of slavery. The woman and all she might own belonged to her husband, she could be legally beaten and raped, and in most cultures could not own property. It isn't that far off from the life of a slave. The General's faithfull heart is caught in a biblical contradidction, as you know the "good Book" has been used on both sides of this argument.

[beelzebub]

Like I said, slavery was different back then than what we think of. Nowadays we'd probably just call them workers. Regardless, slavery as we think of it is against Catholic teachings.


GS you are talking about something that you don't know about again.
In some parts of the world slaves could join the family after a few years. Some of them lived somewhat decent lives. However, most of the slaves lived horrible lives and were slaves for the rest of their life. Many of them were abused.

Besides the lifestyle of the slave we have the fact that the Father has SOLD his own daughter. I don’t care how slaves were treated, IT IS WRONG to do that.

Therefore my position still stands.

[General Septem]

I don't really care. No Catholic apologist would ever say slavery is acceptable. So bascially your argument holds no water.

[beelzebub]

...Slavery here had more to do with racism and hatred then anything else. Honestly that passage also reminds me of the raw deal marriage was for women of that time anyway, it was the eqivilent of slavery. ...

True and not true. Most Americans do not know of other forms of slavery from all over the world. One prime example is the form of slavery that existed in Arabia. East African was sold to Arabia and they treated them in the same manner as our ancestors did their slaves. One could even say worse, because now the decedents of those slaves in the Middle East do not hold positions of power like the African American decedents do here.

Lets look at it critically: You expect me to believe that "slavery" everywhere else except America was not that bad,... that is defiantly BULLSHIT!

[beelzebub]

I don't really care. No Catholic apologist would ever say slavery is acceptable. So bascially your argument holds no water.

Of course it holds! Just because you don't care, does not dismiss it!

"GOD" gave instruction on how to conduct selling you daughter.

THAT IS A SIN AND IT IS WRONG AND IT CONTRADICTS YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD!

[General Septem]

Of course it holds! Just because you don't care, does not dismiss it!

"GOD" gave instruction on how to conduct selling you daughter.

THAT IS A SIN AND IT IS WRONG AND IT CONTRADICTS YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD!
Slavery as we think of it is defined as a sin by the Catholic Church.

Therefore God must have been talking about something else in that verse. I don't really know nor care what but I'm sure someone does. Why don't you ask them? Ask an apologist if it means that much to you.

[beelzebub]

Slavery as we think of it is defined as a sin by the Catholic Church. Therefore God must have been talking about something else in that verse. I don't really know nor care what but I'm sure someone does. Why don't you ask them? Ask an apologist if it means that much to you.

Oh I see... they will twist the meaning to keep in compliance with their vision of god.

No thanks I don’t need that. It is very clear to me what was written. The reason you think god "was talking about something else in that verse." is because you like most x-tians refuse to accept the facts. If I want someone to twist the meaning of something for me I will just watch a political news channel.

[General Septem]

Oh I see... they will twist the meaning to keep in compliance with their vision of god.

No thanks I don’t need that. It is very clear to me what was written. The reason you think god "was talking about something else in that verse." is because you like most x-tians refuse to accept the facts. If I want someone to twist the meaning of something for me I will just watch a political news channel.

And the reason why you're such an arrogant asshat is because you take everything at face value and can't accept that some things require a little interpretation. And because you are so self-assured, you'll take any attempt at interpretation as "twisting the meaning".

Maybe slavery wasn't such a bad thing back then. Maybe they were just workers. Maybe the man needs money so he sends his daughter off to work to support the family. That's not a rare thing. If you're just going to assume that slavery is all whip-cracking, then you probably would think that's a bad thing. But you'd also be a dumbass.

[beelzebub]

And the reason why you're such aBLABLABLABLA n you probably would think that's a bad thing. But you'd also be a dumbass.

I dont know what is worse,... pure stupidity or ignorance due to Blind Faith

[General Septem]

I dont know what is worse,... pure stupidity or ignorance due to Blind Faith
I think it's somewhere in between - blindness due to ignorant assumtion of stupidity and blind faith.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Lets look at it critically: You expect me to believe that "slavery" everywhere else except America was not that bad,... that is defiantly BULLSHIT!

I don't expect that at all, as you thought I was unaware of the Arabian slavery. My point I guess was slavery like all things , is diffrent in diffrent places for diffrent people. I know of the Roman slavery, and that which happened here, and although neither was a positive experience there are profound diffrences, and I do think racism and arrogance played a role in that diffrence.

[General Septem]

Besides, we're not talking about non-American slavery. We're talking about Jewish slavery in the BC years.

[beelzebub]

Besides, we're not talking about non-American slavery. We're talking about Jewish slavery in the BC years.

I think that Jewish-Slavery would classify as non-American.

The slavery I have discussed is in the "pre-jesus" years. Egyptians were also known to be horrible to their slaves and few were allowed to graduate outside their ranks (most notably those that served well as Gladiators).

[General Septem]

I think that Jewish-Slavery would classify as non-American.

The slavery I have discussed is in the "pre-jesus" years. Egyptians were also known to be horrible to their slaves and many were never allowed to graduate outside their ranks (most notably those that served well as Gladiators).
I meant we're not talking about all non-American slavery. We're specifically talking about Jewish pre-Jesus slavery. Yes, that is non-American, that's the point. You had to've known what I meant. Come on. I know you're not stupid.

[freakazoid]

UHHHH, ok here is another reason that I find you idiotic.

IT SAYS "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Interpret it.
Funny you should speak of "idiot." I have found that most of the poor souls who are members of "MENSA" to be idiots living in a delusion that they are of "higher intelligence" than those around them. The ones I have talked to are do nothing morons steeped in childish arrogance. They are basically useless ignorant people.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I have found that most of the poor souls who are members of "MENSA" to be idiots ...


Okay, we covered that months ago. It should really just get its own thread if people still need to harp on it. (Not that I don't disagree with you).

G~S, you may be right that slavery was completely different to the Bible writing Jews from what we understand it as today, you may be wrong. I still think that the Bible was written by flawed humans to agree with the culture of their time. We've adjusted portions of it to agree with our current culture, (translations do take certain liberties). People in the next Millenium will no doubtedly have different understandings of things in the Bible than all that we have now. Why is it so bad to see the Bible as a piece of literature written by humans that needs a grain of salt on the side every now and then? Why do you find such a strong need to claim that it is absolutely perfect because it is the word of God? It doesn't take anything away from the church's cause. It's just a different, more realistic way to understand the faith.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I must agree with BBO and the grainof thought thinng. In my experiences with people and the bible we (myself included) spend too much time running into the trees to enjoy the forest. The bible has been through many hands and many tounges. It has and will continue to be interpreted in many ways. The most important thing is that the main message gets through. Hand of God aside, on the human end of the book the new and old testament came from two diffrent cultures Both were written long after the events described, the former after a long life as oral tradition, and taken out of the context of the rest of their holy books, and out of sequence as well. The books of the New Testament were written by a number of people, and I still don't understand completely understand the whole St. Paul and his letters being in there thing.

[General Septem]

Let's look at something else here, too. The passage says "she shall not go out as the menservants do". This could also mean that if a man were to sell his daughter, he would've been wrong in doing so and she shall not leave the house. See what I mean about interpretation? I don't think that just because a verse seems to say something that we should just ignore it.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Let's look at something else here, too. The passage says "she shall not go out as the menservants do". This could also mean that if a man were to sell his daughter, he would've been wrong in doing so and she shall not leave the house. See what I mean about interpretation? I don't think that just because a verse seems to say something that we should just ignore it.

When you read the rest of the old testament there is tremendous violence against women, it could also just mean that she would stay in the house, where she would be "safe" or only sexually availble to her master.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

...it could also just mean that she would stay in the house, where she would be "safe" or only sexually availble to her master.


Yet women don't follow the passage to that meaning anymore....:(

[Paisleyspeaker]

Sometimes people get stuck in their own time, and forget to look at things through the eyes of that era. Besides even today there are women who live by such rules, especially in the Middle east.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I believe it is in Romans Chapter 1 Verses 24 to 27 ...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24. Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves,[SIZE=1]

[/URL]25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

[URL="http://bible.cc/romans/1-26.htm"] (http://bible.cc/romans/1-25.htm)26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.[SIZE=1]




Okay, this might cover it, but Paul was really writing about idolatry, which he believes homosexuality is the end result of. He speaks of those who were given truth and twisted it, who still worshiped Idols, just now with a new name. And remeber that the old idol worship included sex. Their preistesses were also prostitutes. Paul says God left them to their wicked ways. I can't find the quotes right now, but Paul is anti woman and anti-marriage, and profoundly anti-sex. He said to live with a woman was to destroy ones soul, and marriage only lessened that distruction.

[beelzebub]

That was GREAT Paisley. I think its absurd for people to believe something so outdated.

So what if the bible says crap about homosexuality? What difference in our life will it make?

I know my community. Today GLBT youth care less about narrow religious viewpoints because there are many other viewpoints that they can learn from.

The bible is SO outdated. As I posted before, if you are going to take everything seriously in the bible you would be doing things that can get you arrested in today’s society (examples: Selling your Daughter into Slavery, Killing you neighbor for working on the Sabbath ... and on and on)

If we consider the entire bible to be god's word, then don’t we have to do everything that is spelled out in the bible? -or- must we reevaluate the importance of what was said?

[Paisleyspeaker]

The old testment was created to be not only a written record, but a living document. It was meant to be debated and discussed so that it stayed relevant. If you look at the culture that created it, you can see it was never meant to be stagnant. Christians have gotten lazy, it is not lack of faith that fosters questions, but a quest for a greater knowledge and faith.

[beelzebub]

What I hate is that the bible has perhaps 5 lines (max) on homosexuality and how bad it is.

However, the bible is RIDDLED with condemnations on fornication
(Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16).
Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).

Which sin is greater? Which sin deserves MORE attention?

Wasnt there something about "Ye who have sinned not cast the first" FUCKING "stone!" ????????

[General Septem]

Which sin is greater? Which sin deserves MORE attention?

Homosexuality because it is a sin against reason and nature, whereas fornication is only a sin against reason.

Fornication because it is so much more prevolent.

So to answer your question, both.


Wasnt there something about "Ye who have sinned not cast the first" FUCKING "stone!" ????????

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't throw stones, and those that do only give me a bad name.

As for the Bible being outdated, we have the Catholic Church. The Bible is the begining of Wisdom, not the end.

[beelzebub]

Homosexuality because it is a sin against reason and nature, whereas fornication is only a sin against reason.

Thats BULLSHIT! Prove to me that it is agains nature & reason.

[General Septem]

Thats BULLSHIT! Prove to me that it is agains nature & reason.
It's a sin against nature because assholes were not meant to be sexual organs.

It's a sin against reason because it involves an act of sexuality which is carried out in a selfish rather than selfless manner.

[beelzebub]

It's a sin against nature because assholes were not meant to be sexual organs.

Then why does it feel good when you do it in there? Analingus anyone?


It's a sin against reason because it involves an act of sexuality which is carried out in a selfish rather than selfless manner.

That’s the stupidest thing you have ever said. Makes NO SENSE.

Probably because you have never been laid, due to your condition (homeliness)

[General Septem]

Then why does it feel good when you do it in there? Analingus anyone?

Well for that matter, why does killing people feel good to some?


That’s the stupidest thing you have ever said. Makes NO SENSE.

I'm not surprised you don't understand; it takes wisdom to understand.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

That’s the stupidest thing you have ever said. Makes NO SENSE.


