was jesus gay?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
About as far as you've gotten with dealing with your bigotry and hypocrisy, which is nowhere.

i see about as far as you have with your theocratic glutton meter, is it a set of scales, a hoop, perhaps a see saw, righteous ones balance, fatties tip over the scales and get a free passage to eternal destruction.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
nothing to add just tried to bump fabians post a little. maybe someone will get the picture

Well, this is robbie retorics in action.

By discussing any other thing than Jesus was gay he avoids the threads name.
We all know that is desirable to be homophobic if you are an Jehova's Witness.
Robbie don't know if Jesus was gay, he just cannot know.
But the very thought of that it can be true makes his retorics kick in. Avoidance!
By using this reotics he shows clearly that he is afraid of the fact: Jesus could be gay!

"Jesus could be gay." Prove that this statement is wrong, or accept that it's true, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you are simplifying the argument in order to establish your point, it is not that simple. if someone practices homosexulaity then it is apparent, they fess up or someone sees them with their partner, whatever, if someone consistently over indulges in consumption of food, determining the point at which an individual becomes a confirmed glutton is ...[text shortened]... f the sins. if you wish to construe that as inconsistent, well, perhaps you have a better idea?

Robbie,

I had a think.

You don't want to argue with the principle of conservation of energy do you? So you must accept that people who are obese must have taken in more calories than they've burned.

What I'd like to see is you be as soft on homosexuals as you are on obese people. Then you'd be consistent. There might be rare individuals who for medical reasons cannot control their eating. They are in a tiny minority. The rest, by your own definition, must be habitual gluttons. I don't think your appeal to metabolism or hormones allows you to escape that conclusion at all. Why not? Well, suppose your genetics/hormones/metabolism means you put on weight easily. Then you should stop eating all the pies if you want to avoid obesity. Eating all the pies and then blaming your hormones is a cop out. It isn't as if you didn't know you were unlucky and would put on weight after the first couple of sets of clothes stopped fitting.

We do have two logically separate issues though. Let's assume in your frame of reference that homosexual and gluttonous behaviour are sinful.

Issue 1) Has somebody committed a sin.
Issue 2) How would we know if they have.

It seems to me to be objectively true that my chances of picking out from a lineup those who overeat habitually is quite good. The chances of picking out active homosexuals seems trickier.

But maybe my gaydar isn't as good as yours 🙂

Finally, there are different theological traditions regarding sin. Some think ranking them in order of seriousness is possible, others not. Where do you stand?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not entirely the same, being overweight is not gluttony. Gluttony is binging, overindulgence to excess, it may or may not be physically apparent, why you cannot see that i do not know? Also it may not necessarily be the amount of food that one eats, but the type of food that causes one to be over weight, therefore your attempt to make gluttony ...[text shortened]... , its simply a statement of fact dear Noobster. Gluttony is a state of mind, not a physicality.

why you cannot see that i do not know?

Because as per usual you're talking utter bollocks.

You can't admit that fat/obese people are gluttons because then you'd have to justify why they aren't removed from your congregation like homosexuals. So instead of admitting as much you go off on this big charade blaming this, blaming that when in reality it's obvious as being smacked round the face with a wet kipper.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Robbie,

I had a think.

You don't want to argue with the principle of conservation of energy do you? So you must accept that people who are obese must have taken in more calories than they've burned.

What I'd like to see is you be as soft on homosexuals as you are on obese people. Then you'd be consistent. There might be rare individuals who for m think ranking them in order of seriousness is possible, others not. Where do you stand?

But maybe my gaydar isn't as good as yours, LOL

a ha ha, points it at thinkofone and the gaydar blows up!

yes there a various degrees of sin, Luke chapter sixteen verse ten confirms this, although you are an atheist, i provide it merely as a reference.

(Luke 16:10) . . .The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. . .

enjoyed your contribution to this debate by da way!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]why you cannot see that i do not know?

Because as per usual you're talking utter bollocks.

You can't admit that fat/obese people are gluttons because then you'd have to justify why they aren't removed from your congregation like homosexuals. So instead of admitting as much you go off on this big charade blaming this, blaming that when in reality it's obvious as being smacked round the face with a wet kipper.[/b]

sorry to disappoint you Noobster but i am making perfect sense to me. I do not hold a position of responsibility within the congregation, I am very ordinary. i am not blaming this, nor am i blaming that, as i have stated and will continue to state, gluttony is a state of mind, obesity is not, its a physicality. what is more your argument is flawed for this reason, it is purely a one dimensional approach and does not take into consideration the complexities and other factors.

