So you dont believe the bible but use it out of context. Typical. Not likely because I don't cherry pick verses to prop up ridiculous opinion. You use it because you think it makes look intellectual. It really just shows ignorance
Rowan County Clerk Refuses After Supreme Court
- Thread starter -LEK-
- Start date
- Status
Pot, meet kettle.
Actually, you do cherry pick verses. You've just decided that you're a better cherry picker than many of the millions and billions of cherry pickers who have preceded you. The Bible isn't a novel in which every book and chapter builds upon the previous chapter, it's a collection of books with the New Testament being the story and meaning of the life of Christ being told through the understandings of different people. Because of the way the Bible is written it is full of contradictions and ANY found context can't be obtained without emphasizing some and de-emphasizing other text. But of course you knew this.
My favorite is when they start trying to quote Jesus to defend their bigotry but end up quoting everyone else but Jesus.
Instead of getting your belief from 1 infamous study or something in NYT why don't you go ask your gay friends or anyone in your neighborhood who are gay about it??? Not all of them are marching down the street everyday in a tutu or leather outfit
Jesus never said anything about driving cars but here we are driving them.
It's the only vulnerable group left. Once homosex is common thought in a few generations, the church will have to find a new vulnerable population to hate. As aforementioned, the next group will be AI/robotsex relationships. That will be the next in line. Book it.
Of course there are other populations that the church can hate on. Adulterers, gamblers, prostitute patrons, people who eat shrimp, etc etc... but we all know why the church won't bother with those groups... Especially the folks who eat shell fish....
No person has a definite answer for why some people have sexual attraction to people of the same gender. It may be because of genetic make-up. It may be because of familial influences. It may be environment. As a Christian, it's not my call to say why a person is attracted to the opposite or same sex or to choose not to love them. Being a Christian does not give me license to be hateful no matter what behaviors a person displays.
That said, choosing to live a "gay" lifestyle is a choice and IMO it's a wrong choice the same as a heterosexual choosing to have sex with multiple women to whom he's not married. As a Christian, I have no problem with people saying what they believe is wrong or right. I do have a problem with making the judgment that some are not worthy of our kindness, love and proper treatment. I believe Jesus would tell each of us where we're missing the mark....but I know He'd love us anyway. We should follow His model
That said, choosing to live a "gay" lifestyle is a choice and IMO it's a wrong choice the same as a heterosexual choosing to have sex with multiple women to whom he's not married. As a Christian, I have no problem with people saying what they believe is wrong or right. I do have a problem with making the judgment that some are not worthy of our kindness, love and proper treatment. I believe Jesus would tell each of us where we're missing the mark....but I know He'd love us anyway. We should follow His model
How old were you when you stopped being attracted to men?
That's mighty big of you. The path of least resistance is just to hate on everything not like you. Kudos to you for getting out of your comfort zone.
I, too, never use my faith as a tool for moralizing, and putting myself above others. I try to see the poetry in the prose.
The whole attraction to bible thumping is power over something else you can pretend to be better than. You even put on your best clothes to thump in at your weekly thump-fests.
The gays are an easy target for thumpers. They are clearly an "other" and can muster little or no vocal support amongst inner thumping circles thus they are pretty much a defenseless target and all the more attractive for thumping as another key component of being a thumper is cowardice and needing to find a herd to blend in to for safety. That is what also spawns the urge for conformity amonst them. Little more than your average Serengeti herd mentality, really.
You can't have a good strong "we" without a "them" and gays serve as a perfect "them" to beat up on. Somebody to point at and make your fellow thumpers feel good and strong about excommunicating from the group. They swell up with pride at their successful thumping and it encourages more of it and they become even more obsessed with it. A feeding frenzy of thumping. They'll be all lathered up in one at the "protests" to "save" their precious little 4 time divorcee clerk that is sacrificing herself to save the sanctity of marriage while she collects 80 grand a year for doing nothing. Oh the horrors she must endure in the name of purifying marriage from the evil gays.
