-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Your Sexuality?
- Thread starter John H.
- Start date
ISuckPenisImGay said:I BE GAY WHO WANTS TO GIVE IT TO ME IN THE ASS!!????
bio-chem said:
Why don't you try? You've done nothing but knock the site without giving any specifics. Could it be because you don't know what you're talking about and don't WANT to believe what he says, despite all the references he gives?
Unless and until you can come up with some valid refutations to anything he says... any old thing... c'mon, pick a topic since you opened the door... I don't accept your out-of-hand rejections of his writings as anything less than the fear that it would shake the foundations of your world to learn that something you believed in is wrong. You cannot think outside the box!
fine lets start with the easiest and most obvious then shall we.Minotaur said:
THE BIBLE GIVES POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR SAME SEX COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS IN STORIES ABOUT RUTH AND NAOMI IN THE BOOK OF RUTH AND DAVID AND JONATHAN IN I SAMUEL 18-20 AND II SAMUEL 1.
using this as an arguement in favor of same sex relationships is asinine. ruth and naomi where mother and daughter-in-law. it was not a sexual relationship in any way. ruth even gets married again in the end.
david and jonathan were best friends under the most extreme of circumstances. with jonathan the heir apparent to the throne of Isreal yet David the one chosen of God to be the next ruler. in no way is this a sexual relationship.
i have male friends who i consider brothers and who i love. yet in no way do i have a desire to have a physical sexual relationship with them. using these examples in support of homo-sexuality is grasping at straws. it is twisting and manipulating the word of God to support a life style clearly unaceptable in the eyes of GOD.
again how about showing evidence homosexuality was an accepted practice at any time in judeo-christian history. there is none. there is none in the bible and there is none in sources outside of the bible. not in the dead sea scrolls or in any other archealogical evidence. in this arguement you simply do not have a leg to stand on
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
I'll take this one...
THE BIBLE REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATES GOD'S LOVE, CARE AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALL OUTCAST, REJECTED, MISUNDERSTOOD AND ALIENATED PEOPLE.
Yes. This is true. Let's be specific. Christ befriended the prostitute at the well. God loves all of us. We are all sinners. Christ showing compassion for the prostitute in no way implies that prostitution is not a sin.
Also, this is not really related to anything, but I found this quote today. I think it summarizes my frustration with many Christians when it comes to dealing with homosexuals and other sexual sinners:
C. S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, says:
"If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual. The pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me competing with the human self which I must try to become: they are the animal self, and the diabolical self; and the diabolical self is the worst of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig, who goes regularly to church, may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But of course, it's better to be neither."
THE BIBLE REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATES GOD'S LOVE, CARE AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALL OUTCAST, REJECTED, MISUNDERSTOOD AND ALIENATED PEOPLE.
Yes. This is true. Let's be specific. Christ befriended the prostitute at the well. God loves all of us. We are all sinners. Christ showing compassion for the prostitute in no way implies that prostitution is not a sin.
Also, this is not really related to anything, but I found this quote today. I think it summarizes my frustration with many Christians when it comes to dealing with homosexuals and other sexual sinners:
C. S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, says:
"If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual. The pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me competing with the human self which I must try to become: they are the animal self, and the diabolical self; and the diabolical self is the worst of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig, who goes regularly to church, may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But of course, it's better to be neither."
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Now, one for you...how do you and Dr. Truluck spin out of these passages?
Leviticus 18:22: "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."
Leviticus 18:22: "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."
Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is. The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms. The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation.
multiple things with this. the first is that the original Hebrew uses no vowels. so when he says YADA meaning "to know" he is adding in order to help translate. something you are against because it causes problems in translation. well it appears both sides do it doesnt it. the lack of vowels in Hebrew is a common problem leading to many problems such as confusion over numbers referenced (how many people did samson really kill with the jawbone of an ass?) or even to the proper spelling and pronunciation of the name of the lord.
the second point i have is this man clearly states this is his personal opinion of translation. it is still ambiguous and could still easily be translated that "to know" is in reference to a sexual act. but continue to grasp at straws if you so desire. this site does not prove that homosexuality was allowed.
even if we say the bible says nothing about homosexuality, which i consider to be a stretch you still have 2000 or so years of tradition to overcome. you are saying God allows homosexuality, to prove this you have to show that at some point in judeo-christian history man changed the laws of God. you need to show that 2000 years of tradition is incorrect and that man changed what was once an accepted practice into something against the laws of God. not impossible, but very difficult.