If you were before a court of law, what evidence would you produce? Hes a fatty, therefore hes a glutton, the defence would have a field day, with social reports and background information, is it the result of stress, is it the result of an eating disorder, is it the result of a slow metabolism, is it the result of glandular problems, is it the result of hereditary problems, is it simply lack of exercise?

please note i have not defined gluttony as you have, i know its much more complex than that, its a state of mind and clearly cannot be detected merely from outward appearance. If you were being tried, would you like to be judged simply on your appearance, no? well then dont be silly!

people are disciplined within our organisation first and fore-mostly after they receive help to overcome whatever problem they are struggling with, it is not lightly taken and i know many a responsible brother who has lost sleepless nights in anguish over a decision, It is a serious business and if they were to go on mere physical outward appearance, it would be an injustice, and we have no wish of that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry to disappoint you Noobster but i am making perfect sense to me. I do not hold a position of responsibility within the congregation, I am very ordinary. i am not blaming this, nor am i blaming that, as i have stated and will continue to state, gluttony is a state of mind, obesity is not, its a physicality. what is more your argument is flawed ...[text shortened]... o go on mere physical outward appearance, it would be an injustice, and we have no wish of that.

Gluttony is pretty easy to define, it's excess eating or drinking. You are speculating as to what the causes of pronlonged gluttony are, which is a completely seperate issue. I'm telling you what the end result will be, overweight fat and obese people.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Gluttony is pretty easy to define, it's excess eating or drinking. You are speculating as to what the [b]causes of pronlonged gluttony are, which is a completely seperate issue. I'm telling you what the end result will be, overweight fat and obese people.[/b]

and my dear Noobster i have told you its a state of mind, you have admitted that skinny people can be equally guilty of gluttony, but your gripe is not with what constitutes a glutton, but how we deal with it within the congregation. Am i correct.

To state that a lorry driver, because he eats pies beans and chips and has to sit for prolonged hour in his cab, thus not being free to exercise as he would like, is binging and a glutton , is nonsense, the two are not the same, no matter how you try to shoehorn it in.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
But maybe my gaydar isn't as good as yours, LOL

a ha ha, points it at thinkofone and the gaydar blows up!

yes there a various degrees of sin, Luke chapter sixteen verse ten confirms this, although you are an atheist, i provide it merely as a reference.

(Luke 16:10) . . .The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the p ...[text shortened]... s least is unrighteous also in much. . .

enjoyed your contribution to this debate by da way!

Robbie,

yes there a various degrees of sin, Luke chapter sixteen verse ten confirms this, although you are an atheist, i provide it merely as a reference.
Thanks, that's kind. Ok, I can see principled reasons why sexual sin might be considered more grievous than gluttony, although I wonder whether that Luke chapter might have a different interpretation.

enjoyed your contribution to this debate by da way!
Thank you.


So we have these logically separate issues, sin itself and the means of detecting sin. I think there is an inconsistency in your view as expressed so far. The reason is that you bend over backwards (fnar fnar) to give credence to mitigating factors regarding obesity, but when faced with an objectively superior case that shows that homosexuality is deely rooted in people's predispositions, you dismiss it out of hand. Your agenda is thus transparent.

Your best bet in my view would be to:

1) Prosecute the teleological argument against homosexuality, and
2) make the argument from principle that homosexuality is a more serious sin than gluttony.

This will then avoid the problems you are having with (I can't resist) the elephant in the room: obesity is a statistically robust proxy for gluttony.

If you keep trying to defend the notion that people have all kinds of excuses for their pie consumption, you will inevitably have to answer as to why you don't afford homosexuals the same courtesy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and my dear Noobster i have told you its a state of mind, you have admitted that skinny people can be equally guilty of gluttony, but your gripe is not with what constitutes a glutton, but how we deal with it within the congregation. Am i correct.

To state that a lorry driver, because he eats pies beans and chips and has to sit for prolonged hou ...[text shortened]... and a glutton , is nonsense, the two are not the same, no matter how you try to shoehorn it in.

I thought I'd pick this up, since I want to develop the case that obesity is a proxy for gluttony.

You say:
To state that a lorry driver, because he eats pies beans and chips and has to sit for prolonged hour in his cab, thus not being free to exercise as he would like, is binging and a glutton , is nonsense,
But this can't be right can it? The lorry driver knows he is sedentary. So he has an obligation to limit his pie intake accordingly. He could use more of his spare time to exercise or control his appetite. He has no excuse.

ok my friend tomorrow, i need to think about these things, its late and my mind has used up its 1K of ram, you need to prove that he is binging, recklessly and wantonly over indulging to excess without moral restraint, to lay a charge of gluttony against him so that he shall be judicially removed from the congregation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and my dear Noobster i have told you its a state of mind, you have admitted that skinny people can be equally guilty of gluttony, but your gripe is not with what constitutes a glutton, but how we deal with it within the congregation. Am i correct.

