ZZtop, Leave the carpet munching thread alone, and come here

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 29, 2002, 5:50 am

if you must. Personally, If I were you, I'd leave this thread alone and let it drift off the page. You are obviously all riled up. People who are emotionaly attached to their opinions, even if they are right (you're not), still end up coming off like a fool. Anyway, enough advice from me.

Here is your last off-topic post on the cunnilingus thread:

Well I was debating coming back here but I finally decided its warranted so here goes.

Aaeamdar, do you still not understand what a sodomite is? It means your an anal fucker. Was that clear enough for you? See while you may like anal fucking and sucking other dudes off, I like it the way it was intended. I'd thought in kindergarten you learned this one so let me rephrase it " boys have penises and girls have vaginas." They do so for a reason, I mean a dick in an ass doesnt make children does it? I didnt think so.

So anyway where do you get this shit, I'm a sodomite because I like women and having sex the right way? Omg I'm gonna burn in hell now!
Seriously though I've never proclaimed to being perfect, and I wasn't always into my beliefs. Life is ridden with mistakes and as long as we learn from them that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean why do you think we can be forgiven for what we do?

Read all of my posts from any thread I have posted on, point me out one spot where I proclaimed to never making any mistakes. I simply said I don't do any of that at this point in time, it doesnt mean I won't in the future, it doesnt mean that I will. It is my choice to decide what I do and as long as I understand the consequences of my actions and take them upon myself there isnt really a problem. Does not liking what gay people do make me a bigot? Nope, it just means I dont believe certain things they do is right.

Now Aaeamdar I dont have a problem with you as a person, but I do have a problem with you proclaiming we have anything in common. I may like sex but I like it the way it was intended. So I say before you begin questioning what I like and or do, you look at yourself and ask yourself why you like it the way you like it when their is 2 different genders out there and one can have children and the other can't.

Remember this last statement.

We all experiment, we all have some fun growing up, I mean how else would you have found out YOU liked having a dick rammed in your ass and or mouth?

O.K. - if you are a new viewer - please see the back story in these two festive threads:

http://veeshanvault.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1546

http://veeshanvault.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1533

You are wrong about Sodomite. Well, wrong is too harsh. I am sure you could find some dictionary definition that agreed with you. But restricting Sodomite to only anal sex is not a fair reading of the word. Sodomite (apart from literally meaning one from Sodom) is clearly in reference to those who, like those in biblical Sodom, commit "unnatural sex acts." It is very clear that the people of biblical Sodom were not solely engaged in anal sex. Rather, they were involved in a whole host of sexual activities, all of which were forbidden acts under Levitical Law. A careful reading of Leviticus makes it clear that any form of MALE sexual gratification performed by the male with someone other than his wife and for the purpose of procreation was unlawful. (As an aside, there is no textual basis for the Christian hatred of lesbianism, yet another inconvient fact people like ZZtop tend to ignore when discussing homosexuality). These acts include, masterbation, male homosexuality, bestiality (here, prohibited to both men and women), heterosexuality outside of mariage, and sex with your wife in a manner not capable of producing children. It was for all of these acts, commited openly, that the people of Sodom were condemed. Hereto, the most fair reading of the word Sodomite is one who engages in a sexual act other than penal/vaginal intercorse. As backup to this biblical etymological reading of the word, a pervue of the various sodomy laws, former and present, finds both that Sodomy is almost always defined to include oral sex and also almost always encompasses such acts in a heterosexual relationship.

So, my friend, you most certainly are, like me, a sodomite. Once again the main difference being that I continue to enjoy as much sodomy as I can handle, where as you at least profess not to like it.

That asside, follow sodomite, I thought I would clear up some misconceptions for you.

Firstly, you are quite correct that a "dick in the ass" will not result in children. I am most thankful for that, as I do not want to be preganant and I most certainly do not want to have an entire child pass out of my ass. What you are missing, however, is that sitmulation of the prostate is quite enjoyable. It has to be done right, though. I am sure there is a lot of reading material avialble on the web. Also, if you decide to try it out, you don't have to jump right in there with a dick. Anything about 3 inches of longer will do. You can try your finger, or get your girlfriend to do it for you (though make sure she clips her nails - OUCH!). Anyway, give it a go sometime and see if you don't endup agreeing with me that, in spite of its inability to produce children, it has some merit. (P.S. - use a generous portion of lube and try to relax).

BTW - before I leave this topic, soemthing at the very end of your post caught my eye.

YOU liked having a dick rammed in your ass and or mouth?[\quote] Now, I thought it might be possible that your dislike of anal and oral sex stemmed from this misconception. When doing either, it is important to be gentile. You do not want to be doing any ramming of your dick in anyone's ass or mouth. That is going to be most unpleasant for all involved.