it is amazing to me that this is a debateable issue. the laws of God are that sexual relationships outside of marriage are against the church of God. do they happen? yes. are they accepted? no. homosexual marriage was never practiced in judeo-christian history. that is easily proven. so if the marriage of two males was never accepted in these societies how could the sexual union be? open your eyes. this has nothing to do with me blinding myself to the truth. it has to do with simple logic.
multiple things with this. the first is that the original Hebrew uses no vowels. so when he says YADA meaning "to know" he is adding in order to help translate. something you are against because it causes problems in translation. well it appears both sides do it doesnt it. the lack of vowels in Hebrew is a common problem leading to many problems such as confusion over numbers referenced (how many people did samson really kill with the jawbone of an ass?) or even to the proper spelling and pronunciation of the name of the lord.
the second point i have is this man clearly states this is his personal opinion of translation. it is still ambiguous and could still easily be translated that "to know" is in reference to a sexual act. but continue to grasp at straws if you so desire. this site does not prove that homosexuality was allowed.
even if we say the bible says nothing about homosexuality, which i consider to be a stretch you still have 2000 or so years of tradition to overcome. you are saying God allows homosexuality, to prove this you have to show that at some point in judeo-christian history man changed the laws of God. you need to show that 2000 years of tradition is incorrect and that man changed what was once an accepted practice into something against the laws of God. not impossible, but very difficult.
it is amazing to me that this is a debateable issue. the laws of God are that sexual relationships outside of marriage are against the church of God. do they happen? yes. are they accepted? no. homosexual marriage was never practiced in judeo-christian history. that is easily proven. so if the marriage of two males was never accepted in these societies how could the sexual union be? open your eyes. this has nothing to do with me blinding myself to the truth. it has to do with simple logic.
Pepper said:
Go read the site.
Done.
Pepper said:
Go read the site.
Done.
bio-chem said:
Further pointing out that you know little to nothing of linguistics... Hebrew and Arabic (both descendant dialects of the same protolanguage) DO have vowels. No language can be spoken without vowels. The vowel SOUNDS are simply not written in Hebrew and Arabic except as diacritic marks.
Btw, did it ever occur to you that at least 50-75% of the world doesn't give a rat's ass about your bible and your Judeo-Christian God or believe in either one? So who are you to state what is in God's mind when God is only in YOUR mind? All you have to go on is a belief in something that probably does not exist, yet you want to keep shoving YOUR beliefs in my face.
Furthermore, there are societies where homosexual men were highly regarded and treated with respect. The Plains Indians come to mind. And yes there are societies where it was perfectly normal for two men to join together for life.
Go do some research, open your eyes and your mind, and grow up.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Minotaur said:
I did. I missed it the first time.
With biblical analysis like that, you can make ANYTHING "right" or "not sinful." Seems easier just to deny the authority of the Bible than to embarrass yourself with such absurd interpretations.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Minotaur said:
It takes very little research to see that your postion holds no water. I agree wtih bio on this, it is somewhat incredible that this is even debated. Like I said, just denounce the Bible's authority rather than try to bend it around your lifestyle. Seems less trouble and less embarrassing.
Minotaur said:
exactly they are not written with vowels. the hebrew language does not use vowels in its written language. that doesnt change my post. and my post is directed to you. who professes to be a christian. if the person im writting to is not christian then i use a different approach. are you really this stupid? im not trying to convince anyone here to be christian. im saying this is what i base my beliefs on. shoving in your face? you ask me to respond to a website you post and when i do and you are unable to respond to the post and then say im shoving my beliefs on you? i didnt start the thread. and your examples of societies are of non-christian ones. i readily accept homosexuality was an accepted practice in non-christian societies. so what. if you are a believer in Christ then stop with the "what about non-christian BS" and get to the facts. if you are not a believer in Christ then i say i base my beliefs on my Christian values and that is the reason why i feel the way i do. i have not pushed my values on anyone, but i will speak boldly about the way i feel. when have i ever said homosexuals go to hell? never. ive not condemned anyone here. stop playing the repressed minority card. its getting old and isnt even valid
Pepper said:
The bible has no authority! I don't have to accept it or abide by it or fit it into my "lifestyle" (and do tell me what that is) because I don't believe in it. I'm trying to make you understand that it's been used, incorrectly and immorally, to punish people... many people who don't even believe in it. What part of that don't you understand?
bio-chem said:
Christ never denounced love between two people, regardless of their sex. And that I stand by.