What's so hard to understand about it? He's saying that because it is an act that is done only to please one's self, it is a sin against reason. If the act had other intentions, such as to create a human life, it would be reasonably acceptable. It has a purpose outside of pleasing one's self. The pleasure is also there, it exists in some fassion with any good deed, but it has selfless qualities to it as well. The argument that he is making adds also that heterosexual fornication is just as bad when the same conditions apply.

[beelzebub]

What's so hard to understand about it? He's saying that because it is an act that is done only to please one's self, it is a sin against reason.

So all acts to please oneself like eating chocolate, a massage, a facial, nail polish, singing, wearing jewlery, traveling for fun, ... on & on are sinful? There is no rhyme or reason to this statement! A self-serving purpose is not a bad purpose. It is not without reason either.
That is a stupid religious idea! Thank god I left that shit behind.


The argument that he is making adds also that heterosexual fornication is just as bad when the same conditions apply.

Gee, thanks! It’s a little hard for us to not commit fornication when YOU PEOPLE WON'T VOTE IN GAY MARRIAGE!

I would dare say that Heterosexual fornication occurs MORE than homosexual fornication. (There are more of you)

Besides that, the idea of fornication is outdated and impractical. Who gives a crap about that? I say try it before you buy it.

[Paisleyspeaker]

The selfishness of the act isn't a very good standard. Based on just that any sexual act performed for the pleasure of the reciepient , like oral sex, isn't selfish, you doing it to please someone else. And one could also argue that in a world with such a high populatioin and dwindling resources that having children is selfish, which would make the hetro-just-for- procreation-ideal -sex you speak of a selfish act.

[General Septem]

So all acts to please oneself like eating chocolate, a massage, a facial, nail polish, singing, wearing jewlery, traveling for fun, ... on & on are sinful?

No, only using sexuality in a selfish way. When you use sex selfishly, then you can no longer share it with a spouse, and it becomes meaningless. And it does hurt all of us. Between people like you having sex with other men, and then half of the country being filled with sluts, it becomes meaningless for all of us, and that's a direct attack on me.


Gee, thanks! It’s a little hard for us to not commit fornication when YOU PEOPLE WON'T VOTE IN GAY MARRIAGE!

Um, it's not a matter of fornication here. It's about the fact that two men are not supposed to have sex.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

So all acts to please oneself like eating chocolate, a massage, a facial, nail polish, singing, wearing jewlery, traveling for fun, ... on & on are sinful? There is no rhyme or reason to this statement! A self-serving purpose is not a bad purpose. It is not without reason either.
That is a stupid religious idea! Thank god I left that shit behind.


On the contrary. Any of these acts that you listed fall within the sin of lust. They can also be extended into the sins of Gluttony, Greed, and Sloth. These are 4 of the 7 deadly sins. They also can lead you or others to the sin of Anger. The argument here is that every act that you conciously make should at least in some way have the intent of either helping others or ensuring your own survival. If you are doing something which helps others or ensures your survival, but these reasons do not exist in your intent then they should be considered just as bad as a sin where these factors do not exist at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I believe all of this whole heartedly. I'm just attempting to clarify what you refuse to understand.

[beelzebub]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I believe all of this whole heartedly. I'm just attempting to clarify what you refuse to understand.

It is refusal to accept. I despise this way of thinking. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, spas, fine clothing, or anything that you do to enjoy life and your body.

It annoys me that people feel that this stuff is wrong or sinful. When I hear it I just cannot help my disgust.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Instead of raising your nose in superiority you ought to look at it from a different perspective. If you have the funds to support doing these sorts of things on a daily basis, does that mean that you should? Is it not more noble and ..."human" to refrain from pampering one's self and to use some portion of the funds to help those less fortunate?

[beelzebub]

No, only using sexuality in a selfish way. When you use sex selfishly, then you can no longer share it with a spouse, and it becomes meaningless.

You have stated this before. You have said that just being homosexual makes the sex a selfish act. Sex is only selfish when you don’t care about the other persons needs and you just satisfy you own. This can occur in either sexuality. Selfless sex occurs in homosexual sex as well. To say that we are selfish for being homosexual is myopic and bigoted.

And it does hurt all of us. Between people like you having sex with other men, and then half of the country being filled with sluts, it becomes meaningless for all of us, and that's a direct attack on me.

This line of reasoning is what is WRONG with humanity. How does someone else affect YOUR purity or hurt you?

Take another look at the same statement. If a man in California shakes hands differently does that affect your ability to shake someone’s hand in NYC? Both are forms of physical contact. One does not demean the other.

When you make statements like this, it makes me feel that you are either goading me or you are just brainwashed by your occult.

[beelzebub]

Instead of raising your nose in superiority you ought to look at it from a different perspective. If you have the funds to support doing these sorts of things on a daily basis, does that mean that you should? Is it not more noble and ..."human" to refrain from pampering one's self and to use some portion of the funds to help those less fortunate?

I look at it like this. I worked hard to get my degrees and the money I earn. If I go to Sally and buy a mud mask and cucumber eye cream that is totally my prerogative and no one has the right to condemn it. It is none of their fucking business.

There are 3 things that you have to take in consideration to be happy: Mind Body & Spirit. No one should critique my attempts to insure my happiness.

[General Septem]

You have stated this before. You have said that just being homosexual makes the sex a selfish act.

No, fucking a guy in the ass is a selfish act. If by some miracle you managed to get it up over a woman, and for hypothetical purposes let's say this woman was your wife, then it wouldn't be selfish. In this case, you'd still hypothetically be a homosexual, but you'd have participated in a sex act that was not selfish. Therefore, being homosexual does not in and of itself make the act selfish.

On the other hand, sex between two people of the same sex is always selfish, because the act is intrinsically evil. You see, what makes fornication wrong is that the act is selfish. But even if the conditions are the same as for selfless heterosexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse is always selfish because the act of putting a penis in an asshole is intrinsically wrong, as is any act of willful sexual gratification other than vaginal intercourse.

Since the act itself is wrong, if you really cared about your partner, you'd love him or her enough to not have sex. Therefore, the act is selfish.

This does not apply to other pursuits of pleasure (so long as you don't stab people in the back to obtain them). It only applies to sex because sexual intercourse is the most intimate physical connection two people can share. Because of this, it can be considered the greatest physical gift one can give to another. Therefore, to use it for oneself is selfish.

[beelzebub]

There really is no point in discussing this issue with you. We are just drastically different people.

You think homosexuality is evil and I do not.

You think that when we have sex we are selfish and I do not.

I see that you are totally brainwashed by your bible. I am a free thinker.

[General Septem]

You think homosexuality is evil and I do not.

No. Dumbass. Homosexuality is not evil, two men or two women having sex is. Regardless of sexual preference. The only difference is that I don't want to. But there are things I do want to do that would be just as wrong.


I see that you are totally brainwashed by your bible. I am a free thinker.

No, you're a gay liberal who will do whatever you want without regard to any kind of ethics. I, on the other hand, am not brainwashed. I have a very finely tuned bullshit detector and when things don't make sense, I pick up on it right away.

[beelzebub]

No. Dumbass. Homosexuality is not evil, two men or two women having sex is. Regardless of sexual preference. The only difference is that I don't want to. But there are things I do want to do that would be just as wrong.

ho•mo•sex•u•al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

I think the definition of homosexual includes 2 people of the same sex HAVING sex.


you're a gay liberal who will do whatever you want without regard to any kind of ethics. I, on the other hand, am not brainwashed. I have a very finely tuned bullshit detector and when things don't make sense, I pick up on it right away.

No you are a judgmental, holier than thou, inexperienced and myopic teenager that writes a lot of bullshit on this forum. You need to GROW UP!

And,... I will do what ever the fuck I like with NO REPECT to your version of ethics. I will not allow narrow minded control freaks like yourself tell me how to live or control my life. I have my ethics, which you would never understand because you mind has been polluted with idiotic rules that make no common sense.

[General Septem]

I think the definition of homosexual includes 2 people of the same sex HAVING sex.
Includes. But as homosexual intercourse is the only sin involved, you need to be more specific.

RE: And,... I will do what ever the fuck I like with NO REPECT to your version of ethics. I will not allow narrow minded control freaks like yourself tell me how to live or control my life. I have my ethics, which you would never understand because you mind has been polluted with idiotic rules that make no common sense.

And what if your ethics included killing people for fun? I can't exactly sit by then can I?

[beelzebub]

And what if your ethics included killing people for fun? I can't exactly sit by then can I?

No, if they included killing then you would not sit by you would be stretched out. You and your kind would be first on my list.

Fortunately they don’t.

There is a big difference between killing someone and having sex with someone. Killing involves the will of one against another. Sex involves two people coming together with the same will.

Bad comparison.

[General Septem]

There is a big difference between killing someone and having sex with someone. Killing involves the will of one against another. Sex involves two people coming together with the same will.

Then what about conspiracies? If two people are conspiring together, they are also coming together with the same will.

[beelzebub]

Then what about conspiracies? If two people are conspiring together, they are also coming together with the same will.

Yes they are. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Sex however is an expression of attraction or love or both. These people are enjoying each other. That is different from conspiring to do something that harms other people.

[General Septem]

Sex however is an expression of attraction or love or both.
It's not love when it's selfish. That qualifies as lust.

[beelzebub]

It's not love when it's selfish. That qualifies as lust.

You must be a virgin. You dont even know what you are talking about.

There is nothing wrong with lust. There is nothing wrong with being selfish. You can have both and still love someone.

[General Septem]

You must be a virgin. You dont even know what you are talking about.

There is nothing wrong with lust. There is nothing wrong with being selfish. You can have both and still love someone.

And you do know what you're talking about? It's not like you have a normal sex life yourself. Lust and love are two sides of the same coin. The only exception is that lust is selfish and love is selfless. And the two are incompatible with each other if we're talking about a completely self-giving relationship.

Selfishness is what causes people to rob banks. Selfishness is what causes people to commit murder. Selfishness is what causes people to say "fuck you, buddy, I'm not carrying your ass out of this burning building. I'll break a nail." Certainly not the kind of mindset I want in a relationship.

[beelzebub]

And you do know what you're talking about? It's not like you have a normal sex life yourself.

You don’t know what type of sex life I have and I didn't say anything about normal or abnormal.


Lust and love are two sides of the same coin. The only exception is that lust is selfish and love is selfless. And the two are incompatible with each other if we're talking about a completely self-giving relationship.

If they are two sides of the same coin then they are compatible.

I think that a completely self-giving relationship is idealistic (i.e. not reality). In relationships there is take and give. You have to balance it to make it work.


Selfishness is what causes people to rob banks. Bla blab bla relationship.

Selfish people are also driven to do wonderful things. It depends on what level of selfishness that you are at. Everyone is selfish to some degree.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Selfish people are also driven to do wonderful things.


Is it their selfishness that makes them do these wonderful things? If not, then this argument is completely mute. If so, then they are no better a person for doing these wonderful things. As far as society is concerned, they are great. But if their intent is only for their own gain then they really are not better for it. Regardless, how often is a person's selfish acts beneficial to other people in comparison to the number of these selfish acts which are detrimental to others? I think that if any study could be done on this question, it would find that the latter immensely outnumbers the prior.

[beelzebub]

But if their intent is only for their own gain then they really are not better for it.

Thats just it, almost everything can be looked at as being done for your own gain. Whate ever the end result is (money, travel, experience), it is all personal gain. But that does not mean that it is bad.

If I go to school for my own gain, am I better for it?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

If I go to school for my own gain, am I better for it?


As I've been saying, it all relies on intent. Do you intend to use the extra money you'll gain from of this act to help others? Or will you use it to go to the bordello down the street?

It's not bad to make yourself happy as well as others. But the more effort you spend on yourself, the less you spend on others and the less of a good person you are.