Secondly, You asked if not liking what gay people do makes you a bigot? You then incorrectly answered yourself "Nope, it just means I dont believe certain things they do is right." The problem is, gay people are defined by the fact that they perform the acts that you don't think are right. That is like saying "I am not bigotted against black people, I just don't like the color of their skin and that tight curly hair." Or saying that you would have nothing against left-handed people as long as they wrote with their right hand. If you are opposed to gay people doing the things that make them gay in the first place, then you are, in fact, bigotted against gays. It is up to you to decide wether that is right or wrong, but at least be honest about it.

That's all for now. Enjoy.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 29, 2002, 5:57 am

LOL Baiting at it's finest. BTW, a few of my co-workers (no, not at the Taco Bell

) who read this board have commented on your pwnage Dar.

Keep up the good work. Though it must suck not to have some decent competition.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 29, 2002, 9:51 am

A gay man posting about the merrits of anal sex.....and my day just started....

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » November 29, 2002, 9:57 am

Holy shit Dar, good one.

Looks like my day won't be so boaring after all.

/em Grabs another cup of coffee and hits F5

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 29, 2002, 10:00 am

You can not approve / like of somthing (abortions, homosexuality, ect) and still tolerate it - as long as you base your decisions about ALL the aspects of someone and not just their color, creed, or sexual orientation.

IE: I may not like what the gay guy down the street does, but as long as he's a nice person, I have no problem with him. Now, if said gay guy was a total horse's ass.. then yeah, different story.

As for lesbianism, since you brought up how much we hate to bring it up, I think the general consencus - weather right or wrong - and summed up in a nice, tight package for you, is simply that a homosexual act is a homosexual act. Weather it was heavily practiced back then is ANYONES guess, juding by the fact women weren't much more than property back then, it's not totally likely, but it falls under the same heading of male to male anal sex.

It's not my job to tell you how to live your life, or to tell you that your belifs are wrong because I beleive somthing different.. main reason I stay out of conversations like these. If you want to be homosexual, fine; if you want to be straight, fine; if you want to ram gerbils up your butthole, maybe not fine, but whatever - your life, your decisions. <shrugs>

/baited

Ravvenn · Post by **Ravvenn** » November 29, 2002, 12:42 pm

Akaran_D wrote: if you want to ram gerbils up your butthole, maybe not fine, but whatever

lol

Munt · Post by **Munt** » November 29, 2002, 2:31 pm

Back in school my ancient history teacher told us that the Romans often resorted to buggery of the same sex to avoid pregnancy. Though he also told us that they had small babies there for the sole purpose to suck them off and grope at them /throwup.

I didn't have a chance to read all the threads yet here in work but there's clearly some silly, silly people on this board.

"I may like sex but I like it the way it was intended."

Is there some book wrought in the black semen of the ancient gods that says the only acceptable act of sex is that which can lead to procreation?

I'm not gay, but variety is Goooood.

If i'm totally off topic ... Appologies, I'll give you my home address and you can send me a nail-bomb.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 29, 2002, 2:39 pm

Noooooooo, then they will nail bomb my house too, silly fool!

Munt is teh weak~

On topic, good post Dar, not that he needed anymore pwning, but why not

aristat · Post by **aristat** » November 29, 2002, 4:12 pm

Aranuil wrote:Though it must suck not to have some decent competition.

/agree

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 29, 2002, 8:50 pm

You can not approve / like of somthing (abortions, homosexuality, ect) and still tolerate it - as long as you base your decisions about ALL the aspects of someone and not just their color, creed, or sexual orientation.

Remember the history of this thread. The folks I am addressing are saying similatiously that they are not bigotted towards gays and can decide that a person should not be permitted to adopt based solely on the knowledge that a person is gay.

As for lesbianism, since you brought up how much we hate to bring it up, I think the general consencus - weather right or wrong - and summed up in a nice, tight package for you, is simply that a homosexual act is a homosexual act. Weather it was heavily practiced back then is ANYONES guess, juding by the fact women weren't much more than property back then, it's not totally likely, but it falls under the same heading of male to male anal sex.

You are missing the point. The arguement was presented that the REASON being gay is bad is BECAUSE the acts are prohibited by Levitical Law. The people citing these laws, however, choose to ignore the fact that only male to male homosexual activity is prohibited. There may be any number of historical reason for this. I am completely ignorant of the propensity of women to engage in homosexual activity in biblical times. The only thing I can really point to is that the laws did prohibit beastiality by both women and men, but only discussed homosexuality with regard to men. It should also be noted, that the penality - death - applied to homosexuals was also applied to heterosexual acts not commited by the maried. All of these distinctions, however, are completely ignored by those citing the bible to condemn homosexuality. Nothing in the bible about lesibianism, but those citing Leviticus condemn both equally. Lots in the bible about heterosexual out of marriage sex - many, even most, resulting in the same penalty for the actors, yet clearly those citing Leviticus do not view the two as even comperable.

