DescentBB

CobGobbler wrote:Hey Foil, I'm assuming you sent TB a message as well and are going to delete this thread right?

There's a "report post" icon in the corner of each post that expedites the moderation process by making sure we see the post as soon as we sign in. Complaining about it in the thread, not so much.

Buck it if you must. I don't have any problems treating homosexuals like people. It's still wrong.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Your first is that you must prove that "God made them to live" like that, and I know that you have no grounds for such a claim.

of course, I do. It is, at this point, well proven that gay people are essentially born with that propensity, something borne out by conversations over decades with many gay friends of mine. Thus, if one presumes that God created them in his image, then he created them to be that way. Easy logic, really, it is.

Second, no matter what "one" would hope, you also have no grounds for Jesus' feelings on the subject of human sexuality conveniently mirroring popular opinion in our time of sexual promiscuity and "freedom". Some of you can be so ignorant. Jesus isn't just conveniently whatever you want him to be. There is a documented history of his actions and words. Read it for Christ's sake (pun intended). The truth is that the LGBT community would absolutely hate Jesus, because he would be freeing homosexuals and the like, and it would absolutely drive the rest of them mad.

I base my comments on the fact that the cornerstone of all writings about the teachings and words of Jesus would indicate a message of love and tolerance above anything else, coupled with the admonishment for men not to judge others. Yes, I have read the Bible, understand it pretty well, thank you, and feel you are exhibiting an intolerance and judgement of your fellow men and women that just doesn't fit the message.

Eh, I think God's view on homosexuality is quite clear, what seems to be at debate is how christians themselves should behave themselves. Key word that popped in my head today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness

flip wrote:I try to stay out of moral issues because I believe God to be the only true judge, but, does anyone here disagree that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm? I agree with the decision to normalize it, all things considered.

deviation in the same sense that any of a hundred traits can be deviation from norms. I merely disagree with the notion that it is some sort of immoral abomination which 'good' people should attempt to drive out of society. Chosen people or otherwise....

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Your first is that you must prove that "God made them to live" like that, and I know that you have no grounds for such a claim.

of course, I do. It is, at this point, well proven that gay people are essentially born with that propensity, something borne out by conversations over decades with many gay friends of mine. Thus, if one presumes that God created them in his image, then he created them to be that way. Easy logic, really, it is.

Second, no matter what "one" would hope, you also have no grounds for Jesus' feelings on the subject of human sexuality conveniently mirroring popular opinion in our time of sexual promiscuity and "freedom". Some of you can be so ignorant. Jesus isn't just conveniently whatever you want him to be. There is a documented history of his actions and words. Read it for Christ's sake (pun intended). The truth is that the LGBT community would absolutely hate Jesus, because he would be freeing homosexuals and the like, and it would absolutely drive the rest of them mad.

A "propensity" or Inclination or Tendency to do something doesn't mean you were created that way. many children that grow up with Obese parents have a "Propensity' to be obese, it doesn't mean they were created that way, in most cases it's a bad habit that is taught.

I base my comments on the fact that the cornerstone of all writings about the teachings and words of Jesus would indicate a message of love and tolerance above anything else, coupled with the admonishment for men not to judge others.

I would agree with you. but he would also say go and sin no more, and it is clear that the bible considers homosexuality a sin.

Yes, I have read the Bible, understand it pretty well, thank you, and feel you are exhibiting an intolerance and judgement of your fellow men and women that just doesn't fit the message.

yes some Christians do have a "Propensity" to judge others

James 2:13 wrote:There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you.

Agreed. I think it's a personal choice with certain license within a free society.

CUDA wrote:Tendency to do something doesn't mean you were created that way. many children that grow up with Obese parents have a "Propensity' to be obese, it doesn't mean they were created that way, in most cases it's a bad habit that is taught.

so, let me understand you......you feel that homesexuality is a bad habit learned along life's path? Do you know any gay people?
Ever really talk to them?

would agree with you. but he would also say go and sin no more, and it is clear that the bible considers homosexuality a sin.

in the Commendments? No. In the words of Jesus? No, again. Are you sure about this?