[General Septem]

You don’t know what type of sex life I have and I didn't say anything about normal or abnormal.

You said that I don't know what I'm talking about because I am a virgin. In other words, I have no sex life, normal or otherwise. I was merely saying you don't exactly have a normal sex life either.


If they are two sides of the same coin then they are compatible.

Not necessarily. You can't view both sides of the same coin at the same time. If you throw a quarter on the table, you only see whichever side is facing up.


I think that a completely self-giving relationship is idealistic (i.e. not reality). In relationships there is take and give. You have to balance it to make it work.

Then you must have a selfish nature, because it happens all the time. Or perhaps you don't know the difference between selfishness and merely pursuing happiness. Selfishness always involves someone else's expense. Otherwise, it's neither selfish nor selfless, it's indifferent.


Selfish people are also driven to do wonderful things. It depends on what level of selfishness that you are at. Everyone is selfish to some degree.

These wonderful things may help me, but if they did it out of selfishness I would have to question their motives. After all, if a man invents a cure for the common cold out of selfishness, what's to stop him from adding some kind of addictive drug to the pills so that people will buy more of them? On the other hand, if he's looking to help society but also make a few bucks in the process, then that's somewhere between selfless and indifferent. Or if he's just looking to make a few bucks, it's indifferent.


If I go to school for my own gain, am I better for it?

But that isn't necessarily selfish. Selfishness is a lack of generosity. Now, if someone asked you to share a little of your knowledge yet you refused because you wanted it all for yourself, then that would be selfish. Otherwise, it's just indifferent.

[beelzebub]

You said that I don't know what I'm talking about because I am a virgin. In other words, I have no sex life, normal or otherwise. I was merely saying you don't exactly have a normal sex life either.

I believe that my sex life is normal. I take offense to you saying it is not because you don’t even have one. I also take offense because your statement is made from a narrow point of view.

People of 1800's England thought that you only had sex for the purpose of reproduction. Women were to lay flat and not move. Men were to be on top and "do their business". Absolutely no passion and no enjoyment of sex. This is contrary to our natural inclinations. Why deny and demean our personal enjoyment of sex? (with 2 consenting adults)


Not necessarily. You can't view both sides of the same coin at the same time. If you throw a quarter on the table, you only see whichever side is facing up.

But they are one in the same. You cannot have backs without fronts. While unseen they are still there.


Then you must have a selfish nature, because it happens all the time. Or perhaps you don't know the difference between selfishness and merely pursuing happiness. Selfishness always involves someone else's expense. Otherwise, it's neither selfish nor selfless, it's indifferent.
...These wonderful things may help me, but if they did it out of selfishness I would have to question their motives.

I disagree. I will have to draw personal example here: I joined Peace Corps because I wanted to gain professionally and personally. I have loved Africa ever since I was a young boy. I wanted to see it and live there. That was a selfish reason. (Notice the I, I ,I)

Now in the process I taught young women sciecne and technology. I authored a grant that awarded the school funds, to improve the conditions. While I gained FAR more that what I feel I gave, more of my girls passed the Biology & Chemistry national test (WAEC) than any in the past. Furthermore my school got a completly new water deliver system.

[General Septem]

People of 1800's England thought that you only had sex for the purpose of reproduction. Women were to lay flat and not move. Men were to be on top and "do their business". Absolutely no passion and no enjoyment of sex. This is contrary to our natural inclinations. Why deny and demean our personal enjoyment of sex? (with 2 consenting adults)

It's not just about procreation. Sex has been taboo for a long time up until very recently, and even moreso in a religious context. So back in the 1800s, that kind of thing was to be expected. Still, the notion of saying it's only for reproduction is not only prude but it's flat out wrong. Sexual intercourse must always be unitive and procreative.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't have sex if, for some reason, the woman wouldn't be able to conceive, i.e., if she's pregnant, or sterile, or if she'd had a hysterectomy due to cancer or some other illness, because nothing would have purposefully been done to prevent conception.

I've said this several times. Sex is an intimate physical connection between a man and a woman. That includes the physical pleasure part. It's an act of giving oneself to each other. The enjoyment is still there, but the difference is that rather than using each other's body for their own pleasure, in a selfless act they give each other's body for each other's pleasure. Same physical pleasure, but as it is a gift to each other, it's heightened.


But they are one in the same. You cannot have backs without fronts. While unseen they are still there.

Then maybe it was a bad analogy. I don't think you're getting the point.


I disagree. I will have to draw personal example here: I joined Peace Corps because I wanted to gain professionally and personally. I have loved Africa ever since I was a young boy. I wanted to see it and live there. That was a selfish reason. (Notice the I, I ,I)

But at the benefit of others. In the process you helped people. Now, if your only intent on helping people was that others wouldgive you recognition on being such a good person, then that would've been selfish in a bad way. If you'd compromised the benefit of others for your own personal gain, that would've been selfish in a bad way.

So while what you did may technically be considered selfish, if it was at the benefit of others I can't really say it was selfish. You wanted to see Africa. That's fine. You wanted to help people. Even better. You managed to do both at the same time and that's great.

[beelzebub]

It's not just about procreation. Sex has been taboo for a long time up until very recently, and even moreso in a religious context. So back in the 1800s, that kind of thing was to be expected. Still, the notion of saying it's only for reproduction is not only prude but it's flat out wrong. Sexual intercourse must always be unitive and procreative.

That is true but it does not include ALL human societies. Many other cultures in the past have been very liberal according to sex (Romans). Many societies have been sexually liberal while we were in the height of our conservatives (Sambia of PNG). The western world view is not the only world view.

Sex unites. That has value. If that is the only way that you can have sex than that does not make it selfish.


because nothing would have purposefully been done to prevent conception.

There has been nothing purposefully done to prevent conception with homosexuals. This is who we are.


Sex is an intimate physical connection between a man and a woman. That includes the physical pleasure part. It's an act of giving oneself to each other. The enjoyment is still there, but the difference is that rather than using each other's body for their own pleasure, in a selfless act they give each other's body for each other's pleasure. Same physical pleasure, but as it is a gift to each other, it's heightened.

I am saying that you can have the same thing in homosexual sex.

You are allowed to be as narrow as you want. Just don’t put that view on me.


So while what you did may technically be considered selfish, if it was at the benefit of others I can't really say it was selfish. You wanted to see Africa. That's fine. You wanted to help people. Even better. You managed to do both at the same time and that's great.

So... selfish motives can lead to good things sometimes.

[Ape-Shit]

You Guys got it all wrong! Homosexuality is not a Sin, it is a behavior. What is immoral to some is normal to others. Face the facts, it's a behavior and not a sin.

[General Septem]

Sex unites. That has value. If that is the only way that you can have sex than that does not make it selfish.

It only unites if you're not using each other. It has to be as selfless as possible or else it's not as unitive as it should be.


There has been nothing purposefully done to prevent conception with homosexuals. This is who we are.

It's not a contraceptive thing. It's because anal sex is a perversion of our sexuality. Men have a penis. Women have a vagina. Get the picture?


I am saying that you can have the same thing in homosexual sex.

But you can't, since the act itself will always be wrong. In the case of vaginal intercourse, the act itself is good, but intentions can lead to it being selfish.

But in the case of anal sex, the act itself is perverse, which makes it selfish by default since if you really loved each other you'd love each other enough to not have sex.


So... selfish motives can lead to good things sometimes.

Like I said, I wouldn't say that's selfish. But since you're inevitably going to argue it is, let's say for the sake of argument that your example was selfish. We're not talking about two people using each other as masturbation toys. We're talking about going to Africa. There's a difference.

[Ape-Shit]

You Guys still don't get it! Sex is Sex is Sex. Weather man on man or woman on woman it's still "SEX"! What difference does it make if boy A is sucking on boy B if it doesn't reflect you or me? What difference does it make for Girl C to be licking Girl D if you are not around to see? It is simply human behavior, some like it, some don't. (I actually prefer girls C & D to be lick'n on me:-)). Listen, it's only a sin if you believe it to be a SIN. It is "IN FACT HUMAN BEHAVIOR".......!

[tommygun]

It is "IN FACT HUMAN BEHAVIOR".......!

Well thats only a matter of opinion. I actually agree with you but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume that everyone would, some feel that it is simply a choice that people make rather than a programmed biological behaviour. Man I never know why homosexuality is such a popular topic! People see something different and are scared of it, lets all get over it eh?

[isis006]

whoever said that "homosexuality is a forgiveable sin" is wrong... in that, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN AT ALL. Why would loving someone be a sin?? Isn't that what God wants us to do is love one another? He never dictated that it had to be with a woman... it could be with anyone.

As far as that Bible quote goes, that was NOT written by God... the whole Bible was written by men at least 500 years after Jesus' death. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to take what they say as the truth... it's kind of like the game "Telephone": somthing gets said so much that it begins to get distorted and soon, its meaning is not the original meaning at all.

I'm so tired of people saying that homosexuality is a sin and that anyone who does it will burn in hell for all eternity... it's just freaking idiotic. What really gets me is that these people who say this, think that they're so perfect and loving because they're Christians but in fact, they're just spreading hate about everyone who isn't exactly like them. Do you really think God would hate people who he created?? That's ridiculous... even Jesus preached that we should love one another. So why would God condone hating someone?

Okay so maybe I've gone off on a rant here but I really think this needed to be said. Do with it what you will. see ya

[General Septem]

whoever said that "homosexuality is a forgiveable sin" is wrong... in that, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN AT ALL. Why would loving someone be a sin?? Isn't that what God wants us to do is love one another? He never dictated that it had to be with a woman... it could be with anyone.

Love is not a sin, lust is a sin, and putting a penis in an asshole is lust.

[isis006]

having sex with someone can also be an act of showing your love for that person... no matter how you do it. would you condemn a man and a woman having sex? because they love each other? probably not right? so dont condemn homosexuals for doing the same....

[General Septem]

having sex with someone can also be an act of showing your love for that person... no matter how you do it. would you condemn a man and a woman having sex? because they love each other? probably not right? so dont condemn homosexuals for doing the same....
Because homosexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse, it is a perversion of sexual intercourse. That's not what the asshole is for. It's not even healthy, things are supposed to go out of the asshole, not in it.

[isis006]

but if they cannot have sex because one of them doesn't have a vagina then how else would they simulate that? i mean how else woudl you show your love for the person in a sexual way?? and not just homosexuals have anal sex or oral sex etc... straight people have it too.. i dont think anyone is innocent or guilty in all of this. whatever we do inside our homes is private and should remain so... who are you to say that it's right or wrong?? everyone does things that other people do and dont approve of... we just have to get over it and move on. God doesnt hate us for it.

[General Septem]

but if they cannot have sex because one of them doesn't have a vagina then how else would they simulate that? i mean how else woudl you show your love for the person in a sexual way??

You don't. That's the point. Sex and love are not one and the same. Sexual intercourse is the most intimate physical display of love possible, but it is not in and of itself love. It's only to be shared between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman are physically able. Don't blame me for it; it's just not physically possible.



and not just homosexuals have anal sex or oral sex etc... straight people have it too..

That doesn't make it right in either case.



God doesnt hate us for it.

God doesn't hate us for murder either, but He still doesn't approve of it.

[isis006]

argh whatever! im not discussing this anymore.. see ya

[General Septem]

argh whatever! im not discussing this anymore.. see ya
Then why are you here in the first place? It's not like we were having some random conversation and it came up. I wasn't the one who typed "bullshit.com" in your browser and told you to get involved with this thread. I didn't even tell you to reply to any of my replies to you. If you're not expecting a debate, this is probably the wrong place. If you want to just state your opinion and move on, that's fine too, but don't get all frustrated because I'm debating with you.

