17 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadInstead of pretend procreation insert "pretend to have sex".
I did not jump to conclusions. I made the obvious deduction from you statement and to be fair, asked you whether or not I was right.
Now if my deduction was wrong, then can you explain why you would think that someone would "pretend procreation with someone of the same sex"?
While bonding pleasure is certainly an outcome such activity, we can hardly deny that it seems physiologically tailored to facilitate procreation.
Even an evolutionist like yourself should see the handy work of "natural selection" in randomly "developing" the sex act for survival of the species.
The enjoyment and pleasure of it is subserviant to its ultimate goal of reproduction. That does not mean that the enjoyment, bonding, and pleasure of the sex act is meaningless, just subserviant to something else.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillI am not sure how you define "sex" but I doubt that homosexuals pretend to have it anyway. I am guessing that they have something that you would not term sex (but they would).
Instead of pretend procreation insert "pretend to have sex".
While bonding pleasure is certainly an outcome such activity, we can hardly deny that it seems physiologically tailored to facilitate procreation.
Even an evolutionist like yourself should see the handy work of "natural selection" in randomly "developing" the sex act for survival of the spe ...[text shortened]... , bonding, and pleasure of the sex act is meaningless, just subserviant to something else.
I do agree that sex is tailored towards procreation, but deny that that is its only purpose or that any form of subservience exists amongst its purposes.
As I asked before, do you believe that people who are unable to procreate (such as women who have passed menopause) are pretending at anything and should they stop having sex?
Are you against condoms, oral sex and other recreational activities that do not have a chance of resulting in procreation? Are people who practice them also pretending?
17 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydhow can you believe that you are higher than an angel? an angel can go back and forth between heaven and earth. they can come right amongst us and YOU wouldn't even know it! if YOU don't see them it's beacause they can act like you. can you act like them? then how can we be above them? religion is a spell!
I am not a god, and the rest of your post is unintelligible.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by dragonstarr369Christians are told that we are higher than the angels. We will be the inevitable judges of all mankind. When a person is saved, the angels all rejoice. We have souls; angels do not. I'm just going by the teachings of my faith.
how can you believe that you are higher than an angel? an angel can go back and forth between heaven and earth. they can come right amongst us and YOU wouldn't even know it! if YOU don't see them it's beacause they can act like you. can you act like them? then how can we be above them? religion is a spell!
17 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know what this line of questioning can do for you except attempt to prove that if one does not draw an infallible crystal clear line in dividing the moral from the immoral, therefore all behavior is OK.
I am not sure how you define "sex" but I doubt that homosexuals pretend to have it anyway. I am guessing that they have something that you would not term sex (but they would).
I do agree that sex is tailored towards procreation, but deny that that is its only purpose or that any form of subservience exists amongst its purposes.
As I asked before, do ...[text shortened]... o not have a chance of resulting in procreation? Are people who practice them also pretending?
I could grill you on what is lying or what is stealing and have you chasing around subtle exceptions too.
So what's the point you're going towards? Is it since I don't have a precise THOU SHALT and THOU SHALT NOT which is 100,000,000 % consistent to the most minutest hypothetical case, therefore ALL behavior is acceptable?
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillWhose goal?
Instead of pretend procreation insert "pretend to have sex".
While bonding pleasure is certainly an outcome such activity, we can hardly deny that it seems physiologically tailored to facilitate procreation.
Even an evolutionist like yourself should see the handy work of "natural selection" in randomly "developing" the sex act for survival of the spe ...[text shortened]... , bonding, and pleasure of the sex act is meaningless, just subserviant to something else.
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillYou did not say that you thought that what homosexuals do is immoral. I would have no problem with you saying and believing that, though I would have a problem if you tried to enforce it on them.
I don't know what this line of questioning can do for you except attempt to prove that if one does not draw an infallible crystal clear line in dividing the moral from the immoral, therefore all behavior is OK.
I could grill you on what is lying or what is stealing and have you chasing around subtle exceptions too.
So what's the point you're going to ...[text shortened]... % consistent to the most minutest hypothetical case, therefore ALL behavior is acceptable?
What I was objecting to was your ridiculous claim that they are pretending to procreate. It was clear that your intention was not to show that their behavior is immoral, your intention was to poke fun at them.
At first I though it was because you were ignorant and had some rather skewed ideas about sexuality. But now I realize that you knew from the beginning what you were doing.
So, you attacked one immoral behavior with another immoral behavior.
How do you justify that?
18 Apr 08
3 edits
=============================
What I was objecting to was your ridiculous claim that they are pretending to procreate. It was clear that your intention was not to show that their behavior is immoral, your intention was to poke fun at them.
=================================
Of course you showed no similiar concern for the post which prompted my post. It was designed to poke fun at my faith, as usual, implying that the only subject in the Bible is hell fire and burning and that God has nothing else on His mind. The purpose was to undermind the attribute of love in God, to make it look ridiculous.
The point of my post was that "gaychessplayer", the author, offers some of us a "hell" of his own including twisted rationalizations about love. My brother died of AIDS in one of those gay "love" communitites in San Fransisco.
He was in his own kind of "hell" when he was too weak to eventually to sit up, whisper, talk, or smile.