To state that a lorry driver, because he eats pies beans and chips and has to sit for prolonged hou ...[text shortened]... and a glutton , is nonsense, the two are not the same, no matter how you try to shoehorn it in.

To state that a lorry driver, because he eats pies beans and chips and has to sit for prolonged hour in his cab, thus not being free to exercise as he would like, is binging and a glutton , is nonsense

Everybodys calorie intake is different, and RELATIVE TO WHAT THEY NEED. A forester working all day in the woods would burn a lot of calories, if a lorry driver ate the same amount of food as the forester that lorry driver would surely put on weight because he/she wouldn't need to consume so many calories, they aren't going to burn them. My girlfriend doesn't physically need to eat as much food as i do, if she ate what i did she would start to put on weight. People calorie requirements are on an individual level, relative to what they do with their lives. If they are not very active then they don't need to eat much food. If they lead very active lives then they obviously need to eat more.

If someone eats more than they need then they have an excess of calories. If they contiune over a prolonged period of time then they will start to put on weight.

but your gripe is not with what constitutes a glutton, but how we deal with it within the congregation

My gripe is with the hypocrisy within the Christian faith. Homosexuals are labelled as sinners and we all know the hoo-ha that goes with that subject. But how many people have been removed from congregations or pulled aside and have been spoken to because of their weight? Not very many i would guess.

But the bigger issue is this. Did you follow the Uganda anit-gay law? The government wanted to pass a law that would allow them to kill homosexuals!! 'Fortunately' it wasn't passed and homosexuals can now 'only' be locked up for life. Where are the appropriate laws for fat/overweight people? There aren't any, because the Christian faith is hypocritical. If the Christian movement acted with as much force on obesity/overweight people as they do with homosexuality then that would be of more value to the globe. There are more obese people in the world than there are starving now, and that is a shameful fact.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]To state that a lorry driver, because he eats pies beans and chips and has to sit for prolonged hour in his cab, thus not being free to exercise as he would like, is binging and a glutton , is nonsense

Everybodys calorie intake is different, and RELATIVE TO WHAT THEY NEED. A forester working all day in the woods would burn a lot of calories, if re obese people in the world than there are starving now, and that is a shameful fact.[/b]

two things, if you are to prove that an overweight person is a glutton, you need to have evidence that they continually show disregard for the moral precept of self control by recklessly and wantonly over indulging to excess without moral restraint. This is entirely different to a person who through lifestyle or diet becomes over weight, completely different.

secondly, in the case of homosexuality, as i have stated it is much more cut and dry, has an act of perceived immorality been committed, yes, is the person repentant, no, then see you later have a nice life.

I have already asked you Noobster on how you would judicially enforce a charge of gluttony and you cried. 'its not my gig', well if you cannot or are unwilling to formulate a procedure which is more workable than ours, then you have no recourse to call into question our procedural arrangement.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok my friend tomorrow, i need to think about these things, its late and my mind has used up its 1K of ram, you need to prove that he is binging, recklessly and wantonly over indulging to excess without moral restraint, to lay a charge of gluttony against him so that he shall be judicially removed from the congregation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

I hope you return refreshed.

Now, where were we? Oh yes:
you need to prove that he is binging, recklessly and wantonly over indulging to excess without moral restraint, to lay a charge of gluttony against him so that he shall be judicially removed from the congregation.
This seems easy enough.

Step 1. Check if s/he's clinically obese.
Step 2. Check if s/he has a medical certificate that might offer mitigation
Step 3. If the answer to 2. is 'No' and s/he is unable to provide one, expel them from the congregation.

See. Easy as pie 🙂

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]To state that a lorry driver, because he eats pies beans and chips and has to sit for prolonged hour in his cab, thus not being free to exercise as he would like, is binging and a glutton , is nonsense

Everybodys calorie intake is different, and RELATIVE TO WHAT THEY NEED. A forester working all day in the woods would burn a lot of calories, if ...[text shortened]... re obese people in the world than there are starving now, and that is a shameful fact.[/b]

My gripe is with the hypocrisy within the Christian faith. Homosexuals are labelled as sinners and we all know the hoo-ha that goes with that subject. But how many people have been removed from congregations or pulled aside and have been spoken to because of their weight? Not very many i would guess.

What's even worse it that many Christians not only continue to sin, but believe it impossible for "fallen man" not to sin (including IIRC JW's). They then point to homosexuals crying, "Sinner, Sinner!" and direct all manner of hatred towards them when they themselves continue to sin. This is the very hypocrisy that Jesus taught against time and again. They then make all manner of excuses for their sin and the sins of their friends when in reality they are just as much a matter of choice as it is for homosexuals. There's also the hypocrisy of citing the Bible when they themselves pick and choose which parts that they do or do not recognize. Many will claim that they recognize all of it, but the reality is that they don't.