[isis006]

i dont care if you're debating me... i'm just saying that at a certain pt i get tired of discussing something over and over.. im not saying you're wrong for debating me... i just said that im not interested in discussing it any further.

[beelzebub]

Because homosexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse, it is a perversion of sexual intercourse. That's not what the asshole is for. It's not even healthy, things are supposed to go out of the asshole, not in it.

So a blow job is a perversion too? Its only lust?

[General Septem]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So a blow job is a perversion too? Its only lust?
Um, yes.

[beelzebub]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Um, yes.

Well, that’s how you see it. I think that is a narrow minded way to look at sex. There are many ways to enjoy another person’s body and all of them are good. As long and you are having fun and don’t hurt anyone, do what you will.

Nothing you can say will ever make me feel that homosexuality is wrong or evil or a sin or even less than heterosexual sex.

The mere fact that you, a 17 year old virgin, are having this debate is laughable. At the same time I find it sad that you choose to limit your pleasures. However; do what you want with your life just dont get in my way.

[General Septem]

laughable. At the same time I find it sad that you choose to limit your pleasures..

I'm not. I just refuse to use my dick selfishly.

[beelzebub]

I'm not. I just refuse to use my dick selfishly.

Uhhhh you haven’t use your dick at all.
No experience but full of advice. Insane!

[General Septem]

Uhhhh You havnt used your dick at all. You are an inexperienced little boy and by the look of you on "myspace" you will probably never use your dick on a woman (unless she isn't getting paid).
I won't use my dick on a woman unless she isn't getting paid. I'm sure you meant unless she /is/ getting paid, but I'm still going to take what you said and run with it. I use my dick every day, to take a leak. You do remember that function of the dick, right? Or are you unable to use it for that anymore?

I'm glad you think I am unattractive, because I can list scores of girls who are obsessed with me. Just like boh3m3 said, there's two sides of human nature - there are going to be people who say "i wanna do u!!!!!" and people who say "I'm gonna kill you!!". If there are specific percentages, I'm glad you're one of the negative, because that just means more of the positives are going to be cute girls.

[beelzebub]

I won't use my dic...........es are going to be cute girls.

Sorry. I changed my posting. I felt it was cruel and unnecessary.

[General Septem]

Sorry. I changed my posting. I felt it was cruel and unnecessary.

Thank you. I shall respond to what you changed it to then:


Uhhhh you haven’t use your dick at all.
No experience but full of advice. Insane!

I needn't have died or murdered someone to say murder is immoral.

[beelzebub]

Thank you. I shall respond to what you changed it to then: I needn't have died or murdered someone to say murder is immoral.

There is a difference between having sex and commiting murder. Taking another persons life is very different from loving someone.

You are like a preist talking about the best way to raise a child.

[General Septem]

There is a difference between having sex and commiting murder. Taking another persons life is very different from loving someone.

You are like a preist talking about the best way to raise a child.

We're not sharing experiences though, we're talking about morality, which is very clear-cut.

[beelzebub]

We're not sharing experiences though, we're talking about morality, which is very clear-cut.

AND RELATIVE. Morality is not blind to every situation. Murder is unlawfull killing. Homosexual sex is not. Two different situations two different sets of rules.

[General Septem]

AND RELATIVE. Morality is not blind to every situation. Murder is unlawfull killing. Homosexual sex is not. Two different situations two different sets of rules.
If you don't feel morality is clear cut, then why say murder is wrong? Why not respect others beliefs if they think it's ok to murder?

[beelzebub]

If you don't feel morality is clear cut, then why say murder is wrong? Why not respect others beliefs if they think it's ok to murder?

I dont know what you mean by clear cut. Murder (legal definition) is wrong. Homosexuality is not so clear cut.

Perhaps you are using the bible? Remember I do not care what it says.

[General Septem]

I dont know what you mean by clear cut. Murder (legal definition) is wrong. Homosexuality is not so clear cut.
I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morality.

[beelzebub]

I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morality.

Actually you are just talking about what you see as morality. I dont agree.

[General Septem]

Actually you are just talking about what you see as morality. I dont agree.
Law aside, who is to say killing someone is wrong then?

[beelzebub]

I'm glad you think I am unattractive, because I can list scores of girls who are obsessed with me. Just like boh3m3 said, there's two sides of human nature - there are going to be people who say "i wanna do u!!!!!" ...

Yet they have never been with you to bed? It is sad that you use your internet as validation of your sexual prowess. You need to do the real thing. Not sex, but like meeting people and becoming intimate with them. Until then, grow up!

[General Septem]

Yet they have never been with you to bed? It is sad that you use your internet as validation of your sexual prowess. You need to do the real thing. Not sex, but like meeting people and becoming intimate with them. Until then, grow up!

Not to bed, no. I'm staying faithful to my future wife, she's the only one that deserves me. as for getting intimate in other ways, I've got nothing against that.

By the way, most of the girls I'd list I know in real life.

[Unimmune]

Personally I'm not gay, but I am against this whole sin spoken from the bible hypocracy. First off the greeks and romans, two of the founding societies of modern social structure, held massive orgies of men and women fuckin eachother all out way before the concepts of the bible were stolen from the pagan beliefs. So if you wanna judge someone based on a book of opinion like the majority of people do, then you can plainly see how segregation always repeats itself in different forms. So, I ask when is the mass of the masses going to open their eyes and stop letting a book that was originally just written to teach a few opinions on right and wrong and taken way out of context determine how they veiw their fellow mans actions?

[General Septem]

Obviously you need to brush up on history.

And just because the Greeks and Romans had orgies doesn't make it right. That kind of behaviour is certainly not respectful.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Not respectful to whom? I know that you prefer sex to be savored for marriage. But there is nothing in common morals or anything beyond your strict religious rules that says this is how things need to be. Just try to be happy that these people are just having sex, making each other happy, and not doing anything to hurt anyone who is unwilling.

[General Septem]

It's not respectful because people are using each other as masturbation toys. It's really not a good way to show respect for someone.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

That's the case only if that "someone" thinks so. If you don't feel that you are being disrespected, then you're not. You, G-S don't think that it's a good way to show respect for someone, while others would say that it is a perfect way to show respect for someone. Obviously, most people would not have sex with someone that they didn't even respect to a large degree...

[General Septem]

I suppose it depends on how well they know each other.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Many people would say that having sex with someone IS getting to "know" them!

[General Septem]

But that's like saying that someone's body is all they are. There's more to people than their bodies. Therefore, disrespect. ;)

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

No, there's nothing wrong with getting to know the body before the brain/personality. Social customs say that the latter generally comes first, but customs are changing and there's nothing wrong with that because it's really not hurting anyone!

[General Septem]

But the real question is, who paid for dinner? :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Why? Is it because if she paid for dinner it's ok, but if he did then it's not? What if they split the bill, then is it okay to do the nasty? That comment really didn't make a lick of sense....:confused:

[General Septem]

It was a joke. :confused:

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Okay, fair enough. So if whoever paid for dinner thinks it's okay to have sex then it's okay. Since we're assuming that rape is not involved in these instances, it is always okay. I'm glad we agree!;)

[General Septem]

Unless it's Tuesday. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Oh damn...that's today isn't it? Will you forgive me this time???:confused:

[General Septem]

But in less than an hour it'll be tommorrow, in which case today will be yesterday, and tommorrow will be today. But if tommorrow is today and today is yesterday, then the day after tommorrow can never come because tommorrow is today. But if tommorrow is today, the day after tommorrow would just be tommorrow, which would still be today. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

So that's a maybe then?

[General Septem]

So that's a maybe then?
Chances are, maybe definitely possibly. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Perfect! Now I know that you'll crumble and agree to my whining pleas!:D

[General Septem]

But how can you plea if you cannot... speak? :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

If nothing else I'll tap into my ESP.

[General Septem]

I have to admit, you got me on that one. :/ lol I think the thread is gotten a little off topic :confused:

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

What? ESP has nothing to do with homos in the bible now?

[General Septem]

There may have been some homo who claimed to have some Pagan magical powers but I don't know. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Well yea, but that was just that hairy weed smoking kid in those stupid movies.:rolleyes:

[beelzebub]

But that's like saying that someone's body is all they are. There's more to people than their bodies. Therefore, disrespect. ;)

I believe that you and your body are one. Therefore getting to know anothers body is getting to know that person in one way.

Likewise; just talking to someone doesn't give you the full picture. That's isn't all they are either.

[Pissed Off]

We have been discussing homsexuality (some of you for a long time). Many have said it is sin, and that the bible says it's wrong. I have a few hairs to split. The only place I myself have read, and had others read to me is Leviticus 18:22 " Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." All the sexual rules preceding that clearly warn against sex. "Do Not have sexual relations". But this one says do not lie with. So is it really an admonision against sex? when it doesn't say sex. And it says not to lie with a man, so does it address lesbianism at all? If there are other passages that repeat that same admonission, please post them.
Grow in spirituality. Christianaty is a lie, created by the church, for the church, to control the masses. Nothing you quote from the "bible" will ever help you. Angles will. Ask.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

The only place I myself have read, and had others read to me is Leviticus 18:22 " Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." All the sexual rules preceding that clearly warn against sex. "Do Not have sexual relations". But this one says do not lie with.

Maybe the passage is being understood the wrong way. As you said, the word used is "lie", not "sex." Maybe we are reading the wrong description of the word "lie." Maybe it should be read "do not tell falsehoods with a man as one does with a woman." This would simply say that it is more acceptable to lie to a woman than to a man because back then a woman was understood as less of a person.

Then again, maybe the bible wasn't written to perfection, and it should just be read as a means of understanding good morals and ways to live rather than a book of clear and concise laws that must be followed to a 'T'.

[General Septem]

Maybe the passage is being understood the wrong way. As you said, the word used is "lie", not "sex." Maybe we are reading the wrong description of the word "lie." Maybe it should be read "do not tell falsehoods with a man as one does with a woman." This would simply say that it is more acceptable to lie to a woman than to a man because back then a woman was understood as less of a person.
They'd be two different words in Hebrew. And also probably in Italian or Latin, which is probably what the Vatican speaks. What did the people in Sodom and Guemorrah do then?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

That's the point I was trying to make. The bible is a good piece of literature, but it's not perfect. It doesn't hurt anything to admit that.

[General Septem]

No. I mean, "lie" may mean both to bear false witness and to sleep with someone in English, but in Hebrew this problem almost certainly isn't there, and when the Catholic Church interpreted this to mean that two men should not have sex, I don't think they just decided this over a few beers and a poker game.

The Bible, perfect or not, is not all there is. There's also the Church which we believe the Holy Spirit guides.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Well it is only mentioned once, and was written in a completely different time. Who's to say that the people in charge of the Catholic church back then had morals so perfect then that they are still completely applicable today? That even something that was given only one sentance of thought in a thousand page book needs to be so strictly adheared to? Especially when there have been other passages that are longer in this book and have been refuted by today's society simply because they see controversy to it in other sections of the book. They then just choose which one to adhere to, and who's to say that we've chosen correctly?

[General Septem]

Actually it's been mentioned many times, not only throughout the Bible but also through letters written by the forefathers of the Church. They went through great lengths to explain exactly why this is as it is. I believe the Church to be as inspired by God as the Bible was, so official Church writings are just as applicable to the argument as the Scriptures.

But even just talking about the Bible, we're not just talking about one sentence here. What about Sodom and Guemorrah?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

who are sodom & guemorroah?

[General Septem]

Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities that were destroyed by God for being disobedient. You've heard of the term "Sodomy" right?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

So is there any proof that this Sodom and Guemorrah ever even existed? FYI, the bible does not count as proof, we are looking for concrete evidence here. Then if they did exist, what is the apparant reason for their downfall?

