lesbian!!!! whoohaaa

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sure the Bible gives a few descriptions, depending on what epoch you are in, unnatural is just one of them.

what are the rest, do you know? if you dont have the answers is there any literature specifically to help homosexuals the j.w's print that i can read?

for the single reason we have so far 'unnatural' does the bible explain what it means by 'unnatural'?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what are the rest, do you know? if you dont have the answers is there any literature specifically to help homosexuals the j.w's print that i can read?

for the single reason we have so far 'unnatural' does the bible explain what it means by 'unnatural'?

yes contrary to nature. As far as i am aware there is no specific literature, but there are experiences printed in the watchtower magazine of persons who overcame homosexual tendencies and eventfully managed to give up the practice entirely.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes contrary to nature. As far as i am aware there is no specific literature, but there are experiences printed in the watchtower magazine of persons who overcame homosexual tendencies and eventfully managed to give up the practice entirely.

does it define what is contrary to nature? im not trying to be difficult, i want clarity. for example is having a pacemaker contrary to nature? is a prosthetic arm contrary to nature? a earing aid? transferring skin from one area to another? putting your tongue in somebody else's mouth, or having an endiscope up our bums?

just so everybody knows exactly what it means so we dont do anything unnatural.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
does it define what is contrary to nature? im not trying to be difficult, i want clarity. for example is having a pacemaker contrary to nature? is a prosthetic arm contrary to nature? a earing aid? transferring skin from one area to another? putting your tongue in somebody else's mouth, or having an endiscope up our bums?

just so everybody knows exactly what it means so we dont do anything unnatural.

no i dont thin it provides any details.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i dont thin it provides any details.

so how do we know what is unnatural or not?



(and thanks for an honest, straight answer)

Originally posted by stellspalfie
im interested on the theist thoughts on lesbianism. everything i read on here regarding homosexuality seems to be directed at male on male. yet half of gays are women.

robbies std paranoia becomes almost redundant. so does that mean the j.w's are fine with lesbians?

I am unaware of any prohibition against lesbianism in the Holy Bible. So I would not worry about them. If it were something that was abominable to God, I am sure one of His prophets would have let us know.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am unaware of any prohibition against lesbianism in the Holy Bible. So I would not worry about them. If it were something that was abominable to God, I am sure one of His prophets would have let us know.

The Instructor

well done rj, you have just dropped from 2nd to 3rd on my spirituality forum bad guy list.......




.............after several minutes contemplation, i think i was a bit harsh, you've been put back up to number 2.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the animal argument is a total failure, filicide also happens in animals, regularly, are you willing to state that its natural for humans on this basis too, no, i didn't think so. Equating human behavior with animal behavior and attempting to draw conclusions on that basis is the epic failure of the materialist.

eloquent come back i must say, and true - this why i back up rj sometimes, comparing humans to chimps on genetic similarity is woefully wrong we are distinct and chimps have attrocious and vicious behaviour we don't share, but we are quite... like gorillas in behaviour and they are quite...gay!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
well done rj, you have just dropped from 2nd to 3rd on my spirituality forum bad guy list.......




.............after several minutes contemplation, i think i was a bit harsh, you've been put back up to number 2.

citing an argument of ignorance is no real argument at all, simply because a semi literate southern baptist snake dancer like Jonah Hinds doesn't know about the Biblical reference does not mean that it does not exist, all it proves is that he doesn't know his bible.

(Romans 1:26, 27) for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

Now you know. Perhaps you would pass it on to Jonah Hinds who strikes me more as the lightning conductor, rather than the instructor.

Originally posted by e4chris
eloquent come back i must say, and true - this why i back up rj sometimes, comparing humans to chimps on genetic similarity is woefully wrong we are distinct and chimps have attrocious and vicious behaviour we don't share, but we are quite... like gorillas in behaviour and they are quite...gay!

I once saw a dog trying to make love to the end of a couch, how would you define that dogs sexuality? Do you think he was aware that it was a couch and not a bitch?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
citing an argument of ignorance is no real argument at all, simply because a semi literate southern baptist snake dancer like Jonah Hinds doesn't know about the Biblical reference does not mean that it does not exist, all it proves is that he doesn't know his bible.

(Romans 1:26, 27) for both their females changed the natural use of themselves int ...[text shortened]... on to Jonah Hinds who strikes me more as the lightning conductor, rather than the instructor.

Sorry, robbie, you got me on that one. I remember now, but it was still never declared an abominable sin by God. Do you at least acknowledge I was correct on that part of the issue?

The Instructor

Originally posted by e4chris
eloquent come back i must say, and true - this why i back up rj sometimes, comparing humans to chimps on genetic similarity is woefully wrong we are distinct and chimps have attrocious and vicious behaviour we don't share, but we are quite... like gorillas in behaviour and they are quite...gay!

But it's their argument. It's always the gay-bashers who rant on and on about how unnatural it is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
citing an argument of ignorance is no real argument at all, simply because a semi literate southern baptist snake dancer like Jonah Hinds doesn't know about the Biblical reference does not mean that it does not exist, all it proves is that he doesn't know his bible.

(Romans 1:26, 27) for both their females changed the natural use of themselves int ...[text shortened]... on to Jonah Hinds who strikes me more as the lightning conductor, rather than the instructor.

dont have a hissy fit, i put him back to number 2.



so how did the j.w's figure out from that text what was and wasnt contrary to nature? it doesnt seem to be talking about lesbians and it doesnt seem mention anything about hygiene?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I once saw a dog trying to make love to the end of a couch, how would you define that dogs sexuality? Do you think he was aware that it was a couch and not a bitch?

do you ever worry rc that the devil might have a black sense of humour and what that humour could inflict upon you?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
dont have a hissy fit, i put him back to number 2.



so how did the j.w's figure out from that text what was and wasnt contrary to nature? it doesnt seem to be talking about lesbians and it doesnt seem mention anything about hygiene?

You think the statement contrary to nature might be significant. If you are having trouble discerning whether it talks of a lesbian homosexual act then may I suggest you read it again or visit spec savers.