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Your first is that you must prove that "God made them to live" like that, and I know that you have no grounds for such a claim.

of course, I do. It is, at this point, well proven that gay people are essentially born with that propensity, something borne out by conversations over decades with many gay friends of mine. Thus, if one presumes that God created them in his image, then he created them to be that way. Easy logic, really, it is.

Then why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?

woodchip wrote:Then why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?

very good question, albeit one I was expecting from CUDA, but kudos for posing it. A reading of the Old Testament might reveal that the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't the sexual orientation of the inhabitants, but that they focused on physical needs and personal pleasure over respecting God and conducting themselves humbly. In a very real sense, this is where religion has been the bugaboo for homosexuals. By having homosexuality deemed inherently sinful, gay people are turned away from the worship of God and also forced into sham marriages and lives of abject sorrow due to inability to be good, faithful stewards and also be true to their innate sexual nature.

Now, I can accept that others can read their own feelings into that part of the Old Testament, but there certainly is more than ample room for both disagreement and interpretation.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Tendency to do something doesn't mean you were created that way. many children that grow up with Obese parents have a "Propensity' to be obese, it doesn't mean they were created that way, in most cases it's a bad habit that is taught.

so, let me understand you......you feel that homesexuality is a bad habit learned along life's path? Do you know any gay people?
Ever really talk to them?

actually my wifes cousin is gay and so is my best friend eldest son,
I see you didn't understand what I wrote. my point was there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is anything but a choice and your position that there is a "propensity" just confirms that you know that also.

would agree with you. but he would also say go and sin no more, and it is clear that the bible considers homosexuality a sin.

in the Commendments? No. In the words of Jesus? No, again. Are you sure about this?

I am Positive.
Christ taught on and believed in the authority of the old testament or Law. MANY times he said it is written, referring to the Law of Moses. so I point out to you that it is written in Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Christ wrote: 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

clearly Christ understood the consequences of Sodom and Gomorrah. and your interpretation of the destruction of the town is wrong

callmeslick wrote:A reading of the Old Testament might reveal that the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't the sexual orientation of the inhabitants, but that they focused on physical needs and personal pleasure over respecting God and conducting themselves humbly.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I think the offering box benefited from that explanation rather than the people who heard it. Now God owes the people of Saddam and Gomorrah an apology--that pretty well describes everyone but Israel throughout biblical history.

calllmeslick wrote:Now, I can accept that others can read their own feelings into that part of the Old Testament, but there certainly is more than ample room for both disagreement and interpretation.

Bull****. You've heard the expression "muddying the waters". That's what you're doing. Separating the homosexual desires displayed by the wicked men of Saddam and Gomorah when the messengers came to the city from God's judgment on the city is nothing more than an excuse, and there is no biblical support for it.

1 Corinthians 6 wrote:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

this is where religion has been the bugaboo for homosexuals. By having homosexuality deemed inherently sinful, gay people are turned away from the worship of God

but cannot the same be said about any sexual deviant lifestyle or even those that chose other sin??? because that is by it's very nature the definition of sin, is a lifestyle that separates us from God

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Your first is that you must prove that "God made them to live" like that, and I know that you have no grounds for such a claim.

of course, I do. It is, at this point, well proven that gay people are essentially born with that propensity, something borne out by conversations over decades with many gay friends of mine. Thus, if one presumes that God created them in his image, then he created them to be that way. Easy logic, really, it is.

It's as easy as it is wanting. I'll leave it at this...
[quote=""callmeslick"]... essentially ... presumes ...[/quote]
You can't be selective. If people were created to be the way in which they were "essentially" born, then we were created to be sinful, dying, selfish, lying, ... all in God's image. I hope that makes you feel sufficiently silly.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Second, no matter what "one" would hope, you also have no grounds for Jesus' feelings on the subject of human sexuality conveniently mirroring popular opinion in our time of sexual promiscuity and "freedom". Some of you can be so ignorant. Jesus isn't just conveniently whatever you want him to be. There is a documented history of his actions and words. Read it for Christ's sake (pun intended). The truth is that the LGBT community would absolutely hate Jesus, because he would be freeing homosexuals and the like, and it would absolutely drive the rest of them mad.