[General Septem]

So is there any proof that this Sodom and Guemorrah ever even existed? FYI, the bible does not count as proof, we are looking for concrete evidence here. Then if they did exist, what is the apparant reason for their downfall?
Actually for the longest time they weren't said to have existed, but a group of archaeologists dug them up. Both cities had been destroyed by fire.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Okay, so what does that have to do with homosexuality then? Maybe that's where the term "flaming homo" came from?:rolleyes: :p

[General Septem]

Because their disobedience to God was their sexual perversion. I'm not sure about the flaming homo bit but it's entirely likely. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

So then why hasn't god ever acted like this again towards society today? I'd think that today's society has much more disobedience to god through sexual perversion than ever. Most major cities all across the US should be laid to waste because of this. However, maybe that's what happened in New Orleans. I'd have to say that the sexual perversion was probably worse there than most other places in the world....

[General Septem]

Well, God also promised not to flood the world again. He made His point. I doubt that's what happened to New Orleans. If we knew how God worked, I think we'd all be a lot happier people, but we'd also be in Heaven. :p

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Now you're always acting like you know exactly how God works anyways. Are you saying that you've alraedy made it to heaven?

[General Septem]

Now you're always acting like you know exactly how God works anyways. Are you saying that you've alraedy made it to heaven?
Some things we know and some things we don't know. I don't know why God hasn't destroyed other cities. I do know God is merciful. So in that respect I'm not entirely sure why He destroyed Sodom and Gomorroah, but I'm sure God had His reasons. This is the kind of thing we don't know about God. But whether or not it is okay for two men to have sex is already very clearly known.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

But whether or not it is okay for two men to have sex is already very clearly known.

...because a book told you so.....

[General Septem]

...because a book told you so.....
Well that is what we're talking about, isn't it?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Yes, and what I'm saying is that this book of yours is not perfect. It doesn't help you to defend the case that it is. It really only creates more trouble for you by claiming that it is perfect and trying to yet defend parts which conflict.

[General Septem]

Yes, and what I'm saying is that this book of yours is not perfect. It doesn't help you to defend the case that it is. It really only creates more trouble for you by claiming that it is perfect and trying to yet defend parts which conflict.
But nothing does conflict.

[memeroot]

only if you believe "thou shalt not kill" was meant to read
thou shalt not kill except for .....

[General Septem]

only if you believe "thou shalt not kill" was meant to read
thou shalt not kill except for .....

Actually it's "thou shall not murder". And what exactly are you talking about?

[rawsugar]

The bible has been translated and revised so many times over the ages to try and interpret anything it says too literally is ridiculous.
Abi

[beelzebub]

The bible has been translated and revised so many times over the ages to try and interpret anything it says to literally is ridiculous.
Abi

I agree. And I add: the bible is nothing bore than a book wirtten by men A LONG TIME AGO. Furthermore; it does not have any value other than any other book.

[General Septem]

I agree. And I add: the bible is nothing bore than a book wirtten by men A LONG TIME AGO.
That doesn't change anything. It's not like adaptations haven't been made by the Catholic Church. Sure, if the Bible's all you're going by, it leaves a lot to interpretation, but that's what the Church is for.

[beelzebub]

That doesn't change anything. It's not like adaptations haven't been made by the Catholic Church. Sure, if the Bible's all you're going by, it leaves a lot to interpretation, but that's what the Church is for.

Of course it does. It's outdated and does not apply in this world. I have shown this in prior listings. It’s hard to take such a contradictory, immoral and backwards book seriously. I see the bible as nothing more than a history book with a narrow view.

Screw adaptations by the RCC! I could care less.

[General Septem]

Of course it does. It's outdated and does not apply in this world. I have shown this in prior listings. It’s hard to take such a contradictory, immoral and backwards book seriously.

Maybe you need to look into it further, because it's not contradictory, certainly not immoral, and not "backwards".

[beelzebub]

Maybe you need to look into it further, because it's not contradictory, certainly not immoral, and not "backwards".

Whatever. I dont care what you think.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

There are contradictory parts in the Bible which you have given side-winding arguments for in the past, due to the way that you wish to understand them. The book is definately not immoral because its intent is the opposite. I don't understand how it could be considered backwards.

It is a good book for the fact that it is moral. It is a guide, but it is not perfect and that doesn't mean that it should be rejected. We will never make a book that is perfect, but we will never see one that is better than the bible.

[beelzebub]

There are contradictory parts in the Bible which you have given side-winding arguments for in the past, due to the way that you wish to understand them. The book is definately not immoral because its intent is the opposite. I don't understand how it could be considered backwards.

Selling daughters into slavery: immoral
Killing a neighbor for not obeying the Sabbath: backwards

I could go on and on with this crap from that book. But whats the point? You all have been brainwashed.

Just because you have the intent of writing moral things does not make the outcome moral.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I said before that it's not perfect. That doesn't mean that it needs to be thrown away. Just because you can find a select few passages that are immoral does not mean that the book in its entirety isn't moral. That is what I am saying, in its entirety the book is moral.

[General Septem]

RE: Selling daughters into slavery: immoral

Slavery as we think of it is unacceptable by Catholicism.


RE: Killing a neighbor for not obeying the Sabbath: backwards

Also not acceptable by Catholicism. Has never been acceptable. Taken out of context.

If you've got a problem with the Jews because of the Bible, go ahead, but every reason you have to hate Catholicism is not true of Catholicism.

[beelzebub]

RE: Selling daughters into slavery: immoral
Slavery as we think of it is unacceptable by Catholicism.

So even the catholics are against the bible. Great!


RE: Killing a neighbor for not obeying the Sabbath: backwards
Also not acceptable by Catholicism. Has never been acceptable. Taken out of context.

Exodus: 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Rather clear in my opinion and its not taken out of context at all. It's just one of many backward ethics found in the bible.


If you've got a problem with the Jews because of the Bible, go ahead, but every reason you have to hate Catholicism is not true of Catholicism.

I don't have a problem with the Jews I have a problem with the judeo-xtian religion and its followers (as well as others). They are mindless trapped thinkers in my opinion.

[General Septem]

RE: So even the catholics are against the bible. Great!

Again with the not capitalizing proper nouns. And no, we're not against the Bible. The Bible is the begining of wisdom, not the end.


RE: Exodus: 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Rather clear in my opinion and its not taken out of context at all. It's just one of many backward ethics found in the bible.

Yes, but Jesus said "let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone". Therefore, this passage does not mean to put people to death for this, but to not do this.


RE: I don't have a problem with the Jews I have a problem with the judeo-xtian religion and its followers (as well as others). They are mindless trapped thinkers in my opinion.

But your criticism of the Bible doesn't have anything to do with Catholicism. It was the Jews that stoned people to death for various things, not Christians.

[Ape-Shit]

Which was writen many years ago by men. It was used to set up rules to govern peoples behavior.

There are many books on religion and there are many different religions. Who's to say who is right?

If you believe something to be (even though it may not be so) then in your mind it is so.

[beelzebub]

RE: Exodus: 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Yes, but Jesus said "let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone". Therefore, this passage does not mean to put people to death for this, but to not do this.

Supposedly the entire bible was written by the "hand of god" so therefore son contradicts father. However since the 2 (+1 = trinity) are one in the same it is a self contradiction. Great! Another example of how the bible contradicts itself!


RE: I don't have a problem with the Jews I have a problem with the judeo-xtian religion and its followers (as well as others). They are mindless trapped thinkers in my opinion.
But your criticism of the Bible doesn't have anything to do with Catholicism. It was the Jews that stoned people to death for various things, not Christians.

Ahhhhhh... but they were the chosen people. You know closer to god than anyone else.
All xtian faiths are founded on the jewish faith hence the word: Judeo-Xtian.

[General Septem]

RE: Supposedly the entire bible was written by the "hand of god" so therefore son contradicts father. However since the 2 (+1 = trinity) are one in the same it is a self contradiction. Great! Another example of how the bible contradicts itself!

Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. Jesus didn't say not to stone people to death for their sins, he said /let the man who has never sinned/ cast the first stone. So again we have the equation, If y does x, stone y. The point is not "stone y," it's "don't do x". The bit about stoning is only there to signify just how serious it is.

It's kind of like how we say, "he should be put to death for that." It doesn't mean he MUST be put to death for it, only that he would deserve to be put to death for what he did. Until Jesus came along, it was all "he should be put to death for that". And then when Jesus came along, He completed the sentence: "you should be put to death, but I forgive you". It's not contradictory at all.


RE: Ahhhhhh... but they were the chosen people. You know closer to god than anyone else.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Nor does the fact that you try and critisize Christians for believing things that we really don't.

[beelzebub]

Jesus didn't say not to stone people to death for their sins, he said /let the man who has never sinned/ cast the first stone. So again we have the equation, If y does x, stone y. The po... bla bla bla

So jesus overrrides the laws laid down by god? The "son's" law is better then the "father"? The bible says they are one with the holy spirit making the trinity.

RE: Ahhhhhh... but they were the chosen people. You know closer to god than anyone else.


That doesn't make any sense at all. Nor does the fact that you try and critisize Christians for believing things that we really don't.

Catholics are christians.

[General Septem]

So jesus overrrides the laws laid down by god? The "son's" law is better then the "father"? The bible says they are one with the holy spirit making the trinity.

If you'd go back and read it this time, no, Jesus didn't override anything. He just explained it.



Catholics are christians.

What does that have to do with what you just replied to?

[beelzebub]

If you'd go back and read it this time, no, Jesus didn't override anything. He just explained it.

Dont be stupid. At first, god says kill those who dont obey the sabbath.

Jesus says dont kill anyone, you all are no better!

Kill + Don't Kill = TOTAL CONTRADICTION



What does that have to do with what you just replied to?

Nothing about Jesus. It seemed you were saying that catholic and xtian are seperate.

[General Septem]

Dont be stupid. At first, god says kill those who dont obey the sabbath.

Jesus says dont kill anyone, you all are no better!

Kill + Don't Kill = TOTAL CONTRADICTION

Because you're misunderstanding the original. Leviticus says a man should be killed for not obeying the Sabbath. It doesn't say to kill a man for not obeying the Sabbath, it just says a man should be killed because it's a serious offense. Regardless of the fact that he should be killed, it isn't our place to do so.

Another way of looking at it is like this. For not obeying the Sabbath, a man shall be put to death. But Leviticus doesn't say by whom. And 99 times out of a hundred, when the Bible talks about death, it's talking about Hell. And the passage says "he shall be put to death", not "put him to death". So if a man does not obey the Sabbath, he shall go to Hell, i.e., it is a mortal sin. Now, if he repents, he will be forgiven, and that's the point Jesus was making when He saved Mary Magdaline.



Nothing about Jesus. It seemed you were saying that catholic and xtian are seperate.

Go back and read it again.

[beelzebub]

Because you're misunderstanding the original.

I misunderstand NOTHING. You ignore truth.
Go back and read it again.

[General Septem]

I misunderstand NOTHING. You ignore truth.
Go back and read it again.
No, you go back and read my post again, don't just quote the first sentence and disregard the rest of it. I explained to you exactly why it is not a contradiction.

[beelzebub]

No, you go back and read my post again, don't just quote the first sentence and disregard the rest of it. I explained to you exactly why it is not a contradiction.

No, you go back and read my post again, don't just quote the first sentence and disregard the rest of it. I explained to you exactly why it is not a contradiction

[General Septem]

No, you go back and read my post again, don't just quote the first sentence and disregard the rest of it. I explained to you exactly why it is not a contradiction

Well this is getting nowhere. It's becoming apparent that you won't listen to a damn fucking thing anyone says if you don't agree with it.