My one consolation is that he had time to think and pray. He had time to consider the God of love verses the gay utopia that promised so much but delivered death.
( At the same time, I am thankful for the gay friend who saw him through his last days and provided shelter. ) This did not go unnoticed. I am not into gay bashing,
You want to Christian bash? Might get a reaction.
Anticipated response - "What about non-gay people who are sick with HIV or AIDS?"
Christ loves them as well as gay people. He died and rose for the salvation of all who would believe.
==============================
At first I though it was because you were ignorant and had some rather skewed ideas about sexuality. But now I realize that you knew from the beginning what you were doing.
So, you attacked one immoral behavior with another immoral behavior.
How do you justify that?
===================================
I am not immoral for pointing out that gaychessplayer's concept of love has been a hell for some people.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillAlthough I sympathise for you and understand why you might be inclined to condemn homosexuality, I must point out that you have raised an irrelevancy. Twitehead asked whether you consider contracepted sex to be "pretend procreation" as well. If you are going to argue that gay sex is pretend, you must concede by the same token that a variety of heteronormative sex practices are also pretend. Surely these non-conceptive sexual acts must also be hell.
[b]=============================
What I was objecting to was your ridiculous claim that they are pretending to procreate. It was clear that your intention was not to show that their behavior is immoral, your intention was to poke fun at them.
=================================
Of course you showed no similiar concern for the post which promp r pointing out that gaychessplayer's concept of love has been a hell for some people.[/b]
Moreover, a number of gay men do not contract HIV, and I am sure that Gaychessplayer did not mean"San Francisco gay utopia" as his vision of love.
19 Apr 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KConrau K, this is what gaychessplayer wrote:
Although I sympathise for you and understand why you might be inclined to condemn homosexuality, I must point out that you have raised an irrelevancy. Twitehead asked whether you consider contracepted sex to be "pretend procreation" as well. If you are going to argue that gay sex is pretend, you must concede by the same token that a variety of heteronormati ...[text shortened]... I am sure that Gaychessplayer did not mean"San Francisco gay utopia" as his vision of love.
====================================
The Bible teaches us that "God is love." And if you don't believe it, He'll send you to Hell for an eternity!!! (I know that doesn't make any sense, but there are plausible readings of the Holy Bible that simultaneously teach both of those things.)
==========================================
Use that same sense of fairness and apply it to gaychesskeeper's caricature above.
Instead of the hypocritical bias you display.
And while you are at it please show me that passage in the Bible that says one is sent to hell because he does not believe that God is love.
Show me the passage that says that it is God's demand that you believe that God is love.
John 3:16 does say that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes into Him would not perish but have eternal life.
It does not say that every one who believes that God is love would not perish. It says everyone who believes into Him (the Son Jesus Christ). It doesn't even say that you must believe that God or Jesus loves you per se. It doesn't make it a requirement.
It says everyone who believes into Him. Maybe you think God doesn't even like you, but you believe into Christ. According to the passage you shall not perish.
So chessplayer's caricature is wrong. And if you really wanted to appear fair minded you could have pointed that out.
The requirement of believing into Christ is not exactly the same as a requirement to believe that God is love. Of course God is love and God is a lot of other things too. But some people want God to be one sided. Some people want God to be only permissive and not just, not righteous, not holy, and not right.
Though I my not like it, I can understand that the Ultimate Governor of the universe has an obligation. If you rebel against Him you cannot win. You must lose. It is that simple.
We want to rebel and:
1.) Break even
2.) Be left alone
3.) Win
4.) At least not lose too badly
5.) Okay then pass into non-existence
These are among our prefered choices. We can't have them. If you choose to rebel against the God Who is love, you have to lose. I think it is God's responsibility to arrange it that way.
Besides if God is the source of all well being and blessing, and you want nothing to do with Him, then where are you going to go? That place is without blessing and well being. Must be hell.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI admit that gaychessplayer might be wrong. Perhaps he is not the best scriptural theologian. But you have still ignored twitehead's question: if you describe same-gendered sex as "pretend procreation", do you do the same for heterosexuals who engage in non-conceptive sex?
Conrau K, this is what gaychessplayer wrote:
[b]====================================
The Bible teaches us that "God is love." And if you don't believe it, He'll send you to Hell for an eternity!!! (I know that doesn't make any sense, but there are plausible readings of the Holy Bible that simultaneously teach both of those things.)
=========== are you going to go? That place is without blessing and well being. Must be hell.[/b]
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydOf course, contingent on believing in Christ as Savior is the notion of
The Bible does not say that if you don't believe that God is Love, then He will send you to hell--that's just ignorant. If you do not accept Christ as Savior, THEN you're destined to the bad place--simple as that.
doing good works, as iterated by Saint James in his Epistle as well as
by Jesus Himself in the parable of the sheep and the goats. Goats
end up in the bad place, simple as that.
Nemesio
20 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioWe are saved by grace alone, NOT by works. Even the Catholics finally admitted it (though it took 'em the better part of 2 millenia to get it right) 🙂
Of course, contingent on believing in Christ as Savior is the notion of
doing good works, as iterated by Saint James in his Epistle as well as
by Jesus Himself in the parable of the sheep and the goats. Goats
end up in the bad place, simple as that.
Nemesio