Remember, my point is not to cast judgment on you if you decide homosexuality is bad. I stopped arguing with Klaw about the adoption issue as soon as he came out and said "I don't think gays should adopt because homosexuals are bad." Fine, we disagree, but the statement is axiomatic, so no point in continuing. Those that try to cite the bible, however, always turn to the one passage in Leviticus about the prohibition of a man lying with a man as he would a women. These aren't my arguements. Feel free to condemn all those that are homosexual. Feel equally free to do it because your religion proscribes such activity. But, don't try and cite the one passage in Leviticus out of context from all of its other laws to 1. make qualitative distinctions it does not make, 2. condemn things it does not condemn.

If you are going to cite Leviticus as your bible (pun intended) on allowed and prohibited sexual acts you need to hate male to male same sex acts no more greatly than out-of-marriage opposite sex acts and you need to not at all care about lesibianism. The people who customarily cite Leviticus, however, lack the intellectual honesty to do this.

Anuin · Post by **Anuin** » November 29, 2002, 9:11 pm

Damn Dar. Thats some good writing.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 29, 2002, 9:16 pm

Anuin wrote:Damn Dar. Thats some good writing.

I believe someone has experience ownz0rsh1p today.

Nice writing Dar.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 29, 2002, 10:47 pm

Gay guys RULE!!!!

More women for me!!!!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 29, 2002, 11:04 pm

Here's a funny thing.. I'm not talking about the bible here. If you want to, go ahead. I didn't even READ that other thread, I just psoted in this one because I disagreed with some of the points you raised, primarily your comments about bigotry and the ones about lesbianism.

That's all bro.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 30, 2002, 12:15 am

If you are going to cite Leviticus as your bible (pun intended) on allowed and prohibited sexual acts you need to hate male to male same sex acts no more greatly than out-of-marriage opposite sex acts and you need to not at all care about lesibianism. The people who customarily cite Leviticus, however, lack the intellectual honesty to do this.

Were there a god who really wrote these rules in leviticus, you probably wouldn't stand all the much of a chance trying to lawyer yourself out of going to hell on a technicality.

When you are talking about morality, the spirit of the law usually takes precedence over the letter.

So, although I agree with you in spirit, I think you're wrong in your argument.

The main problem I have with backing up my morality with the bible is that so many christian moralists will use the bible to back up the things they agree with, and ignore, or even re-write what they don't agree with, citing it as outdated or no longer relavent.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 30, 2002, 12:15 am

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 30, 2002, 12:44 am

so many christian moralists will use the bible to back up the things they agree with, and ignore, or even re-write what they don't agree with, citing it as outdated or no longer relavent.

I think you should probably reread my arguement, since you essentially just restated it.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » November 30, 2002, 1:03 am

You really can't out-think Dar on this. Severe ownage bud

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 30, 2002, 2:27 am

Aaeamdar wrote:I think you should probably reread my arguement, since you essentially just restated it.

Yes here on earth we call it an agreement.

As I said I think you are correct, but your argument is stupid.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 30, 2002, 6:13 am

You have an odd manner of expressing agreement.

You start by stating that I would not lawyer my way out of hell on a techinicality, but there was no technicality that would apply to me (as my refereces to my prostate and cock loving should have made clear I am a gay man, not a lesbian, and thus am clearly covered by the Levitical laws). This statement not only makes no sense, it also, to me at least, gives the strong impression that you think my arguement has something to do with Levitical approval of male homosexuality.

You then say my argue (which you agree with in spirit) is wrong. I do not normally agree with arguements I think are wrong (nor do I normally agree with argumets I would charaterize as "stupid"). Perhaps we differ here. /shrug.

You then finish by restating pretty much exactly what my conclusion was without the support. Again, maybe it is just me, but you post seemed to take more of the form of offering that conclusion as an alternative, not as simply a complete agreement.

Are you sure you did not simply misread what I said?

Also, btw, I don't agree with this:

"When you are talking about morality, the spirit of the law usually takes precedence over the letter."

Or at least as it applies to Levitical Laws.

Leviticus is not a statement of morality, it is a statement of rules. Now, certainly, at the readers option, some moral values can be extracted out of those rules, particularly if you assume, as you must when interpretting it, that all books are the word of God, and you then reference other books to help infer the moral basis of those laws. But, Leviticus itself is a book of laws, not a book of morals.

We can tell this in two ways. Firstly, the text is inteh for of a command, not in the form of a judgement or value.

Example:

Do not kill. - That is a law/command/rule, etc.

Killing is wrong - That is a statement of morality/values.

The rule "Do not kill" may or may not be based on the moral "Killing is wrong." We can't know that, however, from the rule alone. "Do not kill" could just as easily be a rule of convience or a rule in the best interest of society without actually having any real moral basis. If you want to claim that "Do not kill" is based on the moral "Killing is wrong," you will need to ind support for that in something other than simply the rule.

The second way we know the laws in Leviticus are just Laws and not necessarily based on morality is an examination of some of the laws in the context of reason and history. Take these four sample laws - though there are many other similar laws to draw from -

1. Do not plaiw a field with an Ox and and Ass.
2. Do not round the corners of your beard.
3. Do not wear clothing of mixed fabric.
4. Do not eat the flesh of animals with cleft hoves unless they chew their cud.

