AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I'm unable to answer you at the moment. If you say that God considers homosexuality a sin, then that's what you say.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
why can't we have a relationship with other men?
- Thread starter davidthegreek
- Start date
I'm unable to answer you at the moment. If you say that God considers homosexuality a sin, then that's what you say.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi Kilgore Trout, that's a shame, but I'm sure given the right opportunity, you would probably change your mind so that not one jot or tittle would be neglected. KB
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'll take your constant avoidance of the issue as a confession of hypocrisy.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi Kilgore Trout, what avoidance of the issue, are you that slow to comprehend? Please, present to me what command you feel I would be compelled to disavow, or would say it should not be followed.
But you see, you want to be able to be disobedient to any and all words that come out of Yahweh's mouth, and if you think you find me as advocating disobedience, then you would be safe to do likewise. You should work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, as I am trying to do. KB
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
No, but I'm a connoisseur of all things ironical.
Your emotional need for, and attachment to, superstition and myth doesn't apply to me. You should work out an understanding of theory of mind, as I have.
I already address my criticism of your previous source. Please stop avoiding my question.
What are all the sins listed by the deity you follow? You already started them with homosexuality, theft, murder, etc. What are the rest?
Please do us all a favor and list them here, so that we may go over it line by line.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi MysticSang'ha, look, you need to do a little homework and find any command from the Torah that you feel I should be doing, and then I will tell you how important that command is to keep. There are 616 commands you can choose from. KB
Do you strive to follow the 616 commands?
Like the one about not mixing wool and linen together? Do you post about the other 615, or would you say you have a fixation on homosexuality in particular?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
1robin said:
It was your post number #304. It was full of lies, and misrepresentations, especially the false claims about child molestation, and pedophilia. Some of it was true, but much was not.
As far as strange argumentation is concerned, I do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. It is you who are using strange argumentation. Your primary premise in this thread has been that homosexuality is harmful. I have showed that often, it is not harmful, so you made a misleading claim. As far as HIV/AIDS is concerned, the majority of homosexuals do not have HIV/AIDS, so what harm are you talking about as far as the majority of homosexuals are concerned? What harm are you talking about regarding alcoholism since the majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics? The same goes for drug abuse, and pedophilia. What is any harmful medical condition that affects the majority of homosexuals?
Do you understand the meaning of the word "majority"? If so, why do you continue to make arguments about the minority of homosexuals?
Regarding cause and correlation, since many heterosexuals are, for example, alcoholics, it is not possible to reasonbly establish which homosexuals are alcoholics "because" they are homosexuals.
Here is one of your biggest blunders:
1robin said:
Your comment is utter nonsense since it presumes that if homosexuals stop having sex, they will be better off than they were before. Some would, but many would not, probably a sizeable majority. Homosexuals have mostly three choices, 1) to keep engaging in same-sex behavior, 2) to try reparative therapy, or 3) to try abstinence. It is well-known that in many cases, homosexuals who tried reparative therapy, or abstinence, ended up much worse off than they were before. Regarding those homosexuals, quite obviously the justification for continuing to engage in same-sex behavior is that it is less harmful than reparative therapy, or abstinence.
No major medical organization, including the CDC, recommends reparative therapy or abstinence as an effective way to deal with homosexuality.
What person in their right mind would recommend that homosexuals stop having sex if it causes them great physical and emotional stress, especially those who have very poor results when they try reparative therapy, or abstinence?
Your gays in the military arguments are disputed by the militaries of over 30 countries, including the U.S. military. Please reply to my post #485 about gays in the military. I have already provided some documented research about how well the policy has worked in Israel, and for 20 years. You have not provided documented research that the policy has not worked well in the U.S., or anywhere else. I would easily be able to find more documented studies regarding the U.S., and some other countries, while you might not be able to find any documented research to the contrary in the U.S., or anywhere else in the world.
There is not anything at all that is strange about those arguments. The boards of directors of every major medical association in the U.S. would agree with my arguments in this post, and the militaries of over 30 countries would too, and yet you said that my argumentation is strange. You are a very strange bird indeed. No rational person would boast when large consensuses of experts disagree with them.
Here is basically what is going on here. Homosexuals generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but you falsely believe that the general population of homosexuals are worse off than they are. A great many homosexuals in the world have reasonably good health, get up and go to work every day, have good social skills, and want to be judged as individuals, not as a group. They do not want to be told that their sexual practices are harmful if they have reasonably good health. You are deliberately misrepresenting the truth since you know that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of homosexuals in the world are reasonably healthy.
