God loves all sexuality

Originally posted by josephw
Rom. 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom. 1:26 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:

The Bible is quite clear about what is sin and what is not.

The Bible is also clear that women should not have braided hairstyles, wear gold or pearls,
or expensive clothing. And that a woman should not teach or have authority over a man.

Are these things sin, too? Or are you going to reinterpret them so that they don't have these
literal meanings anymore?

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
And the suggestion that animals exhibit homosexual behavior is just plain stupid. It only reveals that those who believe that don't know nature, and don't know animals.

You really couldn't be more wrong. I bet you don't think that animals masturbate either.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You really couldn't be more wrong. I bet you don't think that animals masturbate either.

Nemesio

He evidently hasn't seen my (now deceased) chinchilla. Sometimes you really just didn't know where to look ;-)

Originally posted by Nemesio
The Bible is also clear that women should not have braided hairstyles, wear gold or pearls,
or expensive clothing. And that a woman should not teach or have authority over a man.

Are these things sin, too? Or are you going to reinterpret them so that they don't have these
literal meanings anymore?

Nemesio

prittybeta would call you a sinner. of course a woman should not teach, it says so in the bible. in fact i am quite sure that she thinks that if a woman would have the cure for cancer, she should hold it for herself if her husband tolds her to shut up

not sure what joseph would say but beta would surely not attempt any reinterpretation. she is absolutely sure that if her husband is to bury all their savings under a rock and leave her children to starve she should do nothing because material things are irrelevant to the salvation of the soul. but if her husband should ever dare to propose a threesome(😉) involving her, him and some other woman she is to disobey him.

Originally posted by josephw
Pure nonsense.

You probably live in a city on concrete. That line of reasoning is bogus. I'm a farmer. I live with nature everyday. Homosexuality is against nature when practiced by humans. And the suggestion that animals exhibit homosexual behavior is just plain stupid. It only reveals that those who believe that don't know nature, and don't know animals.

two chimps giving each other blowjobs. explain that mister "farmer man who understands zoology because he lives in a farm". explain what is the hidden meaning behind what you say has absolutely nothing homosexual about it.

(well to a degree you are right, it isn't homosexual it is chimpsexual, the chimps are not human, but you get the point i hope)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
(well to a degree you are right, it isn't homosexual it is chimpsexual, the chimps are not human, but you get the point i hope)

'Homo' just mean 'the same', as 'hetero' means 'the other'.
So chimps can actually be homosexual, meaning, sexually attracted to the same sex.
But what's the name of a chimp being sexually attracted to a human? "Zoophile"? or "Homophile"?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
'Homo' just mean 'the same', as 'hetero' means 'the other'.
So chimps can actually be homosexual, meaning, sexually attracted to the same sex.
But what's the name of a chimp being sexually attracted to a human? "Zoophile"? or "Homophile"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29

The word homo is Latin for "man", in the original sense of "human being", or "person". The word "human" itself is from Latin humanus, an adjective cognate to homo, both derived from Proto-Indo-European language dhǵhem- "earth"[1]. Cf. Hebrew adam, meaning "human", cognate to adamah, meaning "ground". (And cf. Latin humus, meaning "soil".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
Etymologically, the word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid with homos (often confused with the later Latin meaning of "man", as in Homo sapiens) deriving from the Greek word for same, thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, including lesbianism.[13][14]

yes, you are right, a chimp can be homosexual. if it is attracted to a human you can call it homophile if you mention you mean homo latin not homos greek 😀 zoophile is human who is atttracted to a chimp or other critters.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29

The word homo is Latin for "man"

No, 'homo' means 'the same'. As a species you interprete homo as 'the same species as you and me', i.e. man, as you and me, not human per se.

See other constructions with 'homo', like homomorph, homologue, homogenous, homocentric, etc. Nothing to do with 'man'.
Do the same with 'hetero' and you will see the congruence.

The homophile chimp, was a joke, sorry...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, 'homo' means 'the same'. As a species you interprete homo as 'the same species as you and me', i.e. man, as you and me, not human per se.

See other constructions with 'homo', like homomorph, homologue, homogenous, homocentric, etc. Nothing to do with 'man'.
Do the same with 'hetero' and you will see the congruence.

The homophile chimp, was a joke, sorry...

i got it. i have shown i got it by saying so after the second link that shown the origins of the word homosexuality. and by saying you were right.

and somehow i did realize pervert chimp was a joke. even if you were very subtle.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sexual perversion. this is a difficult subject to tackle. in the medieval times anything other than the missionary position was considered sinful perverse. not to mention anal or oral sex.


if the one(masturbation), two or more persons involved are consenting adults anything goes. only deeply religious people would feel ashamed for having fun and think ...[text shortened]... ple(any religion) would take god as a burden instead of blessing and associate all fun with sin.

My question didn't assume it was easy to define. My question was did the poster take a position that sexual perversion did not exist.

Aside from the difficulty of defining specifics, does "all sexuality" mean sexual perversion (difficult or easy to define from culture to culture) not exist?

One, two, or more adult persons, all agreeing of what they do, not harming eachother, engaged in sexual activities, can't be wrong.

Sex with people (or others) not wanting to be a part of it, is always wrong.

God created sex. Sex cannot be a sin. Denying gods intention may be a sin though.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
One, two, or more adult persons, all agreeing of what they do, not harming eachother, engaged in sexual activities, can't be wrong.

Sex with people (or others) not wanting to be a part of it, is always wrong.

God created sex. Sex cannot be a sin. Denying gods intention may be a sin though.

So in these few Levitical instructions you believe that God was wrong and needed to get further clarification from you?

Let's assume your mutual consent scenario.

1.) " You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's flesh." (Lev. 18:13)


Would you say regardless of this relationship sex between two consenting parties was not wrong?

2.) "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness." (Lev.18:15)

Mutual consent makes this an error on God's part?

3.) "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)

Did God need some correction here if mutual consent was involved with "no harm"?

4.) " The nakedness of your father, that is the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover, She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakesness." (Lev. 18:7)

Did God need some adjustment here ethically if mutual consent was involved with "no harm"?

5.) "And you shall not take a woman as wife in addition to her sister, as a rival to uncover her nakedness while she is alive." (Lev. 18:18)

Would group consent here nullify the wrongness assigned to this situation?

Is it just me or does that passage say that incest is OK as long as you keep your clothes on?

I personally say that there are a host of perfectly good logical reasons for incest to be both immoral and illegal. I don't need a god or the bible for this to be so.

EDIT:
5.) "And you shall not take a woman as wife in addition to her sister, as a rival to uncover her nakedness while she is alive." (Lev. 18:18)

This one however (between consenting adults) I have no issue with.

Originally posted by jaywill
So in these few Levitical instructions you believe that God was wrong and needed to get further clarification from you?

Let's assume your mutual consent scenario.

1.) [b]" You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's flesh." (Lev. 18:13)


Would you say regardless of this relationship sex between two
Would group consent here nullify the wrongness assigned to this situation?[/b]

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!

Let's assume this lack of consent scenario. Did God need some ethical adjustment for taking men's wives and giving them all to the same guy? Could this qualify as deliberate "harm"? Would Godly consent here nullify the wrongness assigned to this situation? 🙄

Originally posted by jaywill
So in these few Levitical instructions you believe that God was wrong and needed to get further clarification from you?

Let's assume your mutual consent scenario.

1.) [b]" You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's flesh." (Lev. 18:13)


Would you say regardless of this relationship sex between two ...[text shortened]...
Would group consent here nullify the wrongness assigned to this situation?[/b]

So you don't have any own opinion, you have to quote some authority text?