[Ape-Shit]

Sounds familiar!

[General Septem]

Sounds familiar!

Actually, I've learned one or two things from 'bubba. I'm not so arrogant that just because I disagree with him about abortion that I can't take advantage of the knowledge he does have. If you think it sounds familiar, look in the mirror.

[beelzebub]

Well this is getting nowhere. It's becoming apparent that you won't listen to a damn fucking thing anyone says if you don't agree with it.

To say that one "should be put to death" is different from "will be put to death" neglects the underlying theme if others don’t comply with what you expect their death is preferable. I feel you are playing semantics and that is VERY ANNOYING.

Not stoning a whore is what Jesus spoke of. He let Mary M. go because he did not see this law as a good one. Yet god, the father, wrote that law. The son has contradicted the father.

There are so many contradictions in the bible. SOOOOO MANY
What is so horrible about that? The horror comes from literalists who fervently believe that the bible is actually written by god. If he contradicts himself then he cannot be perfect.

Fact: The bible contradicts itself; therefore, men wrote the bible.

So lets just treat it as a book of writings of men in an attempt to understand god.

[General Septem]

To say that one "should be put to death" is different from "will be put to death" neglects the underlying theme if others don’t comply with what you expect their death is preferable. I feel you are playing semantics and that is VERY ANNOYING.

Not necessarily. Just because a particular action is bad enough that one should by all rights be put to death for it doesn't mean their death is preferable. Think of it this way. If your son killed someone, would you want to kill him for it? Of course not. The action is bad, but it is somewhat justified because human nature causes us to screw up. God understands our nature, and that it's unreasonable to expect us to be perfect, which is why, even though the things we do are atrocious, God always forgives us if we ask Him to.



There are so many contradictions in the bible. SOOOOO MANY
What is so horrible about that? The horror comes from literalists who fervently believe that the bible is actually written by god. If he contradicts himself then he cannot be perfect.

There are only contradictions if you're one of those people who has to take everything 100% literally. But the fact is, some of these contradictions may well be there on purpose. In three of the Gospels, Jesus cleansed the temple at the end of his ministry. In the fourth, He cleansed the temple in the begining. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter when it happened. It doesn't mean the Bible wasn't written by God, it means the Bible is not a history book.

[REPTILE]

LOL. So much arguing. Well I want to comment on the subject aswell.


The bible HAS been changed drastically by people to be as they see fit. Some religious leaders changed parts of it to fit their liking. However the main discussion here is rather the bible contradicts itself through its interpretations. Now I dont know about too many historical religious leaders or this or that etc... But I've learning through my Faith something so SIMPLE and IN YOUR face I'm amazed people miss it. SIMPLY PUT, who knows what "parts" of the bible are "legit". Let me tell you about the FAILSAFE God created, its called Jesus Christ. Jesus was sent to this earth to be an example to us all. Earlier you guys mentioned the whole "selling your daughter as a slave" thing, and said it was a contradiction. Well All I know is that I choose to learn from the teachings of Jesus. Regardless of what the "modern day" bible says (Which has been put through so many changes and such) I learn from the living, breathing example himself. Would Jesus ever sell someone as a slave HELL NO (lol), would he kill someone for not obeying the Sabbath? You guesses it, NO! Fact is Jesus loved us so damn much he gave up his freakin' life for us, so that the blood he shed (HIS BLOOD) would always wash away our sins (metaphorically speaking).

[REPTILE]

This thread was originally about homosexuality

Against it: yes, I think its wrong. However I have friends that are gay and I dont hate them or have anything against them. They are people and although its wrong, we're all still connected to one another. Would Jesus hate someone because they're homosexual, No (he never HATES). It was mentioned before how Rome would have giant orgies (man/man, women/women, etc) well back then also existed incest type stuff aswell (brother/sister, etc) does that make incest Ok simply because one of the most important and influential civilizations did it, no. It was also mentioned earlier that doing someone by the a$$ is selfish, etc... I agree that the anus was made for other things, but I dont think doing it with your wife that way is a sin (if you both want to do it, not just for your own pleasure). Also, blowjobs were mentioned. Again, It is wrong cause nowdays people do it with random people with the whole "casual sex" bullshit as there alibi. Like the whole "anal" thing, if its with your wife and you both want to do it then its ok, two people having sex should be a way of expressing your love to one another; hence - Selfless. Nothing wrong with getting "creative" (muahahaha...) as long as its two people in love and united and they BOTH want to. Now for two men or two women to do it is wrong. God created man, and woman - point: compatability. to simplify: penis and vagina / pecker and pussy, whatever you wanna call it (lol). Two penis' or two vaginas = not meant to be. Not only by nature and physics, but by Gods will. The Bible may have its contradictions, but the core remains that its a man and a woman (Adam and Eve/ not Adam and Steve, or Madam and Eve). Everything in the universe is about Balance, man/woman (Yin/Yang) is no different.

[beelzebub]

Against it: yes, I think its wrong. However I have friends that are gay and I dont hate them or have anything against them. They are people and although its wrong, we're all still connected to one another.

That’s sad; it’s not wrong. It’s totally right for me and for others. I cannot imagine life any differently. What’s wrong is how others judge others based on their own narrow perception of reality.


It was mentioned before how Rome would have giant orgies (man/man, women/women, etc) well back then also existed incest type stuff aswell (brother/sister, etc) does that make incest Ok simply because one of the most important and influential civilizations did it, no.

BTW incest is still around. It did not end with the Roman Empire. Homosexuality is not orgies or incestuous.
In the past the vast majority of society though that other races were inferior. That is wrong and has passed and so will the thought that homosexuality is wrong.


It was also mentioned earlier that doing someone by the a$$ is selfish, etc... I agree that the anus was made for other things, but I dont think doing it with your wife that way is a sin (if you both want to do it, not just for your own pleasure).

I agree, and not only restricted to wives but partners as well.


Also, blowjobs were mentioned. Again, It is wrong cause nowdays people do it with random people with the whole "casual sex" bullshit as there alibi. Like the whole "anal" thing, if its with your wife and you both want to do it then its ok, two people having sex should be a way of expressing your love to one another; hence - Selfless. Nothing wrong with getting "creative"

Totally agree. Giving pleasure is not selfish.


(muahahaha...) as long as its two people in love and united and they BOTH want to. Now for two men or two women to do it is wrong.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s narrow for you to say it’s all right for me but wrong for everyone else.

[QUOTE=REPTILE] God created man, and woman - point: compatability. to simplify: penis and vagina / pecker and pussy, whatever you wanna call it (lol). Two penis' or two vaginas = not meant to be. Not only by nature and physics, but by Gods will. The Bible may have its contradictions, but the core remains that its a man and a woman (Adam and Eve/ not Adam and Steve, or Madam and Eve). Everything in the universe is about Balance, man/woman (Yin/Yang) is no dfferent.

If god created penis for vagina only, then why would he create me the way he did?
Is having the penis and vagina the only condition that allows someone to love?
If homosexuality is so "unnatural" why is it found in many other organisms?

[General Septem]

If god created penis for vagina only, then why would he create me the way he did?

Perhaps because He is calling you to a life of celibacy. Perhaps God had something different in mind than for you to get married and have kids. Or maybe it's nothing more than a birth defect, like pedophilia or scizophrenia.


Is having the penis and vagina the only condition that allows someone to love?

Since when do you need to screw everyone you love?


If homosexuality is so "unnatural" why is it found in many other organisms?

Same reason other organisms are born occasionally with too many legs or without a working heart. Shit happens.

[beelzebub]

Perhaps because He is calling you to a life of celibacy. Perhaps God had something different in mind than for you to get married and have kids. Or maybe it's nothing more than a birth defect, like pedophilia or scizophrenia.

That’s what I don’t get about people like you. All the things that you have listed are negative. There is nothing negative about the way I live. I have a committed relationship, I work and do it well and I am raising a wonderful child. Everything I do I have done well. I share no side effects with disabled people or mentally retarded people OTHER than the prejudice from people like you.



Same reason other organisms are born occasionally with too many legs or without a working heart. Shit happens.

Again with the negative. Some organisms are born with a different color; others have a different way of reacting to disease. All of these are a result of the diversity of organisms in response to a changing environment. Perhaps we can learn from life’s built in "mechanisms" to change and grow with it. If you don’t recognize and respect the diversity of life then that is just your narrow minded way to deal with these things. Organisms that are too specialized (narrow) are doomed to extinction.

[REPTILE]

OK, First of all Im not juding you or anyone by saying your evil or anything like that. Im just saying that homosexuality is wrong. I dont hate you or anyone for doing it.

Second, (Quote: Beezlzebub - BTW incest is still around. It did not end with the Roman Empire. Homosexuality is not orgies or incestuous.
In the past the vast majority of society though that other races were inferior.)

I never said orgies were homo or incestious nor did I say any of it ended with the Roman empire. Someone questioned that if such a high society as the Romans did it if it was ok, I was simply saying, "No"

Third, (Quote: Beelzebub - What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s narrow for you to say it’s all right for me but wrong for everyone else.)

I never said its ok for me and not for everyone else, its ok for "married couples" is what i meant, incase you misunderstood.

Fourth, (Quote: Beelzebub - If god created penis for vagina only, then why would he create me the way he did?)

Perhaps a test to see if you will do whats right? Or maybe a birth defect like the General said. Maybe you decided you like men. I know someone who was straight and one day decided to "try other things", now he likes men. Some people get rejected by a girl(s) and think they have no chance (which is not true) and may try it with a guy, I dunno

[REPTILE]

And btw, is "Narrow" your favorite word, lol. You dont know me to tell me I'm narrow. I try to see the best in people, im openminded (maybe not in your opinion simply because of this homosexuality discussion), I like to help others, etc. Mybe you should be more open to other peoples beliefs and ideas. Just a thought.

[General Septem]

That’s what I don’t get about people like you. All the things that you have listed are negative. There is nothing negative about the way I live. I have a committed relationship, I work and do it well and I am raising a wonderful child. Everything I do I have done well. I share no side effects with disabled people or mentally retarded people OTHER than the prejudice from people like you.

I'm not prejudiced against gay people or anyone else for that matter.



Organisms that are too specialized (narrow) are doomed to extinction.

Then explain why I will have kids yet you won't.

[pleasebereal]

Perhaps because He is calling you to a life of celibacy.

You're probably right. That's why all those priests end up fucking little boys eventually. Good call.

[General Septem]

You're probably right. That's why all those priests end up fucking little boys eventually. Good call.
Yeah, all 1.7% of them, who just happen to be sickos.

[Ape-Shit]

Gay people are no more different than straight people. The only difference is in their sexual choices.

[beelzebub]

OK, First of all Im not juding you or anyone by saying your evil or anything like that. Im just saying that homosexuality is wrong. I dont hate you or anyone for doing it.

Of course you are! You said "Now for two men or two women to do it is wrong." That is a judgment


I never said its ok for me and not for everyone else, its ok for "married couples" is what i meant, incase you misunderstood.

I think that is silly. Just because you have a piece of paper you are allowed? Is it a magical veil that is lifted? Why do we need societies blessing to do what we want with our partners?


Fourth, (Quote: Beelzebub - If god created penis for vagina only, then why would he create me the way he did?)---------
Perhaps a test to see if you will do whats right? Or maybe a birth defect like the General said.

Perhaps it was to test you and your thinking about gay people: created to challenge your prejudice of others. Perhaps it was a test to see if I would cave in to the persecution that I have faced.