I base my comments on the fact that the cornerstone of all writings about the teachings and words of Jesus would indicate a message of love and tolerance above anything else, coupled with the admonishment for men not to judge others. Yes, I have read the Bible, understand it pretty well, thank you, and feel you are exhibiting an intolerance and judgement of your fellow men and women that just doesn't fit the message.

Really weak, slick. I know it's popular to deal with the message of Jesus in very vague terms like "love" and "tolerance"... there really was no tolerance in Jesus' ministry. He didn't tolerate much. He didn't tolerate the Pharisees and their lies, he called it exactly like it was (they killed him for it) "Go and sin no more" is not a message of tolerance. Salvation was his goal, not tolerance.

Luke 9 wrote:7 And He called the twelve to Himself, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. 8 He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts— 9 but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.

10 Also He said to them, “In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place. 11 And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them.w Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!”

12 So they went out and preached that people should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them.

I'll be damned... you were right! There is something in his message about tolerance!

Finally the admonition is "judge not, that you be not judged, for with the same measure you use it will be measured back to you...". It applies to me in any dealings I have with a person involved in homosexuality. However, the Bible itself judges homosexuality in the verse I already quoted, as well as in the verse that CUDA quotes.

You guys are ridiculous. Only takes two pages to get someone quoting from the Bible huh?

I'm sure your musings are much better

Nah it's just that we were talking about reasonable stuff for a few posts and then someone comes in all Jesus-y and now everything gets thrown overboard for yet another debate where one side uses a book written about their religion to justify their religion and the other side says no. Boring.

I agree, it is a useless waste of time to argue scripture to someone who doesn't believe it. I think it's a good idea to find common ground if possible.

CobGobbler wrote:Nah it's just that we were talking about reasonable stuff for a few posts and then someone comes in all Jesus-y and now everything gets thrown overboard for yet another debate where one side uses a book written about their religion to justify their religion and the other side says no. Boring.

Except that's not what happened. Thanks for skimming.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Nah it's just that we were talking about reasonable stuff for a few posts and then someone comes in all Jesus-y and now everything gets thrown overboard for yet another debate where one side uses a book written about their religion to justify their religion and the other side says no. Boring.

Except that's not what happened. Thanks for skimming.

X2

flip wrote:I agree, it is a useless waste of time to argue scripture to someone who doesn't believe it. I think it's a good idea to find common ground if possible.

I respectfully disagree

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

but if they are not accepting then. kick the dirt off your feet

Sergeant Thorne wrote: If people were created to be the way in which they were "essentially" born, then we were created to be sinful, dying, selfish, lying, ... all in God's image. I hope that makes you feel sufficiently silly.

the way I was brought up to understand it, we are ALL sinners.......where you get your self-righteous opinion is beyond me, but it sure isn't scripture.

EDIT: You know, I don't care if you think I'm self-righteous. You were wrong on several points, and you need to be a man and own up to it.

sorry, I still disagree on the description, from a Christian perspective, of homosexuality being a sin. Now, as an agnostic, who essentially views the purpose of religion as being a means to explain the unexplained and to assuage the fears of death, it is of no real concern to me. Still, as one who has studied this stuff, I find it suspect that homosexuality is a true sin, as the nature of sexuality is essentially determined at birth, which was not understood in the time of the Old Testament(nor readily accepted by some to this day).

edit: double post blunderfest.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:EDIT: You know, I don't care if you think I'm self-righteous. You were wrong on several points, and you need to be a man and own up to it.

I don't know what you are referring to, but it wasn't me who insisted it to be a silly concept that we were all born sinners.

You're just spinning your tires slick. This is a guy that thinks the world is only 6000 years old, do you honestly believe you can have some intelligent discourse with this fellow?

callmeslick wrote:I don't know what you are referring to, but it wasn't me who insisted it to be a silly concept that we were all born sinners.

Proven wrong left and right and you don't know what's going on. Don't give me this instant Alzheimer's stuff. And I never said being born sinners was a silly concept. Apparently you totally misunderstood that. I'll let you re-read it and come back, but if CUDA's point didn't make a dent, and a Levitical abomination does not constitute a sin, then my point will probably accomplish ****-all. I don't know what I'm doing arguing biblical points with someone who doesn't give it any weight from the get-go anyway. Don't you have something better to do with your time? Go fishing you misinformed, stubborn, affluent old bastard. I hope you catch a nice trout and choke for wasting my time! (kidding)

A cheap-shot following a skim. You've got me on the run, mystery guest!

