Is there a cure for homophobia? Introducing Lovelace......

[eider]

Animals do what is natural. Humans do what is natural. Christian humans are expected to transcend the natural.

Who told you that?
Jesus?
Nah......

[tabibito]

Who told you that?
Jesus?
Nah......

Among others, including Paul (and yes, Jesus) if the scriptural record is to be believed, quite a number of people have attested that Christians are expected to transcend the limitations of nature. We don't see any prophets with the requisite bona fides calling that teaching into question.

[Mountain Man]

Jesus already redacted the sacrificial and ceremonial, about 100+ laws, leaving about 500 remaining laws which were exactly intended to produce a strong, healthy, cohesive and invincible people, and you point to a very few of these, trying to speak about morality to me.

Of course I'm focusing on "very few of these" given the topic of this thread, which is specifically trying to use animal behavior to justify human perversion. I'm not sure why you think my narrow focus here is a significant point.

I'm also not sure what you mean by asking if I "support all these laws". God doesn't need my approval to condemn sin, and I do try to live the life he commands me to live, although I am by no means sinless.

[rogue06]

Your mind driving your agenda? Your idea of logic, Maybe?
Using your logic you can add anything to the real mission that you want to, and ignore anything that you want to.

And to try and weld rape, arson, murder etc to the LGBT folks natures is not looking too good on the bigotry Meter.

Just read Mark to discover the Baptist's real anger, real mission, and read Jesus to find out what he supported.

Just read Mark.

Thank you for the advice, but I'll instead choose to read the entire Bible and not cherry-pick out parts that I want.

And a far better case can be made that given the laws and customs of the time, if Jesus thought the LGBT lifestyle was peachy keen, he would have spoken out against those laws and customs. You don't often speak out about the things that you already agree with. Given that He didn't...

[Mountain Man]

Thank you for the advice, but I'll instead choose to read the entire Bible and not cherry-pick out parts that I want.

And a far better case can be made that given the laws and customs of the time, if Jesus thought the LGBT lifestyle was peachy keen, he would have spoken out against those laws and customs. You don't often speak out about the things that you already agree with. Given that He didn't...

This is the Jesus that skeptics (and some Christians) believe in:

Buddy+Christ-11.jpg

[rogue06]

This is the Jesus that skeptics (and some Christians) believe in:

Buddy+Christ-11.jpg

They keep forgetting the Jesus of Matthew 12 and especially John 2

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you prefer a secular explanation, males and females are physically compatible in a way that two males and two females clearly are not, so from a purely scientific perspective, homosexuality is contrary to the natural order.

Only for procreation.

However, I doubt many of the predominantly male community here regard having sex with their wife as something to be done purely as a mechanism for producing a child.

I suspect the men who post to this board have sex with their spouse because they just actually enjoy it. Some may even, on occasion, not bother with penetrative sex but employ other means for exploring and taking pleasure in each other's bodies.

[Mountain Man]

Only for procreation.

No, not only for procreation. There is no way for two males or two females to have any kind of sexual relation that is natural and healthy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, not only for procreation. There is no way for two males or two females to have any kind of sexual relation that is natural and healthy.

I suppose you do know that oral sex is commonly practised in heterosexual relationships along with mutual masturbation? Anal sex is possibly one of the oldest forms of contraception and some women find it preferable during late pregnancy.

Which leads to the question do you consider anal/oral sex to be unhealthy? Or do you just consider them unhealthy when they are not being practised by heterosexual couples?

[NorrinRadd]

And to try and weld rape, arson, murder etc to the LGBT folks natures is not looking too good on the bigotry Meter.

He didn't do that. Learn to flippin' read.

[rogue06]

He didn't do that. Learn to flippin' read.

eider appears to have a unique rogue filter that allows him to read nearly everything I post in, shall we say, a unique light.

[eider]

Yes, I am a trinitarian. I don't know how you get "extreme wobbly unitarian" from my beliefs about the inspiration of Scripture. They are entirely consistent with conservative Protestant beliefs, especially evangelical.

'Conservative' Protestant beliefs?
What a laugh! It was Catholics that were the conservatives..... Protestantism was progressive. I guess you must mean U.S. GOP political Christian?
A kind of 'We preach this but we do that, and we'll interpret ALL God's words in the bible to fit'...... that about right?

If the Bible is all God's words........ strange because God inspired John's Gospel but forget to mention the amazing things that John experienced, etc etc.... so many contradictions throughout. But in any case, if it was all just 'God' then that's Unitarian, methinks.

I never said anything about what Jesus did or did not "really mean." I don't believe I gave any interpretation or application of the account at all. I just noted that when one considers the whole context, in any of the Synoptics but especially in Mark, it is much more nuanced than the brief snippet you provided would imply.

Ha ha ha! Stop it! 'You don't believe that you gave any application' soon becomes 'God's brief snippet' about rich people not being able to make his kingdom, just an 'implication'. God wrote that! ...according to you... but you can breeze past it. And your mention of rewards becomes a very comfy lifestyle, I'm guessing? ........ evangelism?