There are physical differences between str8 men and gay man (as well as lesbians & srt8 women). But it is not a defect. It does not hinder me. If anything I believe that it has made me a better person. I resent the comparison.


Maybe you decided you like men. I know someone who was straight and one day decided to "try other things", now he likes men.

I NEVER decided to like men. In fact when I was young I tried many things to make me srt8. I NEVER wanted to be gay. I was ashamed of myself for such a long time even though I had no control over the way I felt.

Now I am proud to be who I am. I revel in my differentness and wouldn't change a thing. Your "friend" was either bisexual or in the closet. He was never str8.


Some people get rejected by a girl(s) and think they have no chance (which is not true) and may try it with a guy, I dunno

That’s the best thing that you have said: "I dunno" (sic). Even I don't know why I am the way that I am. Therefore stop trying to make judgments on me and my kind. Worry about your self or......... cast the first stone?

[REPTILE]

*Quote: Beelzebub - "Of course you are! You said "Now for two men or two women to do it is wrong." That is a judgment"

OK, perhaps i did judge on my opinion of rather its right or wrong (in my case i dont agree with it). But what i meant to say when i said that I dont judge was that i dont hate or point fingers at others saying "Dammit, look at those ppl!! I hate them!", I just simply think its not right, Im entitled to my beliefs.

*Quote: Beelzebub - "I think that is silly. Just because you have a piece of paper you are allowed? Is it a magical veil that is lifted? Why do we need societies blessing to do what we want with our partners?"

Fuck the paperwork and the other B.S. involved with marraige, whats inportant is that you love your partner and that you both "want to" therefore making it selfless, not selfish. Societies blessing? I dont care about that very much, your marrying your partner not society.

*As for the other things you wrote (too lazy to copy and paste it all)

OK, if you love your partner (straight or not) w/e, be happy with him and express your love to one another, like I said i dont hate ppl who are gay, nor do i think they should be "forced" to be different or anything else. I'm simply saying that I really think that by Gods will it should be a man and a woman rumbling in the sack (if u know what i mean).

(Beelzebub - "Perhaps it was to test you and your thinking about gay people: created to challenge your prejudice of others. Perhaps it was a test to see if I would cave in to the persecution that I have faced.")

You've most likely been persecuted and hated against. I do NOT hate you, on the contrary God Bless you and your partner. I wish you the best (i mean that sincerely).

(Beelzebub - "Therefore stop trying to make judgments on me and my kind. Worry about your self or......... cast the first stone?"

Sorry if you see my opinions as "judging you" I didnt mean for that, I'm just stating my opinion and your stating yours, thats kool. And me cast the first stone? Nope, nor any stone for that matter.

[General Septem]

Gay people are no more different than straight people. The only difference is in their sexual choices.
It's the choices that are wrong, not the state of being gay.

[Ape-Shit]

:D Do you have any brains in that head of yours?

Gay people do not choose to be gay. Thats something that is totally out of their control. They are Gay because, who knows why, they are Gay! You are white, black, yellow or purple, yet you don't have any control of your color. Its the same thing, they are born with it. Its not something that they can pick and choose.

A Gay person chooses to be with a same sex person because it is natural for them. They don't have the choice of being Gay.

I've seen the devastation a Gay person goes through when a family member is lost. It is not a very good situation to be in if you are Gay and you have no martial rights.

I suppose, if you knew that an upon developement fetus would become Gay you would approve of its abortion?

You probably don't realize this, but you deal with Gay people all the time. You just don't know that they are Gay! That girl you might be sweet on might just be a Femm, you just don't know. If you are not carefull, Butch will cut your throat....!

I, myself....love Bi-Women.....! WoW...!http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[General Septem]

Gay people do not choose to be gay. Thats something that is totally out of their control. They are Gay because, who knows why, they are Gay! You are white, black, yellow or purple, yet you don't have any control of your color. Its the same thing, they are born with it. Its not something that they can pick and choose.

Being born gay is not a choice. What is a choice is when you bend over or stick your cock in someone's ass. That's a choice, and that's what's wrong.



I suppose, if you knew that an upon developement fetus would become Gay you would approve of its abortion?

No.

[Ape-Shit]

Then you approve of Gays...!http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[General Septem]

Then you approve of Gays...!http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I don't approve nor disprove of gays. They're people like anyone else. I just don't approve of poor choices, but I don't judge anyone for them.

[Ape-Shit]

I just don't approve of poor choices, but I don't judge anyone for them.

Now, Now we all know that thats not so. You judge women for having abortions even though their choices are their own business.

How can you neither approve or disaprove on any subject? Sounds to me you are taking up Political Science in College. Perhaps you want to become a Politician. In real live, you either do or you don't. There is no middle of the road.

ps: Mmmmoooooooooo.....!:p

[General Septem]

Now, Now we all know that thats not so. You judge women for having abortions even though their choices are their own business.

No, I don't. Abortion is wrong but I don't judge people for having one.



How can you neither approve or disaprove on any subject? Sounds to me you are taking up Political Science in College. Perhaps you want to become a Politician. In real live, you either do or you don't. There is no middle of the road.

Because the state of being a homosexual is not something to be approved or disproved of. It's just something that is. Like someone born with a birth defect. There's nothing to approve of because it's not a choice. It's the choices people make that are right or wrong, and a man fucking another man in the ass is wrong.

[beelzebub]

I just simply think its not right, Im entitled to my beliefs.

I agree you are and I dont mean to make you feel that I dont respect that. I dont respect the position that Homosexuality is wrong.


You've most likely been persecuted and hated against. I do NOT hate you, on the contrary God Bless you and your partner. I wish you the best (i mean that sincerely).

Thanks I appreciate that! Very nice of you :-)


Sorry if you see my opinions as "judging you" I didnt mean for that, I'm just stating my opinion and your stating yours, thats kool. And me cast the first stone? Nope, nor any stone for that matter.

No, I think I see you more clearly now. I like the way you wrote what you wrote. I respect you.

[joannyann]

all sin is sin god alone can judge us, if we had to stand in judgment of everything from loving the same sex to telling a lie it would be the criteria for obtaining almost everything in society like a job a social security # or id card


Please!!!!!!! ,



All sins are forgivable, as long as you truly are sorry for commiting them. But I don't think that following one's sexual preference is a sin. It doesn't really fall within the big ten, and any others are really just sins that have been created by the church itself, with no real higher power taking credit.

[ajk]

In regards to homosexuality, we do not hate people or are gay or lesbian. We're called to love one another. We don't approve of what you are doing, but we don't hate you as people either. It's a love the sinner, but hate the sin idea.

As far as it being a choice or not, I believe that you are not born with it, but it is more a choice. What happens is some people as they grow older start to develop an attraction to the same sex. Now that in and of itself isn't wrong, but acting on that is. We have to be able to control ourselves, and know not to act on those things that are immoral. Obviously easier said then done, but it has happened. I've heard several stories of people who were once involved in homosexual relationships, but got out of that and are now legally married and have kids. So just because you feel an a attraction to a person of your sex, doesn't mean you should act on it.

[who897]

If yer gonna be gay, be gay, if your gonna be straight be straight, fuck what the church has to say. Who are they to decide what is a good and what is a bad idea. It's just like the people of the 50's that thought shaving your pubic hair was bad, turns out, it's pretty liberating and it's only just hair. You go Girl.:D

[ajk]

It's not just what the church says, it's what GOD says. And who are we to argue against someone who without Him, we would not be here at all? We're biting the hand that feeds us. Besides He created things this way for a reason, two guys can't create a child, and two girls can't. That simple really.

[who897]

The church is the one who wrote the bible. It's their word, not some mythical thing in the sky. Some men who are with women who are straight, can't have children, does that make that wrong? Of course not, it's all about freedom of choice, and as an adult you are free to put your penis/tongue anywhere you please as long as your partner is OK w/ it. :D

On another note, I have never heard of gays molesting children, they are great interior decorators, they can cook hella good meals, they are in general peacefull people. Gay guys leave more chicks open for single guys. I have meet more gay guys then gay women, so I am still standing by that statement :D




In the great words of Bill Engle "I'd be gay if it weren't for the butt sex, hell, without that it's just like hanging out with some of your buddies"

Yes, these Christians do protest too much. Jesus was a gay male who lived nearly exclusively in the company of men and even had a beloved disciple who was allowed to lay his head on Jesus' chest while they ate and talked as described in John 11:36, 13:25, 21:7, and 21:20. A naked boy was present at Jesus' trial (Mark 14: 51-52) and, indeed, the chief priests and scribes accused Jesus of "perverting the nation" (Luke 23:2,14).

[ajk]

First off, GOD is not mythical. He is real and always with us, whether you believe that or not, it's how it is.

2nd, do we have freedom of choice? Yes, but that can be a blessing and a curse, as is being seen in the world these days. People are abusing that freedom, and we're seeing the effects of that abuse. Because of it, everything wrong is right, and everything right is wrong.

Lastly, you're taking those bible quotes way out of context. Did they say that? Yes they did. But does that mean they were right? No way. Jesus knew what He was doing, even if no one else understood it, or understood why.

[who897]

#1 Well then go find me the freaking Easter Bunny.

#2 So now, relgion which you thought was right, is in fact now wrong. Was that the jist of it?

#3 Of course Jesus knew what he was doing how could I have been so dense. Everything makes sense now, he knew he wanted to be gay, and watch little naked boys at his trial.
Thanks you have enlightened me.

[ajk]

You can prove the Easter Bunny isn't real. Can you honestly say that you can prove God isn't real? I think not.

As far as religion being wrong that's the vibe I get these days. As a catholic I (and others like me) often get attacked and laughed at for what we believe in, even if it is truth.

That wasn't my point about Jesus and you know it. You took those quotes way out of context as I said, and they had an entirely different meaning then they you would think now.

[beelzebub]

You can prove the Easter Bunny isn't real. Can you honestly say that you can prove God isn't real? I think not.

That’s probably because you DONT THINK! You are one of the many brainwashed people, the ignorant masses that populate this country.


As far as religion being wrong that's the vibe I get these days. As a catholic I (and others like me) often get attacked and laughed at for what we believe in, even if it is truth.

We laugh at you because you insist you are right and get annoyed when others disagree with you. You are as bad as the Taliban! Everyone else must be stupid or of the devil because they don’t think like you? Get to your convent!

[ajk]

That’s probably because you DONT THINK! You are one of the many brainwashed people, the ignorant masses that populate this country.

That's funny, cause I think it's just the opposite. People such as yourself have been brainwashed by the media to the point where you'll believe whatever they tell you, regardless of how wrong it may be.




We laugh at you because you insist you are right and get annoyed when others disagree with you. You are as bad as the Taliban! Everyone else must be stupid or of the devil because they don’t think like you? Get to your convent!

We're not like the Taliban, not at all. The Taliban encourages the killing of innocent people. We on the other hand are trying to save lives.

[General Septem]

That’s probably because you DONT THINK! You are one of the many brainwashed people, the ignorant masses that populate this country.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, because He lives on a different plane of existance than we do.

You may argue that we have no reason to believe God exists but I beg to differ. Just today I saw a girl holding her four-month old niece. It was a beautiful sight. New life, and a beautiful expression of love. And I saw God in that life, and in that love. To me, that is proof God exists.

[beelzebub]

You can't prove God doesn't exist, because He lives on a different plane of existance than we do.

You cant prove that it does exist either! Therefore all that BULLSHIT about another plane of existance is iddle chatter. You talk of nothing more than spooks and spirits.



You may argue that we have no reason to believe God exists but I beg to differ. Just today I saw a girl holding her four-month old niece. It was a beautiful sight. New life, and a beautiful expression of love. And I saw God in that life, and in that love. To me, that is proof God exists.

