PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: My niece is gay and I love her for it. So does God.



Pages : [1] 2

wickwoman
February 25th, 2003, 02:34 PM
My niece was gay the day she was born. I don’t know what caused it - maybe she’s got too much or too little of this hormone or that one. All I know is that every picture I look at of her from the day she started to look like one sex or the other, she always looked a little less than female. I can’t put my finger on it now, I just know she was different. That doesn’t make her a sinner.

When she was 4 years old she used to dress up in her dad’s work clothes and work boots. For Halloween she was always an army man or a Star Trek captain. All of her friends were little boys. She choose them because she had the most in common with boys. When boys decided they didn’t like girls, she had no friends. She was devastated. Her best friend Patrick told her one day girls were “icky.” It changed her attitude about life forever.

Sometimes I wonder if it was something I did or said or something her mom or dad did or didn’t do. When it comes right down to it, it doesn’t matter. Whether it was environment or genetics, nevertheless, she had no control over what happened to her and in her. It just was. Either way, no loving God would send her to Hell for it. Of this I am sure.

So tell me that God thinks she’s an “abomination.” But this time, use your head. Don’t quote from your famous book. Give me a logical reason from your very own head as to why God is going to send her to Hell for being gay. I challenge you to give me one good LOGICAL reason. She is not harming anyone, she is not even harming herself. What harmed her the most was when she tried to fit in and be straight.

She’s much happier now that she is openly gay. She and her girlfriend are not sexually involved right now. They want to keep their relationship plutonic for now. When I see them holding hands and enjoying being together so much, I think “how could this be wrong?”

When you objectify your beliefs it is much easier to hold them sacred. When something comes and knocks on the door of your house, then it’s different. God is that way too. Do you think he/she looks at you and says “you know, if you just weren’t so critical of everything, I would let you come to Heaven.” Or “if you didn’t get so angry in traffic, I would love you.” Or “if you didn’t spend so much time gossiping with your friends you would be alright in my book.”

No, God isn’t like that. People who believe this person or that person is going to Hell don’t really know those people they condemn. The make them objects and categorize them in the “bad” category. They don’t feel personally attached to the “bad” ones because if they did, they wouldn’t be able to keep them on the “bad” list. That’s why God doesn’t have a “bad” list. He/she does know each of us personally and he/she could never send anyone to Hell.

Now I’m talking to all of you who believe there is a Hell and that there are people who will go there someday: “As long as you keep your ears shut, your house of cards will not fall. As long as you refuse to let a logical thought enter your head, you will continue to swallow whatever the preacher tells you is right. You don’t have to think, you’ve got the Bible, the preacher, the Sunday school teacher. Is that what you really believe? But if one little doubt enters your head, your whole system of beliefs will begin to fall. It’s time you started thinking for yourself. Give it a try.”

Eireann
February 25th, 2003, 02:37 PM
Yes, I know my brother and the company he's keepin'
Yes, I know my brother well, he sings a different tune
Yes, I know my brother well, I've heard it said he's queer as hell
Pray that he's in love, as well ... higher than the moon!

Thanks for the information
Thanks, but no thanks, for the information
Thanks, but no thanks, for the information
Cuz information's got your number, too

-- "Information", by the Rainmakers

People who like to point the finger at gays and find every fault they can in them need to heed the words above.

Knight
February 25th, 2003, 02:41 PM
How sad.. you love her BECAUSE SHE IS GAY?

So you would love her less if she were straight?

wickwoman
February 25th, 2003, 03:54 PM
Dear Knight:

It is never sad to love someone.

I love her because she is gay, because she has brown eyes, because she has light brown hair and a very cute nose. I love her because she is a perfectionist, because she laughs at my jokes, because when she was a toddler she used to sing to herself while she was using the potty. I love her because she procrastinates, because she drives too fast, and because she once she told me to "hush" when I was singing her a lullabye. (I'm not a very good singer.)

I love her because she's mine. I've always loved her. Since the day she was born.

Dear Eireann:

I was trying to remember your name the other day. I was citing you as one of the "enlightened" ones. Thanks for the post.

Poly
February 25th, 2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Knight:

It is never sad to love someone.

I love her because she is gay, because she has brown eyes, because she has light brown hair and a very cute nose. I love her because she is a perfectionist, because she laughs at my jokes, because when she was a toddler she used to sing to herself while she was using the potty. I love her because she procrastinates, because she drives too fast, and because she once she told me to "hush" when I was singing her a lullabye. (I'm not a very good singer.)