The gays are an easy target for thumpers. They are clearly an "other" and can muster little or no vocal support amongst inner thumping circles thus they are pretty much a defenseless target and all the more attractive for thumping as another key component of being a thumper is cowardice and needing to find a herd to blend in to for safety. That is what also spawns the urge for conformity amonst them. Little more than your average Serengeti herd mentality, really.
You can't have a good strong "we" without a "them" and gays serve as a perfect "them" to beat up on. Somebody to point at and make your fellow thumpers feel good and strong about excommunicating from the group. They swell up with pride at their successful thumping and it encourages more of it and they become even more obsessed with it. A feeding frenzy of thumping. They'll be all lathered up in one at the "protests" to "save" their precious little 4 time divorcee clerk that is sacrificing herself to save the sanctity of marriage while she collects 80 grand a year for doing nothing. Oh the horrors she must endure in the name of purifying marriage from the evil gays.
That read like you had something to say.
The "Other"? Be careful. Sounds like a world systems theorist runnning amok again.
The "Other"? Be careful. Sounds like a world systems theorist runnning amok again.
It's Z. He's baaaaaaaackk
Damn, I thought you'd give it at least one more go around. I should've taken the under.
Eunuchs lacked genitals, some at birth but mostly due to castration. They werent gay, they lusted for nobody.
^Eunuchs can lust just like anyone else can. They just lack the physical ability to do anything about it with their missing equipment. They can however... improvise.
"Castration isn't likely to stop a sex offender from preying on people. It will only change the way these predators go about their crimes. As Florida prosecutor Jerry Burford told the St. Petersburg Times: "I get a lot of people who are impotent that still commit sexual battery. It's not their gonads that cause them to commit sexual battery. It's their heads."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-09-04-wickham.htm
"Castration isn't likely to stop a sex offender from preying on people. It will only change the way these predators go about their crimes. As Florida prosecutor Jerry Burford told the St. Petersburg Times: "I get a lot of people who are impotent that still commit sexual battery. It's not their gonads that cause them to commit sexual battery. It's their heads."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-09-04-wickham.htm
Eunuchs born or castrated at a young age experience hormonal consequences which makes them unable to lust for sex. Which is why elite families used them to guard harems, bath family members, message etc.. Kind of dumb for a King to cut off a dudes junk so the eunuch could be entrusted to guard his harem only to find that he secretely boinked them all with a fig tree dildo now wouldnt it?[/QUOTE]
You're confused, contradicting yourself, making misstatements of fact, and drawing illogical conclusions based on broad poorly defined ideas that allow you to move the goalposts to match your aforementioned inconsistencies. I can see why you are doing this but what I cannot see is how you actually expect anyone to believe it.
I also think you should not paraphrase Wikipedia without proper attribution but that is an ethical choice that reflects upon your character.. which is interesting as this is ostensibly a religious argument.
I also think you should not paraphrase Wikipedia without proper attribution but that is an ethical choice that reflects upon your character.. which is interesting as this is ostensibly a religious argument.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -Lyndon B. Johnson
Just to be clear, VT Rondo replied to a post about Jesus and Eunuchs and suggested that Eunuchs could not feel lust as if that were somehow the reason why Jesus tolerated their presence. He then totally fabricated a "fact" in which he flatly stated "they lusted for nobody" as if he can totally conclude that no eunuch around Jesus ever lusted for a man nor anyone else because some (or even most) eunuchs "lacked genitals, some at birth but mostly due to castration".
I wonder what test Jesus used to determine this? Maybe having an exotic girl dance in front of them like in "History of the World" when Gregory Hines was outed:
That is absurd but it also perfectly demonstrates the disingenuous means some folks will go to (while editing Wikipedia entries to suit their poorly thought out arguments) in trying to justify their bible thumping.
I wonder what test Jesus used to determine this? Maybe having an exotic girl dance in front of them like in "History of the World" when Gregory Hines was outed:
That is absurd but it also perfectly demonstrates the disingenuous means some folks will go to (while editing Wikipedia entries to suit their poorly thought out arguments) in trying to justify their bible thumping.
