- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by JigtieAll valid points. I am only disputing whether Jesus really would have supported homosexuality. His glaring omission plausibly demonstrates to me that he would not have endorsed homosexuality.
The fact that God not only makes heterosexual men and women is indisputable. There are
homosexuals, there always has been homosexuals and it's not a personal choice as it is an
inherent trait of their very identities. If you dispute this, you're saying that all the people out there
who feel nothing for their opposite sex are somehow lying, which I find ...[text shortened]... s up the factory again, and this time
he keeps quiet about it.
What does this tell us?
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by Conrau KThe Bible was written by men. It reflects the writers bias and purpose. Please don't give it "divine" status.
Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility that a man may wish to marry a man, or some other alternative pairing. Perhaps the Bible is not a very reliable source of moral wisdom.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by acb123I'm an atheist. Perhaps you ought to have read the final line of my post -- Perhaps the Bible is not a very reliable source of moral wisdom.
The Bible was written by men. It reflects the writers bias and purpose. Please don't give it "divine" status.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie we've been through this before, i presented my view to you and you agreed with me, i can search and back and dig it up if you want?! Now you don't agree with me? What's happenned?
it is completely and utterly unnatural, look at the plumbing for heavens sake!
I'll spell it out for you again. Unnatural means, not natural ie. Not to be found in nature. As i've pointed out homosexual behaviour is rife in the natural world, so calling human homosexual behaviour 'unnatural' is; by the bery definition of the word, incorrect.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobno i don't accept that noobster, heterosexuality is the default position, anything else is an anomaly, or as i prefer a deviation. you know my position with equating animal behaviour with human behaviour.
Robbie we've been through this before, i presented my view to you and you agreed with me, i can search and back and dig it up if you want?! Now you don't agree with me? What's happenned?
I'll spell it out for you again. Unnatural means, not natural ie. Not to be found in nature. As i've pointed out homosexual behaviour is rife in the natural world, so ...[text shortened]... human homosexual behaviour 'unnatural' is; by the bery definition of the word, incorrect.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand your position that homosexuality is an anomaly. My point is the incorrect use of the word 'unnatural', homosexuality isn't. It's as simple as that. You're going to have to find another word.
no i don't accept that noobster, heterosexuality is the default position, anything else is an anomaly, or as i prefer a deviation. you know my position with equating animal behaviour with human behaviour.
I know your position about equating human and animal behaviour. One word - bonkers!!!! But i don't have the time or inclination to start on that one at the moment.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo no, I'm just saying, by the words of fundamentalists, that god created everything. Then homosexuality must be included in this. Hence, god created homosexuality. Right?
Are you suggesting God got it wrong?!
Or as God created man in his own image, God may have homosexual tendencies or he maybe bisexual?
Furthermore, he created homosexuality, not only for humans, but for animals as well. Hence, homosexuality is natural. Right?
If god has homosexual tendencies? Well, I'm not a moralist. If he has, fine. If he hasn't, fine. It's not our business if he dosn't want to get out of his closet. Or if he doesn't need to.
10 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf a behaviour pattern is found in the natural world, then i would call that natural. Hardly Disney Land logic as you call it, just plain common sense.
animals also hunt down and eat their rivals babies, is that also natural ? no , then your logic is Disney land! yes, then it is also natural for humans? no, then you cannot equate animal behaviour with human behaviour, it is a flawed and ludicrous argument.
So there are no comparisons between animal and human behaviour? Is that your position?