I love her because she's mine. I've always loved her. Since the day she was born.


Why shouldn't the evil love the evil?

calvinistkid
February 25th, 2003, 04:25 PM
A question for you- you fault us for "not having to think. we have the Bible, the Preacher, etc." You tell us to give you a logical reason out of our own heads. Then you go on to say (with quite a bit of conviction) that:
"No, God isn’t like that. People who believe this person or that person is going to Hell don’t really know those people they condemn. The make them objects and categorize them in the “bad” category. They don’t feel personally attached to the “bad” ones because if they did, they wouldn’t be able to keep them on the “bad” list. That’s why God doesn’t have a “bad” list. He/she does know each of us personally and he/she could never send anyone to Hell. "
These are absolute statements about God. What I would like to know is where you found this "divine knowledge" about God? What is your authority in saying these things?
On an ending note, I would like to offer you what the apostle Paul said in the 9th book of Romans- "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
With love in Christ'
Leon

calvinistkid
February 25th, 2003, 04:30 PM
As far as loving her is concerned, do not stop. We are to show love to sinners of all kinds. This does not mean that we condone their actions. Perhaps at this point in her life your daughter is living apart from God. Perhaps she has come to know the Lord, but is still weak in the faith. If this is the case, then her love for God will lead her to desire to do His will and obey His commands. Don't get me wrong- she will not become perfect overnight. She will continue to sin until the day she dies. But those sins will have been atoned for, and God will give her the desire to stop.

Freak
February 25th, 2003, 04:45 PM
Eireann-an enlightened one? Now, that's a first.

Wickwoman--

God loves your niece so much that He desires her to repent of her homosexuality and to live a holy life in Christ.

Jesus loves gays, theives, murderers, etc but He demands for them to repent before entering eternal hell. Wickwoman--homosexuality is a evil learned behavior. God does not create homosexuals. Yuo are very misinformed if you believe she was born gay.

Love you niece unconditonally and point her to Jesus.

Eireann
February 25th, 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Eireann:

I was trying to remember your name the other day. I was citing you as one of the "enlightened" ones. Thanks for the post.
Thanks. And ... you're welcome.

Eireann
February 25th, 2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Eireann-an enlightened one? Now, that's a first.
Wisdom comes in all flavors. No one is "enlightened," in the sense that they have a transcendent wisdom in all things. In certain areas, I'm sure I'm more wise or enlightened than you. In other areas, I'm sure you're more wise or enlightened than I. I think it all depends on the issue and where our particular knowledge or experience lies.

Sozo
February 25th, 2003, 05:18 PM
Even if she was born gay (which she wasn't), Jesus said you must be born-again. So how we are born the first time is nearly not as relevant as what happens when you are born a second time. And those who have been born a second time are children of the living God, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit who would never encourage a homosexual relationship or lifestyle.

Eireann
February 25th, 2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Sozo
Even if she was born gay (which she wasn't).
I respect that you believe this, but why do you believe it? How do you know (not "believe," but "know") that homosexuals aren't genetically predisposed to their orientation? I'm not saying one way or the other, because I honestly don't know, but what are your objective criteria for making such an absolute statement?

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 06:47 AM
Dear Polycarpadvo:

Re: Evil loving Evil

Typical. Response. Here they come again!

Dear Calvinistkid:

My statements about God are about a person (me) using their head instead of quoting from a book constantly. You are obviously unfamiliar with this behavior.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 06:50 AM
Do not dismiss those that call upon their Lord morning and evening, seeking His countenance. You are not accountable for them, just as they are not accountable for you. Then if you drive them away, you yourself may become one of the wrongdoers.

-Qur'an, Al-An'am, Surah 6:52
Translated by Aneela Khalid Arshed.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 07:06 AM
O.K., that's from the Qur'an, you know. Now you can see how annoying it is when someone quotes from a book and doesn't express their own opinions. However, in this instance I agree with the Qur'an. Timeless wisdom comes in all kinds of packages, not just from the Bible.

Freak
February 26th, 2003, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
O.K., that's from the Qur'an, you know. Now you can see how annoying it is when someone quotes from a book and doesn't express their own opinions. However, in this instance I agree with the Qur'an. Timeless wisdom comes in all kinds of packages, not just from the Bible.

Did you know that Qur'an's false god Allah is impersonal? We do not read of him loving humanity in a personal way. Is this a god you really want to turn to (or his writings?).