Reason and our knowledge of human history tells us that these laws are not laws based in morality, but are instead laws based in safety, good advice, or a law designed to identify a peoples.

So, unless you can cite to another portion of the bible which makes clear the prohibition on (male) homosexuality is a law based in morality, we are only talking about a law here, not a principle.

Going from there, you really have no basis for including lesbians in acts prohibited by the laws of God. Nor do you have a basis for explaining why a person who hates (male) homosexuality should not equally hate, as an example, a non-married heterosexual couple having intercourse.

There is a basic canon of the construction of laws called "expressio unis exclusio alterius", which means the inclusion of one, excludes others that would otherwise naturally be list with it.

The Laws clearly forbid male homosexual acts. The Laws also make clear that the Laws as a whole do consider women, as, in two seperate Laws, besitiality is prohibited to both men and women. Finally, the Laws clearly do not discuss female homosexuality. Now perhaps God just fucked up (not possible given the context we are working in), but it seems the better interpretation is the God did not mean to prohibit, for whatever reason, female homosexuality. (Another alternative is that the original Arameic did in fact include a prohibition against both male and female homosexuality, but in being twice translated (Arameic -> Latin -> English), the meaning was lost. If you accept that, however, then you really have a hard arguement being certain of much in an English version of the bible.) However, it seems to me that the most reaonable result is simply that femal homosexuality is not prohibited.

Now, if you can find another portion of the bible that discusses homosexuality as itself being immoral (we can accpet that it is immoral to disobey the Laws of God, but that does not mean that any particular Law had a moral basis), then we can reopen the disucssion as to weather female homosexual acts are encompassed in the "spirit" of the laws probihiting male homosexual acts.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 30, 2002, 6:26 am

Leviticus is not a statement of morality, it is a statement of rules. Now, certainly, at the readers option, some moral values can be extracted out of those rules, particularly if you assume, as you must when interpretting it, that all books are the word of God, and you then reference other books to help infer the moral basis of those laws. But, Leviticus itself is a book of laws, not a book of morals.

The entire bible is a statement of morality though.

We can tell this in two ways. Firstly, the text is inteh for of a command, not in the form of a judgement or value.

Example:

Do not kill. - That is a law/command/rule, etc.

Killing is wrong - That is a statement of morality/values.

Yes the bible says do not kill. God doesn't really have to go into detail as to why you shouldn't kill, you just aren't supposed to. Because it's moral to not murder people. Do you see?

It is the same thing as hiring someone to murder your spouse and thinking that you are going to get away with it when you die (if you are a religious person anyway), because the bible just says don't kill anyone, and nothing about hiring someone else to kill for you.

This is why I am saying you are trying to lawyer your way out of it with the whole lesbian thing. Man is generally a generic term for a person. When the bible says God said not to lay down with another man as you would a woman he is pretty much saying don't sex up people with the same reproductive organs you have. Now lesbians could say that they are getting off on some technicality because they aren't specifically mentioned, but the bible isn't really a legal document subject to some sort of contractual or criminal law. [/quote]

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 30, 2002, 6:57 am

The bible is quite clearly not a statement of morality. As only one of many examples, Nehemiah is little more than the geneology of several families. Other books, such as Esther, also follow this format. Numbers is nothing more than the Lord's apportionment of duties and rewards to the various families/tirbes of Israel. Genesis, apart from original sin, is the story of creation. Kings is the tale of David. And so on and so on. There are huge portions of teh Bibile that have no moral implications whatever. There are other large portions of the bible that are tales from which lessons can be learned, some f which can be charaterized as moral.

To state that everything in the bible is a moral is just absurd.

Secondly, your point about how man is a generic term is clearly wrong. The bible has no difficulty at all distinguishing between men and women. In particular, the Laws of Leviticus are very clear when refering to men or women. As only some examples:

15: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16: And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

If man is generic, why the need for the second prohibition as regards to women?

Edit:
btw, it is most certainly not immoral to kill according to the Old Testiment. Quite to teh contrary, Go often commanded his subjects to kill. The commandment "thou shall not kill" is better read as "thou shall not kill innocent jews" or "though shall not murder." Killing, slavery and rape were all quite moral depending on the vicitm. As only one of many examples, reference Numbers 31.

"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

32 ¶ And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

35 and thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 30, 2002, 7:31 am

Aaeamdar wrote:The bible is quite clearly not a statement of morality.

Uhh, the fuck it isn't.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 30, 2002, 7:43 am

Context, Kyoukan. Learn it, love it. It makes discussing matters much less irritating. As a hint, please read the remainder of the paragraph you quoted from and the one sentance paragraph following it. If you still have a disagreement, feel free to post it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 30, 2002, 7:59 am

People in western civilization obtain their moral guidelines from the bible. More importantly people have obtained them from other people's interpretations of it. You are lawyering again by saying "well this book and that book and this chapter in that book don't have any moral lessons to give." To which I would answer I don't fucking care what you think construes a morality. When you say genesis has nothing to learn in it about morality, well that is your problem. The bible in it's entirety are what the laws and regulations of western society are built around.

