|
|
| Homosexual marriage is ok? |
| yes |
|
40% |
[ 9 ] |
| No |
|
54% |
[ 12 ] |
| doesn't really matter to me... |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:02 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly They apply, but in a different way. Following them doesn't require you do not eat shellfish or shave (both of which were very common sense rules, considering God told them this when they were wandering around in the desert). Following these laws is done by following Jesus who has already fulfilled them. I don't see how they apply in a different way at all. They were all in the OT. The rules of the OT are supposedly fulfilled by Jesus Christ. So if all Christians follow Jesus, why is a homosexual Christian with a loving partner sinning? If he or she is sinning, I don't see how a person that eats shellfish is commiting a vile act any more than they are.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:50 pm
Leviticus is total crap, sorry everyone who thinks otherwise.
It's just completely ridiculous. I don't see how it is useful to anyone.
Well not any Christian.
No, I think I'm being too harsh. Leviticus is good for historical reference. If you really want to know about Holiness Codes for priests, then go ahead. It's good. Yeah, Leviticus is actually useful for a lot of things.
Like, uh, comic relief. They don't make 'em like they used to, eh? Can't get enough of those burnt sacrifices.
Also, kindling. Makes really good kindling. For example, if you're making a burnt sacrifice, you know, for example if you touched the same object as a menstruating woman. Happens to me all the time. Can't be helped.
Actually, I shouldn't be angry at Leviticus at all. I should be angry at menstruating women. Always complaining about 'cramps' and 'hormone issues' and 'bleeding'. Don't they know that childbirth is God's gift to women? Instead of screaming about how much it hurts, and getting high off those 'epidurals', they should be thanking God that he didn't decide to make the whole race infertile, killing off all humans. In fact, they should be glad God didn't make the first two humans Adam and Steve, because then where would you be? Huh? What was that? I'm sorry, did you say, YOU WOULDN'T EXIST? BECAUSE ONLY WOMEN CAN BEAR CHILDREN? That's what I thought you said. And then menstruating women get all whiny about me telling them to go live in tents ten miles away from civilization. YOU WANT PIGEONS TO DIE? YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING AGAINST PIGEONS? IS THAT WHAT IT IS? I'm so sick and tired of making burnt sacrifices to cleanse myself every time something that involves bodily fluids has an indirect connection to me. Menstruating women just make it worse by saying things like "What are you talking about? You're so weird." I tell them that they know what I'm talking about, and when they say they don't, I take it as a clear sign that they're inhabited by demons. I know I'm doing my job when they start yelling about calling the police.
But really, why should I have to do all this? Everyone should start carrying a pocket copy of Leviticus, so they know what God wants.
AND back, in all seriousness, there are other passages you can use to condemn homosexuality that aren't so easily disputed, so why bother with Leviticus?
EDIT: Just so you know, this post wasn't meant to make anyone feel bad about themselves or anything. I'm only angry at Leviticus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:16 pm
Captain_Theoretical Leviticus is total crap, sorry everyone who thinks otherwise. It's just completely ridiculous. I don't see how it is useful to anyone. Well not any Christian. No, I think I'm being too harsh. Leviticus is good for historical reference. If you really want to know about Holiness Codes for priests, then go ahead. It's good. Yeah, Leviticus is actually useful for a lot of things. Like, uh, comic relief. They don't make 'em like they used to, eh? Can't get enough of those burnt sacrifices. Also, kindling. Makes really good kindling. For example, if you're making a burnt sacrifice, you know, for example if you touched the same object as a menstruating woman. Happens to me all the time. Can't be helped. Actually, I shouldn't be angry at Leviticus at all. I should be angry at menstruating women. Always complaining about 'cramps' and 'hormone issues' and 'bleeding'. Don't they know that childbirth is God's gift to women? Instead of screaming about how much it hurts, and getting high off those 'epidurals', they should be thanking God that he didn't decide to make the whole race infertile, killing off all humans. In fact, they should be glad God didn't make the first two humans Adam and Steve, because then where would you be? Huh? What was that? I'm sorry, did you say, YOU WOULDN'T EXIST? BECAUSE ONLY WOMEN CAN BEAR CHILDREN? That's what I thought you said. And then menstruating women get all whiny about me telling them to go live in tents ten miles away from civilization. YOU WANT PIGEONS TO DIE? YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING AGAINST PIGEONS? IS THAT WHAT IT IS? I'm so sick and tired of making burnt sacrifices to cleanse myself every time something that involves bodily fluids has an indirect connection to me. Menstruating women just make it worse by saying things like "What are you talking about? You're so weird." I tell them that they know what I'm talking about, and when they say they don't, I take it as a clear sign that they're inhabited by demons. I know I'm doing my job when they start yelling about calling the police. But really, why should I have to do all this? Everyone should start carrying a pocket copy of Leviticus, so they know what God wants. AND back, in all seriousness, there are other passages you can use to condemn homosexuality that aren't so easily disputed, so why bother with Leviticus? EDIT: Just so you know, this post wasn't meant to make anyone feel bad about themselves or anything. I'm only angry at Leviticus. YOU'RE NOT DEAD. Ahh, I've missed you smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:21 pm
Quote: YOU'RE NOT DEAD. Ahh, I've missed you I'm like Jesus. Everyone thinks I'm dead, and then I just show up. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 5:14 pm
Captain_Theoretical Quote: YOU'RE NOT DEAD. Ahh, I've missed you I'm like Jesus. Everyone thinks I'm dead, and then I just show up. sweatdrop That was really funny for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:40 pm