Jesus however offers a personal relationship to all who come to Him.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 10:48 AM
Dear Freak:

How often do you read the Qur'an? How much of the Qur'an have you read?


Back to the subject at hand:

I know a woman who used to use the "N" word until her daughter married a black man. Now she has black grandchildren and she doesn't use that word any more.

She realized that, through no fault of their own or anyone's for that matter, they were born black. It was totally out of their control. So how could being black be wrong? Of course, it's not.

It's the same for gay people. Until you love a gay person, it's easy for you to say it's their fault, or to call them faggots or to say God will send them to Hell. But when you have a truly personal and loving relationship with someone, you cannot condemn them.

When you raise your Bibles and point your "holier than thou" finger, you're no better than the white hooded men who burn crosses on black people's lawns. They think the Bible says black people are inferior. Does that make their hatred any less wrong?

Ryokan
February 26th, 2003, 03:20 PM
It is a pointless fight, wickwoman. The problem is they have a fundamentally different view of the world than you, one that would be shattered irrepably if they accepted your niece. And it is very scary to go through life without a set view.

And wickwoman tends toward the mystic end of things, so she knows God loves because she feels it, not cause any book says it. At least that is the way I interpret her.

Freak
February 26th, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Freak:

How often do you read the Qur'an? How much of the Qur'an have you read?


Back to the subject at hand:

I know a woman who used to use the "N" word until her daughter married a black man. Now she has black grandchildren and she doesn't use that word any more.

She realized that, through no fault of their own or anyone's for that matter, they were born black. It was totally out of their control. So how could being black be wrong? Of course, it's not.

It's the same for gay people. Until you love a gay person, it's easy for you to say it's their fault, or to call them faggots or to say God will send them to Hell. But when you have a truly personal and loving relationship with someone, you cannot condemn them.

When you raise your Bibles and point your "holier than thou" finger, you're no better than the white hooded men who burn crosses on black people's lawns. They think the Bible says black people are inferior. Does that make their hatred any less wrong?

I have read portions of the Koran. Tedious reading. I have lived in Islamic nations. Have you? Have you ever been under Sharia Law? I have. I speak from personal experience and knowledge.

Freak
February 26th, 2003, 05:50 PM
Wickwoman--

I have a few friends who have turned to lesbianism/homosexuality for one reason or another. I love them but do not accept their evil behaviour. Homosexuality destroys lives.

Lion
February 26th, 2003, 06:22 PM
An inside look at Wickedwoman’s original post from page one:?

My nephew was a pedophile from the day he was born. I don’t know what caused it. Maybe he got a little too much of this hormone or too little of that. All I know is that every picture I see of him from the day he started to play with others, he liked to play with children a little more than adults. I can’t put my finger on it now, I just know he was different. That doesn’t make him a sinner.



When he was 4 years old he used to dress up in his dad’s work clothes and work boots (always trying to look older). For Halloween he was always an army man or a Star Trek captain, (someone older than the other kids). All of his friends were little’(er) boys. He chose them because he liked little’(er) boys better. When he saw that younger boys liked kids their own age better, he was devastated. His best friend, Patrick told him one day teenagers were “icky.” It changed his attitude about life forever.

Sometimes I wonder if it was something I did or said (like that time in the bathroom) or something his mom or dad did or didn’t do. When it comes right down to it, it doesn’t matter (how could it since there are no eternal consequences and we are just evolved animals anyway). Whether it was environment or genetics, nevertheless, he had no control over what happened to him and in him. It just was. Either way, no loving god (that I would create) would send him to Hell for it. Of this I am sure (I hope).

So tell me that god thinks he’s an “abomination.” But this time, tell me while using my brain. Don’t quote from some book or authoritative source. Give me a reason as to why God is going to send him to Hell, from my beliefs and thoughts, for being a pedophile? I challenge you to give me one good reason (from my point of view). He is not harming anyone, he is not even harming himself. He always gets the little boys to play with him by giving them presents and by being nice. They never complain. What harms my pedophile nephew the most is when he tries to fit in and be normal.

He’s much happier now that he is freely a pedophile, with no guilty feelings. He and his young friends are not sexually involved right now (the child’s parents haven’t dropped him off to be baby sat yet). He wants to show the parents how nice he is. When I see him holding that young boy and enjoying being together so much, I think “how could this be wrong?”
When you make up your beliefs it is much easier to hold them sacred. When something comes and knocks on the door of your house, then it’s different. god is that way too. Do you think he/she/it looks at you and says “you know, if you just weren’t so critical of pedophiles, I would let you come to Heaven.” Or “if you didn’t get so angry in traffic, I would love you.” Or “if you didn’t spend so much time gossiping with your friends you would be alright in my book.”