Last edited:
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi AmbiguousGuy, I know what you mean, it's difficult to do everything that has to be done.
I have a niece who I love dearly and she is a lesbian. I also had a nephew die of AIDS. If I am wrongly bigoted, I surely hope I will be redeemed from that state. Same sex marriage is shameful, but so is being bigoted. Where can the two meet? KB
LOL okay. Tell you what, I'll list a few commandments, not based on my judgement on your behavior (hint hint: that's not for me to decide, nor anyone else for that matter). But based on your assumptions that the mitzvot is relevant - even those that can be observed after the destruction of the second temple. So, because I like to play for run:
Are you allowed to have sex with a woman who is menstruating?
Should a rapist marry his victim? Is he ever allowed to divorce her?
How about shaving your beard with a razor? Or even the hair on the sides of your head?
Keep a kosher household?
Allowed to muzzle an ox while plowing?
There's quite a few commandments about giving to the poor and the destitute. As well as not pressing the poor for payment if you know they do not have the money. Is that to be followed today?
Are the commandments followed regarding corpses?
.
.
.
Out of all of them, there is ONE commandment saying "A man must not have sexual relations with a man." Another says "A man must not have sexual relations with an animal." And yet another says "A woman must not have sexual relations with an animal."
But there are NONE that says "A woman must not have sexual relations with a woman."
Why is that, KB?
Last edited:
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Because everyone likes to watch lesbians?:help:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Kind of shows a patriarchal slant on those ancient laws, doesn't it?
Obviously. Women's actions don't really count since, you know, we don't got ownership of our own minds or bodies, ya?
Well, except when we make men-folk blush. Then it's all our fault.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Whatever problems homosexuality has caused in the world, they pale by comparion with heart disease, cigarette smoking, and obesity, and much more so global warming if the predictions of some climatologists come true. Some climatolgists predict that it is plausible, if not probable that global warming will eventually result in global cooling, and the end of human life on earth. That does not include the largest worldwide economic depression in history by far as a result of global warming. The majority of the world's large cities are located by oceans, bays, and rivers. A sea level rise of only a few inches would be devasting for many of those cities.
So, from a secular perspective, homosexuals are not responsible for the biggest problems in the world, and many heterosexuals are.
It is important to note that many of the harmful effects of heart disease, cigarette smoking, obesity, and global warming, are preventable.
Now here is something that is really interesting. Often, the biggest threat to an individual is not someone else, it is themself. I am partly referring to preventable cases of heart disease, and preventable problems that are caused by cigarette smoking, and obesity. From a secular perspective, no heterosexual who has a serious medical condition that is preventable has any business criticizing same-sex behavior, especially since same-sex behavior can be practiced safely.
So, from a secular perspective, homosexuals are not responsible for the biggest problems in the world, and many heterosexuals are.
It is important to note that many of the harmful effects of heart disease, cigarette smoking, obesity, and global warming, are preventable.
Now here is something that is really interesting. Often, the biggest threat to an individual is not someone else, it is themself. I am partly referring to preventable cases of heart disease, and preventable problems that are caused by cigarette smoking, and obesity. From a secular perspective, no heterosexual who has a serious medical condition that is preventable has any business criticizing same-sex behavior, especially since same-sex behavior can be practiced safely.
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
In my opinion? The two can meet by followers of Moses, Jesus, etc. letting go of literalistic interpretations of ancient texts and allowing their hearts to guide their interpretations instead.
If they have no heart, then they can't do that. But if they have no heart, there's not much hope anyway.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi AmbiguousGuy, but don't you think that the literal interpretation teaches something about what how the heart should guide (not murdering should guide to not hating, if the heart is good). Yeshua said that if you don't believe what Moses wrote, you won't believe what He says (John 5:46-47). I think they go hand in hand, it's just a matter for one to have their eye's opened to see it. We can be against adultery, and believe that the adulterer should be stoned, but do our own sins keep us from executing that judgment? Sure, but just because we cannot execute judgment at this present point in time, it doesn't make committing adultery right, and G-d's judgment stands. So if I am bigoted against adultery, it's not that I am bigoting individuals, but rather I'm bigoted against that sin. Does that make any sense? KB
So supporting the idea of a rapist marrying his victim, then?
And you suggest *I* need to use a little common sense?