Please don’t waste my time with your prophetizing and egocentrism. There is no proof of god here.

[ajk]

See this is the problem with our society today. We want a logical explanation for everything, when there are some things that cannot be explained through logic. There are things we are not meant to know in this life. We just have to accept it for what it is, and we'll find out the rest after we pass from this earth.

As for the other comment, who said he was being egocentric or prophetizing? I think a mother's love for her child is a perfect example of how God loves every one of us.

[beelzebub]

See this is the problem with our society today. We want a logical explanation for everything, when there are some things that cannot be explained through logic. There are things we are not meant to know in this life. We just have to accept it for what it is, and we'll find out the rest after we pass from this earth.

I agree but what I have a problem with is all the nonsense that follows. People then think that they know "the mind of god" and pass judgment.


As for the other comment, who said he was being egocentric or prophesizing? I think a mother's love for her child is a perfect example of how God loves every one of us.

You don't know G-S that well. I see a child borne as no more special as the dew drops off of a leaf or the morning sun. All of which are lovely and to be cherished by those that see them. People allowing others to live their life as they choose (specifically having control over their own body) are the best example of the "godliness" in others.

[ajk]

I have to disagree with that, the best example of "godliness" in others is to save the life of another, specifically the unborn child. Really the mother too even, there are so many after effects to abortion that not many people know about. If they did, they might think twice about aborting that child.

[beelzebub]

I have to disagree with that, the best example of "godliness" in others is to save the life of another, specifically the unborn child.

Go figure! You think that holding a woman prisoner to your opinion is "godliness". I dont care for that version of god, nor would any other rational person.

[ajk]

I don't think it's holding a woman prisoner at all. Far from it, it allows her the biggest honor there is really. To give life to another person. You can't tell me that doesn't mean something to the woman (or to the father for that matter) after it's happened. You realize what life is truly about once that baby is born. It's not all about you anymore, but it's about serving and raising another person, another you into this world. That's something to be cherished, not done away with because it's inconvieient or whatever the case may be.

[beelzebub]

I don't think it's holding a woman prisoner at all. Far from it, it allows her the biggest honor there is really.

Oh thank you for your opinion. I am sure EVERYONE feels the same way.

Honor? What honor is there is birthing a baby? Anyone (female) can give birth and they do so for all sorts of causes: One night stands, rape, incest and love. Who are you to decide?


To give life to another person. You can't tell me that doesn't mean something to the woman after it's happened.

I can and I will. There are many women who give up their child immediately after birth because they want nothing to do with the child. Even those who want a child don’t want it afterwards: Ever heard of post partum depression?


You realize what life is truly about once that baby is born. It's not all about you anymore, but it's about serving and raising another person, another you into this world. That should be cherished, not done away with.

Haaa yes but that’s what we are debating (BTW NOT IN THIS THREAD) its a woman’s right to choose while it’s a fetus. That little tidbit eats at you doesn't it?

[ajk]

Oh thank you for your opinion. I am sure EVERYONE feels the same way.

Honor? What honor is there is birthing a baby? Anyone (female) can give birth and they do so for all sorts of causes: One night stands, rape, incest and love. Who are you to decide?

The honor of having the chance to raise a child, you become sort of like God in a way, or as close as you can get to being like Him by having a child of your own.


I can and I will. There are many women who give up their child immediately after birth because they want nothing to do with the child. Even those who want a child don’t want it afterwards: Ever heard of post partum depression?

Well that's there decision, but at least they still gave the child a chance at life, something all children deserve. As for the other comment, that is not uncommon, but that goes away too after a while as I understand it. The positive outweighs the negative here.




Haaa yes but that’s what we are debating (BTW NOT IN THIS THREAD) its a woman’s right to choose while it’s a fetus. That little tidbit eats at you doesn't it?

It does bother me, because they shouldn't have a right to choose. In most cases sans rape, they were the ones that chose to have sex, therefore they have to take responsibilty for the consequences from that. In the case of rape, as I said before it's not the baby's fault, so why punish it for something it didn't do? It can't help how it got there, but the fact is it's there, and should have a fair shot at life just as anyone else.

[who897]

I have to disagree with that, the best example of "godliness" in others is to save the life of another, specifically the unborn child. Really the mother too even, there are so many after effects to abortion that not many people know about. If they did, they might think twice about aborting that child.


My job requires me to save lives on occasion. There is nothing godly in that. A guy that doesn't believe in your hocus pokus saving lives, man that's gotta irk ya bub.

[ajk]

You don't see anything godly in being able to save lives on a daily basis? I feel sorry for you really. You have my prayers.

[General Septem]

Please don’t waste my time with your prophetizing and egocentrism. There is no proof of god here.

It's proof of God because it IS God. God isn't just some invisible man in the clouds who will send us all to hell if we do anything wrong. God is the living personification of love, compassion, beauty, and peace. I didn't just see an act of love and assume God was behind it. I saw God.

[death2chikins]

Honor? What honor is there is birthing a baby? Anyone (female) can give birth and they do so for all sorts of causes: One night stands, rape, incest and love. Who are you to decide?

There is great honor in bearing life doesn't matter if any woman can do it no man that i know of can. Doesn't that in itself make women honored?



I can and I will. There are many women who give up their child immediately after birth because they want nothing to do with the child. Even those who want a child don’t want it afterwards: Ever heard of post partum depression?

I am sure there are women who do not want the children they birth for one reason or another. But doesn't the fact they did birth them even if they didn't want them speak of love or a sense of some higher duty?


Haaa yes but that’s what we are debating (BTW NOT IN THIS THREAD) its a woman’s right to choose while it’s a fetus. That little tidbit eats at you doesn't it?

I agree with you somewhat on this point. It is the woman's choice to abort or not. They are after all the ones carrying the child. However just because they have the right to choose does not make abortion right or morale. I believe that to be the bigger issue in all this anyway. After all just cause you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. A fetus may be the most basic form of human life but he/she is still human and therefore has the right to life theirself.

[ajk]

I agree with you somewhat on this point. It is the woman's choice to abort or not. They are after all the ones carrying the child. However just because they have the right to choose does not make abortion right or morale. I believe that to be the bigger issue in all this anyway. After all just cause you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. A fetus may be the most basic form of human life but he/she is still human and therefore has the right to life theirself.

I understand your point here, but I can't say I completely agree. Reason being, it's not just their body anymore. But rather it's the body of another as well.

[General Septem]

There is great honor in bearing life doesn't matter if any woman can do it no man that i know of can. Doesn't that in itself make women honored?
Good point, and in fact many women can't either which makes it even more of a gift.

[death2chikins]

I understand your point here, but I can't say I completely agree. Reason being, it's not just their body anymore. But rather it's the body of another as well.

its true that another person is involved but there are so many ways to abort a child other than haveing a doctor do it that no law no matter how it is worded whould ever stop a woman from aborting if that is what she chose to do. so it isn't a matter of weither it should be legal or not but rather if it is morale or not. since no law whould prevent it from happening anyway. i also have great faith that no matter what happens the child will be taken care of in this life or the next. it is the mother that we should be more concerned about. I am not condoning abortion. I do think it is murder but i am also a realist and know that it is something that can not be avoided with laws.

[General Septem]

its true that another person is involved but there are so many ways to abort a child other than haveing a doctor do it that no law no matter how it is worded whould ever stop a woman from aborting if that is what she chose to do. so it isn't a matter of weither it should be legal or not but rather if it is morale or not. since no law whould prevent it from happening anyway. i also have great faith that no matter what happens the child will be taken care of in this life or the next. it is the mother that we should be more concerned about. I am not condoning abortion. I do think it is murder but i am also a realist and know that it is something that can not be avoided with laws.
Sounds like we're on the same page. But I think we're already screwed, because the same could be said of most laws. That's why I'm an anarchist.

I just want the world to acknowledge that it's wrong.

[death2chikins]

Sounds like we're on the same page. But I think we're already screwed, because the same could be said of most laws. That's why I'm an anarchist.

Glad someone agrees with me. Although i am alil worried about the anarchist thing. lol

perhaps i can convert you to the rule of law sometime. :)

[ajk]

its true that another person is involved but there are so many ways to abort a child other than haveing a doctor do it that no law no matter how it is worded whould ever stop a woman from aborting if that is what she chose to do. so it isn't a matter of weither it should be legal or not but rather if it is morale or not. since no law whould prevent it from happening anyway. i also have great faith that no matter what happens the child will be taken care of in this life or the next. it is the mother that we should be more concerned about. I am not condoning abortion. I do think it is murder but i am also a realist and know that it is something that can not be avoided with laws.

Very true, it most likely is still going to happen somewhere no matter what we do. It would help some I would think if laws were passed though banning it.

[General Septem]

Glad someone agrees with me. Although i am alil worried about the anarchist thing. lol

perhaps i can convert you to the rule of law sometime. :)
I don't think anarchy would ever work because people are too selfish, but I do believe people should do whatever it is they do because they believe it is good and that it will benefit society, not because it's the law.

[death2chikins]

Very true, it most likely is still going to happen somewhere no matter what we do. It would help some I would think if laws were passed though banning it.

Perhaps but i kinda doubt it. It fact if it were banned outright it could do more harm than good. With the option of clinics taken away those who wanted abortions whould seek out other ways. All of which carry the very real chance of death. Abortion has been around for as long as man and it will probably not go away fighting it with laws will only incourage mothers to go underground to seek abortion. A choice that could cost them their lives. Perhaps they whould deserve that fate but that is not for us to decide the best we can do is try to show people that it is wrong and try and give them better ways to handle unwanted children than with abortion.

[General Septem]

If they'd drop all the political correct bullshit and teach kids what needs to be taught in school, there woulnd't be a problem.

[ajk]

Agreed on that, all this mess is the direct result of people abusing their freedoms and rights really, and brainwashing a good part of the world into thinking that a woman can have an abortion, or that same sex unions are ok. Both of which never have been nor should they ever be considered that way.

[death2chikins]

If they'd drop all the political correct bullshit and teach kids what needs to be taught in school, there woulnd't be a problem.

Amen!!!!!!!!

[who897]

Wow, looks like this thread should be changed to abortion.

What should be taught in schools?!?!?! Why not just go out and be a teacher then? Hold fuctions, open your doors to peoples kids. They do teach Sex Ed in schools, the thing though is that we are no longer being burdened by the churches BS about how sex outta wed lock is bad. They even go over some of the religions in HS. In the real world though, relgion is bunk, by far the least usefull subject in obtaining a job. I guess that's why they teach it in "History" cuz that's what it should be. They always say, if you don't learn history you are doomed to repeat it.

[death2chikins]

Wow, looks like this thread should be changed to abortion.

What should be taught in schools?!?!?! Why not just go out and be a teacher then? Hold fuctions, open your doors to peoples kids. They do teach Sex Ed in schools, the thing though is that we are no longer being burdened by the churches BS about how sex outta wed lock is bad. They even go over some of the religions in HS. In the real world though, relgion is bunk, by far the least usefull subject in obtaining a job. I guess that's why they teach it in "History" cuz that's what it should be. They always say, if you don't learn history you are doomed to repeat it.

you don't believe sex out of wedlock is bad? just look at the problems of std's and teenage pregancy. are you saying these are good things? explain how sex outside wedlock is great to a teenager who just found out their life is over before it has really begun because of hiv or some other diesease. This is a good thing? Children raising children is that the way it is suppose to be? It is funny however to think how over the last several years those who oppose teaching christian morals or any morals at all in school have managed to get their agendas pushed through yet things aren't better they seem to be getting worse. I suppose that is the christians fault as well even though we have no say what is taught in school anymore and haven't had a say for quite some time.