It's late, and I had too much fun writing that, but basically I think you've had at least one serious misunderstanding in responding to my points. So I'll work back from the very last.

I wrote:Your first is that you must prove that "God made them to live" like that, and I know that you have no grounds for such a claim.

so You wrote:of course, I do. It is, at this point, well proven that gay people are essentially born with that propensity, something borne out by conversations over decades with many gay friends of mine. Thus, if one presumes that God created them in his image, then he created them to be that way. Easy logic, really, it is.

then I wrote:You can't be selective. If people were created to be the way in which they were "essentially" born, then we were created to be sinful, dying, selfish, lying, ... all in God's image. I hope that makes you feel sufficiently silly.

Basically, I was pointing out that if you're going to pick and choose between behaviors which are present "essentially" from birth and leave out a great many behaviors which are obviously not a result of God making us in his image, but of the fall of mankind, then you're being inconsistent, and to press the matter is to show that you have no argument there at all. "Silly" was being nice, because the "argument" is downright ****ed up, wherever it hails from.

CUDA wrote:I swear you take more trips down Rabbit holes then anyone I've ever met.

YOU introduced the religious aspect into this conversation where there was none, and now you want to try and say "well well Thorne did it too"
YOU try to pin the blame for this mans action on Christians. and yet you have no connection except that which you chose to fabricate. because FYI it's not just some Christians that have a problem with the gay lifestyle.
YOU continue to slander Christians every attempt you can in subjects where there is no connection just to satisfy your need to do so.

I dont know what happened in your past to make you hate like you do but I've got some words of wisdom for you

It's the hardest thing to give away
And the last thing on your mind today
It always goes to those that don't deserve

It's the opposite of how you feel
When the pain they caused is just to real
It takes everything you have just to say the word...

Forgiveness

It flies in the face of all your pride
It moves away the mad inside
It's always anger's own worst enemy
Even when the jury and the judge
Say you gotta right to hold a grudge
It's the whisper in your ear saying 'Set It Free'

Forgiveness,

It'll clear the bitterness away
It can even set a prisoner free
There is no end to what it's power can do
So, let it go and be amazed
By what you see through eyes of grace
The prisoner that it really frees is you

Forgiveness,

Yes, and I do take that into my heart. But I have one also, and FYI, quite a few mainstream Christian political activists need to heed in earnest. What goes around, comes around. And I didn't have to interject the religious connection concerning this man's actions. The subtext sits underneath the surface like a festering boil.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

And why are you taking such exception to my rants about Christian activists (not Christians personally)? I'm not attacking you personally, only the actions of political activists who happen to be Christian.

I had a feeling I might be needing this...

TOPIC CHANGE

homosexuality and gay marriage are not the same thing. and we are not discussing Gay marriage here. try to keep up.

tunnelcat wrote:And why are you taking such exception to my rants about Christian activists (not Christians personally)? I'm not attacking you personally, only the actions of political activists who happen to be Christian.

are you saying Christians do not have the right to be politically active?? LGBT and Nambla are political activist groups. are you calling for discrimination against Christians?

I thought being liberal was all about being tolerant of someone else view points. Is tolerance only a one way street?

There are at least two glaring logical errors in that flow chart, Ferno. I was having second thoughts about speaking up, but I know you'll be glad that they were caught so that you can revise your argument in order to maintain the highest level of intellectual honesty.

EDIT Oops, I almost forget to say what they were! Pointing it out would really make the most sense, that way we could avoid the inefficiency of you having to review the entire flow chart, combing over the claims yourself, again, and doing some further fact-checking in order to verify their integrity. That's a lot of work. I guess it's just one of those days!

callmeslick wrote: I find it suspect that homosexuality is a true sin,

based on what?

wiki wrote:In Abrahamic contexts, "a sin" is an act that violates God's law. Sin can also be viewed as anything within a person that violates the ideal relationship between them and God.[5]

we have already proved that in Biblical terms homosexuality is a sin, and as I said earlier one of MANY that separate you from a relationship with God.

as the nature of sexuality is essentially determined at birth,

proof??

also you use a lot of Vague terms to try and make your point for something you are so sure about.