thelovelyLIZ Captain_Theoretical Quote: YOU'RE NOT DEAD. Ahh, I've missed you I'm like Jesus. Everyone thinks I'm dead, and then I just show up. sweatdrop That was really funny for some reason. Indeed so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 2:38 pm
ryuu_chan thelovelyLIZ Captain_Theoretical Quote: YOU'RE NOT DEAD. Ahh, I've missed you I'm like Jesus. Everyone thinks I'm dead, and then I just show up. sweatdrop That was really funny for some reason. Indeed so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 2:41 pm
omnimodus Fushigi na Butterfly They apply, but in a different way. Following them doesn't require you do not eat shellfish or shave (both of which were very common sense rules, considering God told them this when they were wandering around in the desert). Following these laws is done by following Jesus who has already fulfilled them. I don't see how they apply in a different way at all. They were all in the OT. The rules of the OT are supposedly fulfilled by Jesus Christ. So if all Christians follow Jesus, why is a homosexual Christian with a loving partner sinning? If he or she is sinning, I don't see how a person that eats shellfish is commiting a vile act any more than they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:31 pm
omnimodus Rikoujin omnimodus 1 Cornithians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,Nor men? What about homosexual women? Are they free from this prejudice of God? The "act" of homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, alrighty then. So is the Original Sin of intercourse. Yet God said to his creations in Genesis to 'be fruitful and multiply'. I don't understand why God likes to contradict himself so much. If intercourse between a man and a woman is forgiveable, why not intercourse between members of the same sex? Sure they won't procreate, but a lot of opposite sex couples don't procreate either. Some people are sterile and can't have children. Others just don't feel kids are right for them. Do they anger God as well? Does God want the world to be overpopulated? Or is it the 'fact' that same sex intercourse is unnatural? Unnatural my behind. Homosexual men seem to have no trouble seeing as how their prostates are conveniently and /naturally/ placed. Nor do homosexual women have trouble, as God did give us all tongues. If God hates it so much, he should do away with fingers, tongues, and prostates. If God hates unnatural sex, he should also do away with S&M. Now there's something even heterosexual couples practice. Intercourse was not meant to incorporate whips and handcuffs and pain. Yet we invented them, didn't we? Heck, we even invented the missionary style of intercourse. That's unnatural too! surprised And putting lickable chocolate on your partner. And performing oral. Geeze. Enough of all this unnaturalness! I say we all halt intercourse altogether if it's a sin. We should all learn how to clone ourselves. Then. Maybe. God would be a happy fellow. [/end ridiculous rant] Men is used in the Bible often as a generic term for all people. It's like when you might say to a group of friends 'hey guys' even when there are girls there too. Too blindingly simple? Where is that verse about intercourse located? Lust is certainly a sin, but intercourse inside marriage is never talked against in the Bible to my knowledge (If I'm wrong, I want proof.) In fact, read Song of Solomon. There's plenty in there about the beauty and dare I say it, the pleasure, of intercourse within marriage. So I don't see ANY contradiction anywhere. Intercourse without lust is an impossibility. You need lust to become aroused and perform sexually. Therein lies the contradiction. Um...Rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:59 pm
Yeah, but in order for actual rape to occur, certain physiological changes need to occur ... specifically in the male. Not sure how that happens unless they're aroused. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:33 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly Yeah, but in order for actual rape to occur, certain physiological changes need to occur ... specifically in the male. Not sure how that happens unless they're aroused. confused You can get an erection without being aroused. It happens quite often, actually. And you don't have to be aroused to be anally/orally raped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:40 pm
Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Yeah, but in order for actual rape to occur, certain physiological changes need to occur ... specifically in the male. Not sure how that happens unless they're aroused. confused You can get an erection without being aroused. It happens quite often, actually. And you don't have to be aroused to be anally/orally raped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:46 pm
Priestley Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Yeah, but in order for actual rape to occur, certain physiological changes need to occur ... specifically in the male. Not sure how that happens unless they're aroused. confused You can get an erection without being aroused. It happens quite often, actually. And you don't have to be aroused to be anally/orally raped. What can I say? I was really bored...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:10 am
Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Yeah, but in order for actual rape to occur, certain physiological changes need to occur ... specifically in the male. Not sure how that happens unless they're aroused. confused You can get an erection without being aroused. It happens quite often, actually. And you don't have to be aroused to be anally/orally raped. What can I say? I was really bored...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:53 pm
Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Yeah, but in order for actual rape to occur, certain physiological changes need to occur ... specifically in the male. Not sure how that happens unless they're aroused. confused You can get an erection without being aroused. It happens quite often, actually. And you don't have to be aroused to be anally/orally raped.
But while awake ... iunno, I'm venturing into some dangerous territory here with questions that I don't know the answers to because I'm not a guy, but don't wanna ask because I don't think they'd be appropriate. sweatdrop I guess we'll just leave it at that. I don't even remember what the original topic of this thread was now. domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