No, the God I’ve made up isn’t like that. People who believe this person or that person is going to Hell don’t really know those pedophiles they condemn. The make them objects and categorize them in the “bad” category. They don’t feel personally attached to the “bad” ones because if they did, they wouldn’t be able to keep them on the “bad” list. That’s why the God I made up doesn’t have a “bad” list. He/she/it does know each of us personally and he/she/it could never send anyone to Hell (I wouldn’t let he/she/it!).

Now I’m talking to all of you who believe there is a Hell (there isn’t of course….I hope) and that there are people who will go there someday (not me of course….I hope): “As long as you keep your ears shut, your house of cards will not fall. As long as you refuse to let what I call (in my infinite and unathoritive wisdom) a logical thought enter your head, you will continue to swallow whatever the preacher tells you is right. You don’t have to think (I certainly never do), you’ve got the Bible, the preacher, the Sunday school teacher. Is that what you really believe? But if one little doubt enters your head (like maybe it’s okay to be a pedophile), your whole system of beliefs will begin to fall. It’s time you started thinking for yourself, (after all, we are all gods, or at least I am). Give it a try (I command you).”

Poly
February 26th, 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Lion
An inside look at Wickedwoman’s original post from page one:?

My nephew was a pedophile from....
Wow.. talk about putting it into perspective.:thumb:

Paradősis
February 26th, 2003, 07:04 PM
We should love everyone because they are made in the image of God. With this image comes a responsibility, though: we must "seek holiness" (ie. He who is Holy). Therefore, when we truly love someone and we see them heading towards an infinitely dark cliff, we warn them.

Some people think that God puts up barriers: I agree. God puts up barriers around cliffs so that we don't fall into them. It's our choice whether we climb over them or not. Those who don't care about God will climb over the fence in defiance, sometimes just to prove that they can do anything they want. Christians will not climb over the fence, not because they are legalists following rules, but because they trust that God knows best and follow his guidance.

If you see someone heading towards a cliff, and getting ready to climb over a fence, try to stop them. I'm very saddened by what I see today in the way of excuses and rationalisations for sin. I think there will be many on judgment day who will say:

"But God, you made me this way"

To which God might respond:

"I didn't make you that way, I only allowed you to be born that way. What's more, I allowed everyone to be born with defects and with their "image" dirtied. Now, why did you make excuses and avoid me instead of letting me clean you off?"

Saying that homosexuality is "natural" (ie. "I was born that way") is like saying that death is "natural". Just because it happens without a person intending it to happen, and just because God allows something to happen, that doesn't make it good or proper. God promises us so much more if we stop focusing on what is "natural" and start focusing on what he can supernaturally do, through his uncreated grace.

I love your niece too (and I know God does to). That's why I hope and pray she seeks the Lord on His supernatural terms, not on hers, which are natural and fallen.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Lion
He is not harming anyone, he is not even harming himself. He always gets the little boys to play with him by giving them presents and by being nice. They never complain. What harms my pedophile nephew the most is when he tries to fit in and be normal.

Dear Leo:

Are you making an argument for pedophilia? It seems you believe that nobody is harmed by pedophiles. Either that or you've gotten your sins mixed up.

I haven't seen a reasonable challenge to the idea that being gay harms no one.

Sozo
February 26th, 2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Are you making an argument for pedophilia? It seems you believe that nobody is harmed by pedophiles. Either that or you've gotten your sins mixed up.



Well at least you have finally admitted that homosexuality is a sin!

shilohproject
February 26th, 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Wow.. talk about putting it into perspective.:thumb:

Do you two honestly equate the sexual proclivities of consenting adult homosexuals with the preditorial behavior of a pedophile?
If so, that's scary.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Wow.. talk about putting it into perspective.:thumb:

Here's let's put Leo's opinion into perspective.

"Leo was a judgmental hatemonger since the day he was born, he isn't hurting anyone . . ."

Wait, that doesn't work here. That does hurt someone. Oh well. I'm just not as handy with words as Leo.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Wow.. talk about putting it into perspective.:thumb:

Here's let's put Leo's opinion into perspective.

"Leo was a judgmental hatemonger since the day he was born, he isn't hurting anyone . . ."