Who knows maybe the concept of lesbianism didn't even exist when leviticus was written.

Point is this: You aren't going to get out of being immoral (or what others perceive as being immoral) by some technicality. Like I already said, if god says "Don't do that" and you do sorta the same thing only a little differently, or get somebody to do it for you, you are still going to get your ass smacked, and you probably aren't going to be able to wheedle your way out of it.

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » November 30, 2002, 8:03 am

You go druid.

Dar pwns you.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » November 30, 2002, 8:43 am

Actually your both probably correct. The bible is basically a bunch of parables tailored to fit whatever sort of social structure the authors were trying to cultivate at the time a given part was written. When it is not doing this it is generally either a geneology record of sorts, a dubious historical record, or prophetic with no real moral or social message at all (revalations). Its been hacked apart (Catholics removed entire sections they did not want out in the open), rewritten (King James skewed a lot of is translation to reflect his personal interpretations), and even the faithful agree it has numerous conflicts within itself.

Point is, you are both making well referenced and well built arguments over a disjointed 1500 year old book that can't even agree with itself. It is an excercise in mental masturbation. Anyone who puts any stock in the book already selectively ignores things that are inconvenient for them, so why waste energy debating its purpose? Its all just a crappy hybrid of things swiped from Zoarastrianism and early Hebewism, anyhow. Its like arguing over the cliff notes of someone elses photocopies. Unless your going to beat some superstitious close minded zealott upside the head with their own moral ambiguity, debating it is a complete waste of both of your debating skills, especially since you seem to agree on the overall point in the first place.

Side note: Jerking off is not the way "God intended" but Id bet the farm the number of people on our server who never spanked it in their entire lives numers in the single digits. Furthermore, its all pointless since under the Crispy system you only have to ask Gods fogiveness before you kick the buckett to recieve it anyhow, so Dar can Dirty Sanchez like Freddy Mercury at a drag queen convention as log as he remembers to say "God forgive me for all my ass spelunkery" before he breaths his last and he will end up in heaven right next to all you god fearing christians who don't know what a female orgasm is. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the NWS forum to work on my next confession.....

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » November 30, 2002, 3:09 pm

There will be no talk of Dirty Sanchez here! That is just nasty. and a sin. SINNER! bad jice bad!

Taly · Post by **Taly** » November 30, 2002, 9:01 pm

ouy!

Are you guys seriously running out of things to discuss?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 1, 2002, 4:22 am

Now, if you can find another portion of the bible that discusses homosexuality as itself being immoral............ then we can reopen the disucssion as to weather female homosexual acts are encompassed in the "spirit" of the laws probihiting male homosexual acts.

If you're curious about lesbian action consider this.

(Romans 1:26-27)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

God set the example of sex:

(Mark 10:6-9)
But at the beginning of creation God "made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

God made sex for the purpose of binding a man and woman together as close as possible, literally "one flesh". It's a bond that helps hold a marriage together.

Now here's another catch all for homosexuality.

(Exodus 20: 14)
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

God defines how sex is used. Getting it on with anyone other than your wife/husband is a violation of God's rules.

To answer a previous question, acts of homosexuality are equal to adultery because all sin has a terminal weight. It takes one sin to ruin perfection, and thus the need for Jesus to bail us out.

(2nd Timothy 4:3-4)
For the time will come when men 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. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

You're need to argue homosexuality from a moral system outside the Bible to be successful.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » December 1, 2002, 7:51 am

It's because of this shit, I can't wait til a U.S. president is sworn in without his (or her) fucking spouse's hand holding the bible and swearing an oath to serve the country on this crap ass book.

Adex, I remember 2 distinctly different types of sin, cardinal and something else, one major, one minor. All sins are not created equal.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 1, 2002, 9:28 am

Well this deviates from the topic but I'll share with you why I think the way I do.

While there has been mention of "great" sins in the Bible, the smallest of sins still invalidate your ticket to heaven.

(Jame 2:10)
For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

For those without access to heaven (those without Jesus helping them out) Greater sins are punished more harshly than lesser ones. But again it justs takes one infraction to make yourself imperfect, thus unable to be in contact with a perfect God. (Jesus fixes this broken link if you ask him.)

(Isaiah 59:2)
"But your iniquities have separated you and your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear"

(Romans 6:23)
For the wages of sin is death, but the free
gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our
Lord.

(1 Peter 3:18)
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the
just for the unjust, in order that He might bring
us to God, having been put to death in the
flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

The point is, being perfect is an impossible standard.
God recognised this and provided us with a way to be perfect through Jesus taking on the penalty for our screwups.