I dunno, I think you should hate Jesus at least as much as you hate Paul. Paul talked in Rom. 11 about the Jews being broken off, but held out future hope for their restoration. Jesus in John 8 said right to their faces that unless they believed Him to be "I AM," they would die in their sins. (And in self-identifying as I AM, He was incidentally taking responsibility for giving the Law, including the proscriptions against various sexual activities.)

No...... 'God' said in John, according to you...... it's all the word of God...right?
Apostle John turned the enemy of Jesus in to 'The Jews'..... plotting against him, slandering him, clamouring for his death....... 'The Jews'....... what balderdash! Both the Baptist and Jesus were STANDING UP for the Jewish peasantry (there was no middle class) against a fat, corrupt, hypocritical, self righteous bunch of quislings, namely the two thousand odd priests of the Temple, and John turned the enemy in to 'The Jews'. Paul supported John's slanders, yes?

And while Jesus (in Mark) loosened Sabbath requirements (ch. 2) and revoked the food laws (ch. 7), it was Paul who explicitly declared that the Law of Commandments and decrees and ordinances had been nailed to the Cross (Eph. 2, Col. 2).

Paul was God, of course, yes? So Paul's word (God's) equals those of Jesus? I love it! So that's what evangelism clings to, alongside Paul's SNIPPET about gays, huddled in alongside bad mouths, adulterers and more........ but those gays..... perverted!

Please print exactly what Paul wrote about gays. Not your interpretation. By the way, Paul turned strict laws written to protect from sickness in to some moral code. They were no more important than the sea food laws, or the parapet-on-roofs law..... all there to keep the people safe and strong. The extreme Christian righteousness cherry-pick is a perversion in itself, Norrin.


[QUOTE[I'm more Pentecostal or Charismatic or "practicing continuationist" (in Craig Keener's parlance, to avoid the identification with the "Prosperity Gospel"), but yes, I do identify with some versions of the "Five Fundamentals."[/QUOTE]
I guess God was guiding Mr Keener, then?
You identify with 'some' versions? So you selected your idea of your faith? OK.
I particularly enjoy the 'predestined-Christian' followers, who don't actually have to even bother to manipulate the writings at all........ The kingdom only for them no-matter-what......
Norrin..... this kind of mindset gave comedians like Dace Allen a good living. I mention him because @Hypatia-Alexandria did recently.

As to my miserable countenance and heart -- oh well.

Did I point at you directly? YOUR miserable countenance? Or was that yet another manipulation? Why did you not print my exact words?
But in my experience extremely fundamental and puritanical Christians have always been without the humour and love and understanding that so many others can show. Our next door neighbour was a Christian minister..... along with so many others like him. When all the other fishermen layed up their boats and went to crew Navy ships in the great war he did not and made a very great fortune at home...... So rich! So self-righteous.

Interesting. Earlier in the very same chapter from which you quoted, Jesus condemned adultery and established the norm for marital relationships as "male and female."

You must show me those entries!
And I'll show you the entry where Jesus stopped a stoning (of an adulterer) and challenged any without sin to throw the first rock. There were none.
That's all self-righteous Christians ever seem to do, chuck rocks about.

By the way....... if my posts are too aggressive, please accept that this is just how I debate..... I have enjoyed your poosts and being able to debate with them.

[eider]

Animals do what is natural. Humans do what is natural. Christian humans are expected to transcend the natural.

And do they........... could you show me where you all 'transcend the natural'?
Any examples?

[eider]

Among others, including Paul (and yes, Jesus) if the scriptural record is to be believed, quite a number of people have attested that Christians are expected to transcend the limitations of nature. We don't see any prophets with the requisite bona fides calling that teaching into question.

I've already asked (previous post) for examples.
You see, I don't think living Christians transcend any limitations of nature. At all.
You may believe that you transcend after life, but during life? You all look very comfortable to me. At least Western Christians do.

[eider]

Of course I'm focusing on "very few of these" given the topic of this thread, which is specifically trying to use animal behavior to justify human perversion. I'm not sure why you think my narrow focus here is a significant point.

Nope..... you got that wrong...... your 'animal behaviour to justify human perversion' just shows your prejudice.
I was showing that lgbt characteristics are to be found all around nature. They are natural, MM.
I don't think you focus on too many of the 500 at all. Maybe 10-20?

If you focused upon the poor laws before all others (which you may do) before the gay laws, that might increase your congregations?

I'm also not sure what you mean by asking if I "support all these laws". God doesn't need my approval to condemn sin, and I do try to live the life he commands me to live, although I am by no means sinless.

Let the man without sin caste the first stone...?
So you do have perversions? So why do you show so much prejudice towards lgbt folks?

You haven't answered my 'mountain man' queries, so I'm guessing you don't live on some vast mountain in the wilds. Fair enough.