Last edited:
And your dumbass posted a quote about modern day castrated sex offenders from the St Pete times as If it were relevant and topped it off with a video of a Mel Brooks movie to support your ignorant stance . Like I said, your personas grow dumber with each new one. Maybe next time you can find a video explaining a toasted anus.
No, my modern day post demonstrated that castration does not prevent lust. Thus it was up to you to demonstrate that all eunuchs around Jesus were not only castrated "at birth or an early age" but that also Jesus had a means by which he conducted such a test to determine this and I offered the Mel Brooks movie as a possible means by which your hilarious test was carried out... which of course is absurd but then again so is your whole point which was precisely what I have shown.
Maybe you can edit a few more Wikipedia entries to make your point more clearly.
Maybe you can edit a few more Wikipedia entries to make your point more clearly.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure Jesus wasn't referring to gay men when he was talking about eunochs. There's no term for gay or homosexual in the bible. Certainly there were castrated eunochs, but ancient laws also refer to "natural" eunochs, which meant that they were born either without genitals, or they had genitals but had no lust for women. In either case Jesus was friendly towards them.
Will Huckabee bring child rapist and adulterer Josh Duggar along as a show of support for Ms. Davis?
Last edited:
And we can parse this word and the historical definition of "eunuch" all we want, but we could also just look at Jesus behavior and use common sense to see that he would have treated homosexuals with love, obviously. We can also use common sense to see that some people were born homosexual. That's obvious. But some people just choose not to see it because they don't enjoy cognitive dissonance.
Hate is no longer comfortable or nearly so accommodating out in public as it used to be so folks have to find something to hide behind and lob their hate over. That's why their arguments fall apart when you examine them because they are facades constructed to hide the underlying cancer. They don't want you peeking under the sheets to see them as they really are. This whole issue with the 80 grand a year clerk and 4 time divorcee being a martyr on the alter for the sanctity of marriage is a (not very good) smokescreen to hate on people that are different. That is all that it is.
You're right Bristol. If Jesus hung out with prostitutes why would he mind hanging out with gays, aka eunochs?
Let's see......I knew I liked girls when I was around six. ....but the choice of whether or not to pursue girls was, indeed just that.... a choice. Our desires certainly influence our behaviors but they don't dictate our behaviors.
So if God appeared in the sky, and sent down a stone tablet and told everyone on earth, in clear and certain terms, you are now going forward, ONLY to have sex with those of the same gender and procreation should be done by artificial means from now on, you would choose to be gay at that point? If that happened, how hard do you think it would be to do that? Serious question, I'm curious.
Let's see......I knew I liked girls when I was around six. ....but the choice of whether or not to pursue girls was, indeed just that.... a choice. Our desires certainly influence our behaviors but they don't dictate our behaviors. We c
Not sure I understand your question, but I’ll give it a shot. I don’t know how sexual preference is determined. I do know this as an absolute truth…we choose the way we act or live. We choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle or a gay lifestyle or a non-sexual lifestyle. We choose to be honest or dishonest. We choose to steal or not. A person that has perverse desires for children decides whether or not to act on them. So even under the condition you posed, I’d have to make the decision to either pursue persons of the same or opposite gender.
Much of the overall disagreement hinges around what people view as right or wrong behavior. Personally, I believe any sexual activity (homo or heterosexual) outside of marriage is wrong. I believe marriage is a spiritual institution meant for males with females. Others may and do disagree with me but that does not give me the right to be mean or hateful to them. Nor does it give me the right to deprive them of governmental rights that are enjoyed by other people. That’s why IMO, the government should get out of the marriage business. If the government wants to validate civil unions it has the right to do so. A couple can walk in the clerk’s office, sign the paper and walk out as a unified couple….no need to get married. If they then want to get “married”, they can either go to a church or other institution that will perform the ceremony. IMO, marriage is a spiritual matter.
I love that moment when the trap is sprung and they realize there is no way out.
- Status