That was a mighty nice thing for him to do.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » December 1, 2002, 3:08 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote: The main problem I have with backing up my morality with the bible is that so many christian moralists will use the bible to back up the things they agree with, and ignore, or even re-write what they don't agree with, citing it as outdated or no longer relavent.

and

Adex_Xeda wrote: (2nd Timothy 4:3-4)
For the time will come when men 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. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

I could not agree more with these two posts, and they really say the same thing. Although Kyoukan is not Christian ( I think, if I am wrong I apologize) she makes a very sound argument here, one which I have been voicing for quite some time. Her words are the exact reason why the Christian faith have so MANY branches (protestant, catholic, lutheran etc etc etc) is because people tend to follow what suites their lifestyle so they can point at someone else and call them immoral, and make themselves feel better. Like I said, I am not perfect in following God's laws and I know I never will be, but I try. Even the wisest Christian falls short of the glory of God.

Adex's quote from 2 Timothy was exactly what Kyoukan said, she quoted the bible and did not even know she had (neither did I, thanks Adex). 2 Timothy seems to apply to both those of the Christian faith (shards of Christianity) and those not (insert pro gay argument here).You just keep right on throwing those scriptures up here, Adex.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » December 1, 2002, 5:07 pm

i can feel the jesus level rising ...

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 2, 2002, 4:31 am

Interesting, Adex. What version of the bible is that quote from? I ask, only because it differs from mine (a KJ annotated). Mine reads as follows:

26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Regardless, I am not sure why you interpret that to be a reference to lesbianism. It is certainly possible. This is after all, a quote from the letters of Paul, who, unlike the other apostles and very much unlike Jesus, tended to be hateful and judgmental. None the less, using either your text or mine, the only thing noted about the women (26) is that they excahnged the natural for the unatural. Compare that section to the part concerning men (27). There the men not only abandonded the natural relationship with wemon, but further are specifically noted as having engaged in relations with men AND (perhaps most importantly) are punished for their actions. Note, the men, but not the women, were punished.

My interpretation of this, and I suspect I could find scholarly backing for this, is that the reference in 26 may be refering to lesbianism, but could also be refering to masterbation, or other sex acts (apart from besitiality) not between a married man and woman. Paul, again having a well know reputation for being judgmental (in spite of the teachings of Jesus to the contrary), chose to express his distaste for the "unnatural" behaviors of these women (again, perhaps lesbianism, prehaps prositution, perhaps simply masterbation), but even he could not write that they were punished by God for these actions, as whatever those actions were, they were not a crime against the Laws of God (found prinicipally in Leviticus and Exodus).

What do you think?

Now here's another catch all for homosexuality.

(Exodus 20: 14)
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

God defines how sex is used. Getting it on with anyone other than your wife/husband is a violation of God's rules.

To answer a previous question, acts of homosexuality are equal to adultery because all sin has a terminal weight. It takes one sin to ruin perfection, and thus the need for Jesus to bail us out.

I don't see how the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a catch all for homosexuality. This is a particularly hard passage to interpret, since it is found here in a vacuum. That said, looking at other places where adultery is memtioned, it seems clear tht it is refering to heterosexual sex outside of mariage.

Here is a good reference for it in Leviticus 20-10: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

There are multiple reference to adultery in the bible with context around them. All the ones of which I am aware refer to adultery in the context of heterosexuality. Some of the more clear ones lie in Jeremiah and Mathew.

On your second point, you seem to agree with me, but I want to be clear if that is the case. Adultery is as condemnable and offense as male homosexuality (I include male here, only because we both agree that male homosexuality is prohibitted by the Laws of God, accepting at the time that you may also feel female homosexuality is also prohibitted). Presumably then, you would have replied "No" to a poll on whether heterosexual couples, at least one of which has had sex outside of marriage, should be allowed to adopt?

I ask, because though you state you believe that all sins are equal, but it is clear from the politics of the christian right that they do not so believe. Anyway, rather than a long string of hypotheticals, I'll stick to asking that for the moment.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 2, 2002, 4:46 am

Heh.

Not sure what I should do here, so this is my solution. I assume PMs are meant to be private, so generally speaking, I never reveal anything to anyone that someone reveals to me in a PM (or in this case email). That said, I think it is bad form to take a discussion on a public board to emails/PMs, especiailly when they are clearly in the form of a flame. If you don't have the balls to flame someone in public, don't bother at all.

So,

To whom it may concern (they know who they are):

This time, I won't reveal you. But consider it your warning, next time I will.

To answer your very eloquently phrased question, No. I am not some "self loathing faggot desperately trying to justify may way out of hell." I am agnostic/atheist (depending on how you use the terms). I happen to think the Bible is a kickass peice of literature. I am particularly impressed with its weaving of mythos with history and its reasonable internal consistency (certainly not consistent enough to be the work of a perfect being, but a nice job none-the-less). I am equally well versed in Dune and in Tolkein, which along with the Bible are my otehr favourite works of fiction. Thanks very much, however, for your concern and opinion of my immortal sole.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 2, 2002, 4:57 am

no tell us who it was.