Continue to speak "boldly" about the way you feel and continue to piss people off. You'll learn in time when you've pissed off the wrong person, that "it's better to say nothing and be thought stupid than to speak and remove all doubt" (Chinese proverb), as you have done repeatedly.
Minotaur said:
nothing on that website disproves the generally accepted teachings of the bible taught in Christianity today. it offers a different interpretation, but not a very compelling one. there is not anything there worth enough substance to disprove the commonly taught interpretations of those scriptures provided. and when it so obviously tries to twist scriptures not even associated with homosexuality to prove an agenda it makes it even more difficult to give credability to the rest of the website. i award you no points for this, you have pretty much just shot yourself in the foot with that website.
Robert DiMaggio said:I agree 100%!
Long time since you have been around here, heh?
Do you wonder why?
bio-chem said:
Yeah, OK, whatever...
Minotaur said:
when have i argued against Christ speaking against love of two people regardless of sex? did i not post that i have friends that i love like brothers? was not john called the beloved? no one here looks like a fool other than yourself for posting that website. nothing i have posted was to piss some one off. name one of my posts that shows that.
stop getting butt hurt (no pun intended) just because someone doesnt believe your lifestyle is right.
Pepper said:
Hi Pepper,
I do actually own one and have read the whole book many times.
I stand COMPLETELY by what I said.
God - HIMSELF - and Christ - HIMSELF - NEVER SAID ONE WORD - PERIOD - EVER!
The Bible was written by MEN - over 40 actually - and over a long period of time. Each with their own personal comments and thoughts.
Take Care, John H.
http://www.cdu.jesusanswers.com/photo6.htmlJohn H. said:
Bible facts
The entire Bible was written over a 1500 year span.
The Bible contains 66 books written by over 40 different authors.
ForemanRules has read the bible cover to cover once.
And read the new testament 6 times
The Bible was originally made up of books written in three languages; Hebrew, Aramic, and Koine Greek.
Pepper said:
Hi Pepper,
You do not understand what I have said.
You actually make my point by saying "...Paul, in God's word...". NO Pepper NO. PAUL SAYS NOT God, PAUL IS SAYING, NOT God!!! PAUL IS THE MAN SAYING - NOT GOD SAYING. GOD speak FOR HIMSELF. CHRIST SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF - as ANY MAN would with something IMPORTOANT - HE speaks FOR HIMSELF and NEVER allows or lets others SPEAK FOR HIM. You ARE QUOTING MAN - NOT GOD, NOT CHRIST! PERIOD! You ARE CREATING what YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, NOT WHAT ARE THE FACTS!!! God - Himself - NEVER SAID! Christ - Himself - NEVER SAID - PERIOD! FACT! Religion creates its own "beliefs" and so does Man.
Honestly speaking AND NOT TO OFFEND anyone FOR ANY REASON: Pepper, YOU are the person "retro-fitting"...
It is NOT ME that is "assulting" Christianity - Christianity ASSULTS ITSELF and OTHERS when IT - a RELIGION that IS MAN-MADE - attempts to pass on to others something NOT FACTUAL. And Christianity is NOT the only Man-made religion to do this.
Take Care, John H.
you may have read it, but you dont understand it. for if you believe in Christ then you would believe in the bible for the bible truely testifies of Christ.
Christ himself never wrote a book. all we have of him and his teachings for us are the testimonies of the men who lived, ate, and knew him personaly. faith in these mens testimonies of Christ is a fundamental part of understanding Christ. for you to say Christ never said such and such is ridiculous. in the bible itself it says that to record all of his teachings could not be done. try to understand the bible for what it teaches john. dont fall into the trap of so many men in the past who twisted and manipulated the bible to fit their own personal agenda.
Christ himself never wrote a book. all we have of him and his teachings for us are the testimonies of the men who lived, ate, and knew him personaly. faith in these mens testimonies of Christ is a fundamental part of understanding Christ. for you to say Christ never said such and such is ridiculous. in the bible itself it says that to record all of his teachings could not be done. try to understand the bible for what it teaches john. dont fall into the trap of so many men in the past who twisted and manipulated the bible to fit their own personal agenda.