Wait, that doesn't work here. Being judgmental and full of hate does hurt someone. Oh well. I'm just not as handy with words as Leo.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


Well at least you have finally admitted that homosexuality is a sin!

Since I don't believe in sin you can call anything you want a sin and it doesn't frighten me. When something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist and "sin" is not a real thing that exists. It is something dreamed up in the mind of man to perpetuate the falacy that man is separate from God.

wickwoman
February 26th, 2003, 07:39 PM
Dear Paradosis:

If I had a child, how would this wash:

"I had a child and he wasn't perfect. I purposely abused alcohol while I was pregnant because I wanted my child to have the experience of overcoming the physical defects he would suffer as a result of my alcohol abuse. When he overcomes this defect I purposely caused him to have, then I will love my child and allow my child to live with me at our beautiful home I've built for us. If my child doesn't overcome the difficulties of the birth defect I've forced on him, I've created a torture chamber for my child to live out eternity. I'm such a wonderful and loving parent!! It's my child's choice to overcome his difficulties and live at our beautiful mansion with me or to be tortured for all eternity! Freewill is my middle name!

calvinistkid
February 26th, 2003, 08:00 PM
Wickwoman, I would like to know how you come to the conclusion that my beliefs are "illogical". I would agree that from YOUR worldview they are, but from my worldview YOUR position is illogical. You see, a person's most fundamental beliefs (who God is, why they exist, etc.) determine the way that they look at life. I believe that homosexuality is a sin because I believe that a sovereign God decrees it is so. You may deny the existence of my particular deity, but that does not in any way make my position illogical (if my particular deity does not exist, then I may be WRONG, but wrong and illogical are two very different things).
Secondly, I would like to address your accusation that I am being "judgemental". You claim that she was born that way, and that it is wrong to say that the way she was born is not "good". For a minute I am going to lay aside my disagreement with you about the possibility/impossibility of being born homosexual. We could argue about that for months and I have a feeling that neither one of us would get anywhere. So let's assume for a moment that she WAS born that way. Does that make it right? Let me give you an example. I have a friend who'se brother was born with down's syndrome. Now, he did not have down's syndrome through any fault of his own. However, his family sought to place him into programs to overcome the symptoms of this disease so that he could live a "normal" life. Was that being "hateful" or "judgemental"? Were we being "intolerant" of his status as mentaly and physicaly retarded by seeking to "fix" him? I hope you see my point here. Even if homosexuality was something that you could be born with, what makes it different than any other birth defect that we would throw up our hands and say "Too bad. They were just born that way."?

wickwoman
February 27th, 2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by calvinistkid
Let me give you an example. I have a friend who'se brother was born with down's syndrome. Now, he did not have down's syndrome through any fault of his own. However, his family sought to place him into programs to overcome the symptoms of this disease so that he could live a "normal" life. Was that being "hateful" or "judgemental"? Were we being "intolerant" of his status as mentaly and physicaly retarded by seeking to "fix" him? I hope you see my point here. Even if homosexuality was something that you could be born with, what makes it different than any other birth defect that we would throw up our hands and say "Too bad. They were just born that way."?

No, it is not bad that your friends want their child to live a normal life, however, it would be bad if your friends decided that because their child did not overcome his/her physical limitations he/she would have to go to Hell for all eternity.

I respect your beliefs. I'm sorry if I was disrespectful. Sometimes I get carried away. You see, this issue is very personal for me. I love my niece very much and wouldn't want to change a thing about her. My only wish for her is that she be happy. If I, a human being, am capable of such love, how much more is God?

Sozo
February 27th, 2003, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Since I don't believe in sin you can call anything you want a sin and it doesn't frighten me. When something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist and "sin" is not a real thing that exists. It is something dreamed up in the mind of man to perpetuate the falacy that man is separate from God.

Then why did you refer to it as a sin?

wickwoman
February 27th, 2003, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Sozo


Then why did you refer to it as a sin?

Lion referred to pedophilia in the same vain as homosexuality. I believe the remark from me was that Lion got "his" sins mixed up, if you want to get technical. Thus eluding to the fact that Lion thinks homosexuality is a sin. So, if I call something a sin, that would be to say a Christian thinks this it is a sin. It is a somewhat sarcastic comment.

Calvinist
February 27th, 2003, 07:49 AM
Define me, narrow me, you deprive yourself of yourself. Nail me down in a box of cold words, those words are your coffin. --Rumi

I thought the expression was, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

calvinistkid
February 27th, 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman


No, it is not bad that your friends want their child to live a normal life, however, it would be bad if your friends decided that because their child did not overcome his/her physical limitations he/she would have to go to Hell for all eternity.