I think it was xouqua. he is violently homophobic.

Post by **Xouqoa** » December 2, 2002, 11:50 am

Wasn't me...

I hate Dune!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 2, 2002, 12:33 pm

If you're curious about that passage I suggest you study the Greek version of it.

As to your question about a married couple with one of them committing adultery wanting to adopt.

The statement alone isn't an fair question. It needs clarification. Is the person that's cheating on his or her spouse openly doing it and saying that nothing is wrong with it?

This refined question is much closer to an openly gay couple wanting to adopt.

In that case, I don't think that's a good environment for kids.

I belive there are sociological and cultural benefits for a kid with both a mother and father that are separate from my religious beliefs.

It's a poverty to put a kid in a less than ideal family for the sake of furthering a political movement.

BTW, its a busy week, I'll try to get back to you in better detail towards the end of it. I'll even trudge through the greek with you if you want.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » December 2, 2002, 3:27 pm

dar wrote : "BTW - before I leave this topic, soemthing at the very end of your post caught my eye. [quote] YOU liked having a dick rammed in your ass and or mouth?[\quote] Now, I thought it might be possible that your dislike of anal and oral sex stemmed from this misconception. When doing either, it is important to be gentile. "

!

Main Entry: 1gen·tile
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin gentilis, from Latin gent-, gens nation
Date: 14th century
1 often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially : a Christian as distinguished from a Jew
2 : HEATHEN, PAGAN
3 often capitalized : a non-Mormon

ok JK, but that was a funny slip. well it was to me anyway. unless he really meant it

edit: doh

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 2, 2002, 3:41 pm

The pun was intended.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 2, 2002, 3:49 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Heh.

Not sure what I should do here, so this is my solution. I assume PMs are meant to be private, so generally speaking, I never reveal anything to anyone that someone reveals to me in a PM (or in this case email). That said, I think it is bad form to take a discussion on a public board to emails/PMs, especiailly when they are clearly in the form of a flame. If you don't have the balls to flame someone in public, don't bother at all.

So,

To whom it may concern (they know who they are):

This time, I won't reveal you. But consider it your warning, next time I will.

To answer your very eloquently phrased question, No. I am not some "self loathing faggot desperately trying to justify may way out of hell." I am agnostic/atheist (depending on how you use the terms). I happen to think the Bible is a kickass peice of literature. I am particularly impressed with its weaving of mythos with history and its reasonable internal consistency (certainly not consistent enough to be the work of a perfect being, but a nice job none-the-less). I am equally well versed in Dune and in Tolkein, which along with the Bible are my otehr favourite works of fiction. Thanks very much, however, for your concern and opinion of my immortal sole.

No, tell us who the little hate-filled bastard is who clearly lacks the intelligence to form a poignant argument and instead has to resort to trying to spread the hate privately.

Unsolicited private messages are not private imho. Please tell us who it was so that I know who to direct my anger at. ZztheAsshat, was it you?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 2, 2002, 3:58 pm

Dumbass backward cracker assholes piss me off.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » December 2, 2002, 4:06 pm

Ok, here.

I am equally well versed in Dune and in Tolkein, which along with the Bible are my otehr favourite works of fiction.

You know, I am so betting that if you called the Koran or any other religious book a "work of fiction", you'd get slammed so hard it probably wouldn't be funny, but since yer directing it towards Christianity atm, very few people are going to say anything about it.

If you're going to attempt to argue, argue with facts. Pointless flames like that are only going to piss people off and make you lose points for accuracy in the eyes of the people that are going to read it. (edited out the pointless flame here, not conductive to the argument)

26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

How can you NOT attribute this to lesbianism? What are you attributing it to then, sheepism? Then when you add the QUALIFIER here:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another

See that "And likewise"? Means the men did the same thing that the women didn't. SO, if the men and the women did it, in the context of all that has been presented here, how can you say that wasn't lesbianism?

Btw, please do post the name of the person that sent you the PM. Debating religion is one thing. Hate filled flames are a totally different story. Religion does not give you permission to hate someone.. the book itself says that you are to "love the sinner but hate the sin" - this DOES NOT MEAN you are to attack someone for what they do. It's called tolerance, NOT hate.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 2, 2002, 4:11 pm

I disagree about the bible being fiction or non-fiction. I believe that whether you believe it is fiction or non-fiction is entirely dependent upon your level of faith, or lack thereof. It's no different for the Q'uran or any other religious text.

Let us not forget that people use to believe in greek, roman, and norse gods. They used to worship the, pray to them etc. These mythologies are now considered fiction.

Given that people do believe in the Q'uran, and the bible, and hinduism, and buddishm, and other religions, how can they all be right? Clearly someone is wrong... maybe all of them. Yet those who believe do so with passion and fervor. Many will die for their God(s).