Propensity.. meaning there is a tendency

essentially... meaning mostly true but not completely true

proof? More like a growing mountain of scientific evidence. Example?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... netics-usa

an interesting note on the above would be that some of the linked traits(ex handedness) may be the result of prenatal conditions, hence not genetic per se, but developmental in the womb. Thus, my choice of words that homosexuals are essentially determined at birth, not wishing to specify purely genetic determination. A quick search on your part of the scientific record in journals of neuorogical development, genetics, behavioral sciences and the like will provide you with a massive preponderance of data from the past 30 years or so that point in the same directions. IE-Homosexuality is clearly, clearly not a choice one makes.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There are at least two glaring logical errors in that flow chart, Ferno. I was having second thoughts about speaking up, but I know you'll be glad that they were caught so that you can revise your argument in order to maintain the highest level of intellectual honesty.

EDIT Oops, I almost forget to say what they were! Pointing it out would really make the most sense, that way we could avoid the inefficiency of you having to review the entire flow chart, combing over the claims yourself, again, and doing some further fact-checking in order to verify their integrity. That's a lot of work. I guess it's just one of those days!

if you have a charge to make, then do so. otherwise, this is a waste of space.

or is this code for "I'll make a superfluous argument and not back it up."?

callmeslick wrote:proof? More like a growing mountain of scientific evidence. Example?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... netics-usa

an interesting note on the above would be that some of the linked traits(ex handedness) may be the result of prenatal conditions, hence not genetic per se, but developmental in the womb. Thus, my choice of words that homosexuals are essentially determined at birth, not wishing to specify purely genetic determination. A quick search on your part of the scientific record in journals of neuorogical development, genetics, behavioral sciences and the like will provide you with a massive preponderance of data from the past 30 years or so that point in the same directions. IE-Homosexuality is clearly, clearly not a choice one makes.

after reading the article it really said nothing. I could say that Homosexuality is caused by a combination of Hormones in the milk we drink, single mother households and as sense of inadequacy around women and say as much as that article said, just because your left handed and have a counterclockwise swirl in your hair doesn't make you Gay or even tend to be Gay. if that was the case my father-in law, both my brother-in laws and 2 of my sons would be gay.because they are all left handed and have a counterclockwise swirl to their hair and none were a first child
I would like to see the results of the study that was supposed to be released in 2009. judging by the silence on the issue with the press I would guess the findings didn't support the hypothesis presented in that article.

I wish to state that I have nothing against Homosexuals.

and I wish also to state for the record that neither Thorne or I got all Jesus'y as he put it and neither one of us brought up the religious take on homosexuality until others on the left started down that road..so back to the Sin issue, homosexuality is a Sin make no mistake. BUT it is no different than any other sin that separates us From God.

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

no talk of it in the press, Cuda? Hell, I'm talking scientific research, not some crap for mass consumption. The professional literature has been full of research, as I stated, for 30 years and more. That you don't understand the linkage to handedness nor chirality of hair growth patterns to either genetic expression/supression(prenatal development) or outright heritable genetics is understandable. I studied this stuff for 32 years, you are an expert in other matters. You have to trust me, I suppose, that it is far beyond speculation at this stage that sexual orientation is essentially programmed by the time the child hits the outside air. How much nuture or other factors affect minor details after that are up to some debate. Still, if, as you state, you have had detailed conversations with gay friends and relatives, wouldn't their words bear that out? Every such conversation I've had indicated that the individuals knew, at a VERY early age, that their attaction to the opposite sex just wasn't there, as it was with their peers. The only difference I see between older persons and younger is that the societal pressure to adapt to the 'norm' was intense until around 1970 or thereabouts. The feelings and tendencies were still there, and I might guess that the pressures varied greatly through time and between societies.

Very valid comment within the semi-humorous chart posted above: If the Old Testament defines abominations as sins(the exact distinction I was trying to make, BTW), then everyone at the 40th annual Chincoteague Oyster fest is sinning......

What about bi-sexuals? Are they just terminally confused to their sexual orientation?