I'm sorry, if you lack faith, there's nothing wrong with saying they're fiction.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 2, 2002, 4:12 pm

----------------------
You know, I am so betting that if you called the Koran or any other religious book a "work of fiction", you'd get slammed so hard it probably wouldn't be funny, but since yer directing it towards Christianity atm, very few people are going to say anything about it.
-----------------------

Ummm......what if you have the view that they are all fiction?

They may be as real as my one eyebrow, or they may be as real as Norrath, we won't know, we won't care either.

Those who believe so blindly will lap up anything they are told if they think it will send them to heaven; and those with an open mind just won't give a shit.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » December 2, 2002, 4:19 pm

Or, there's another interpetiation.

It says in the Bible that there are "other sheep" that will hear God's voice. (slightly paraphrased, don't remember the whole quote. Who is to say that ALL the religions are or are not right / wrong? Maybe what's right for one person isn't right for another, people grow up in different regions of the world, with histories a heck of OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more different than a bunch of european rejects that came over on creaky boats to make america.

You'll notice that almost ALL of these religions have OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of things in common. The same basic rules prevail for all, give or take some. In all the major religions around today, aside from one, there's a single God, and his son / prophet. The basic tennants are the same, the rituals are a bit different, the text is different. Not every culture is ready / able to hear / concieve the same ideals and theologies at the same time others are. For all I know, Christianity MAY BE wrong, but for me, it's right. That's the main reason I don't like to get into any arguments about one man's sin, one man's religion, or wahtever.. I just get really irked when people call the things I've believed in my wholelife nothing more than a work of ficition that is comparable to the works of Tolkien.

Surprised more of you guys haven't given that line of thought some, well, thought.

edit, after seeing Teeny's post.

Ummm......what if you have the view that they are all fiction?

They may be as real as my one eyebrow, or they may be as real as Norrath, we won't know, we won't care either.

Those who believe so blindly will lap up anything they are told if they think it will send them to heaven; and those with an open mind just won't give a shit.

I've got an open mind. Very open. I couldn't beleive in half the things I did if I didn't. But i'd at least like to try and live my life well and do the right things in it and have somthing to beleive in on the off chance that I may be right and have the chance to end up in a place of eternal happiness once I die, instead of not having anything to look forward to other than a cold, empty, total non existanceof my consciousness when I die, being totally gone, with no sense of feeling or even a mind to register that I no longer exist - or even worse, be wrong and end up in eternal tortue.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 2, 2002, 4:26 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Or, there's another interpetiation.

It says in the Bible that there are "other sheep" that will hear God's voice. (slightly paraphrased, don't remember the whole quote. Who is to say that ALL the religions are or are not right / wrong? Maybe what's right for one person isn't right for another, people grow up in different regions of the world, with histories a heck of OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more different than a bunch of european rejects that came over on creaky boats to make america.

You'll notice that almost ALL of these religions have OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of things in common. The same basic rules prevail for all, give or take some. In all the major religions around today, aside from one, there's a single God, and his son / prophet. The basic tennants are the same, the rituals are a bit different, the text is different. Not every culture is ready / able to hear / concieve the same ideals and theologies at the same time others are. For all I know, Christianity MAY BE wrong, but for me, it's right. That's the main reason I don't like to get into any arguments about one man's sin, one man's religion, or wahtever.. I just get really irked when people call the things I've believed in my wholelife nothing more than a work of ficition that is comparable to the works of Tolkien.

Surprised more of you guys haven't given that line of thought some, well, thought.

Oh, I agree with you on the commonality etc. However, if you talk to a fundamentalist Christian and you ask them whether or not someone who is a great person but believes in something other than God/Jesus Christ will go to heaven, they will almost universally say no. This is why I don't like hard-liners from ANY religion. Except for Buddhism. Buddhists aren't so arrogant that they'd pretend to know what happens in the afterlife.

Given that your religion has more to do with where you were born/socialized than almost anything else, I refuse to accept that any single religion is 100% right.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » December 2, 2002, 4:29 pm

whether or not the morals in a religious text are good for a person to base a life on is different than the book being a historically accurate account.

for me, i think it is sufficient that some of the messages written in the New Testament were conceived by a person at all, regardless of whether that person was divine (which i don't believe).

i think labelling a religious text as "fiction" is not really the best pigeon hole for it. "mythology" or something similar would be more accurate in my opinion.

regardless of what anybody believes, the universe is structered in a certain way that follows from its inception/creation. in other words, god either made the world in 7 days or he didnt. no amount of christian conversions or defections will change the way that the universe came into being.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » December 2, 2002, 4:30 pm

I don't like hard liners either. But I think it's a point of fact that given how religion was spread you are going to end up having them, regardless of what part of the world you're in.

Like I said. It may be that all of them are right, or none of them. May be that one is right, the others aren't. But hopefully living a good life - and atnoning for anything you may have done in the past - will make your afterlife (should there be one) more enjoyable for you. But as accurate as they all are, and the sheer number of times that I frankly should have died allready (or hurt far worse than I was in any given situation) I'm not against beliving in a holy good or a unfathomable evil, and with those, heaven and hell (respectively.)