Well, I think you are slightly misunderstanding my beliefs. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't believe that it is the homosexuality per se that will send her to hell. It is the sinful nature that we are all born with. The homosexuality is merely an outgrowth of this nature. If God choses to change her sinful nature ("save" her), then she will be given the desire AND the ability to turn from her current lifestyle.


Originally posted by wickwoman
I respect your beliefs. I'm sorry if I was disrespectful. Sometimes I get carried away. You see, this issue is very personal for me. I love my niece very much and wouldn't want to change a thing about her. My only wish for her is that she be happy. If I, a human being, am capable of such love, how much more is God?

I understand that this is a personal issue. I would not want you to stop loving your niece. However, I believe that it is quite possible to correct in love.

wickwoman
February 27th, 2003, 11:20 AM
Dear Calvinistkid:

I assume you are a Calvinist. I don't know a lot about Calvinism. Based on your post above it appears that only some are chosen by God, others will be doomed? Is that correct? I am not being critical, only curious. Have you ever referred to it as "fate?"

I am a firm believer in fate, that things are chosen beforehand to be a certain way (possibly by us in our pre-birth state) and that we choose our particular disabilities, defects, habits, or propensities so that we can learn from them and spiritually evolve into the perfect spiritual beings we are one day to be.

So, if someone wanted to say a homosexual chose to be such PRIOR to their birth and this "difference" would be a way for them to better themselves spiritually, then I would agree wholeheartedly. However, to say that sexual preference is a sin, is to put too much emphasis on the physical body which, for the most part, is only a vehicle we use to travel through this life.

Look at all of nature which is only a reflection of the creator. Even flowers are sexual, it is the way they continue their species. So, as to what sex God is, if forced to chose, I would have to say he/she is a hermaphrodite. Because all came from him/her and there was no one who pre-existed God. Therefore, he would have no one to mate with in order to give birth to the universe. It is also possible that God does not have a body, so he/she is neither male, nor female.

Homosexuality is a threat, mostly to men, because it brings a third sex into the equation - one who may look like something on the outside, but feel like something else on the inside. And since, at the root of Christianity is the belief that men are put at the head of the family, thus superior, this makes things a little muddy.

Or how about this idea, natural selection is the process by which a population is kept under control. I believe "they" say that more people are alive right now than have lived and died in the history of man. That's amazing! I think we all know the earth is over populated. Some will die of diseases, starvation will weed out some. Absent intervention, a homosexual cannot procreate with his or her partner. What if homosexuality is nature's answer for reducing the population of the earth? When we just put some thought into these important issues rather than placing them quickly into neat little categories that don't frighten us, it's amazing what answers we can come up with.

o2bwise
February 27th, 2003, 01:55 PM
My view is definitely in contrast to everyone else's here.

Poly, Lion...
To equate pedophilia with homosexuality without extensive explanation is pathetic. This is the Current Events forum where people's beliefs are far more pluralistic than those beliefs you can conveniently wrap within the confines of your own.

In short, words are recipient-dependent. In this case, they couldn't work. They could only harm. I am inclined to think "hurting" was your intent all along.

And Poly, your words about "evil loving evil," well, thank God that while we were still sinners (evil), Christ died for us. Do you embrace a theology so deviant from that of Christ?


wickwoman,

Here is my view and it is the view of one within recovery for homosexuality. No one chooses to be homosexual. I agree.

But, it is at least hypothetically possible that humans were created in such a way that were they to be 100% "whole" in a psychological sense, their only mode of sexual expression could be heterosexual within a life-long committed monogamous relationship.

Conversely, if one is homosexual, that is symptomatic of an inner brokenness of heart. And were that brokenness healed, the person would be homosexual no more.

I state this as a hypothetical. Assuming it is true, far be it from me to insist that "unwellness" is "wellness."

Now, you claim that your niece may be gay because of genetic factors, i.e. she was born that way. Well, so what? Biblically speaking, even our very flesh has a moral component. Sin is of the mind, but our flesh is a source of pulls to submit to sin.

The Christian life is, in part, a call to have the lusts and passions of the flesh be crucified. One is not appealing to biblical Christianity when one advocates a certain behavior on the premise that one has a propensity for that behavior due to one's very own genetics.

I am not here to insist your niece is "lost." I know of homosexuals who were "born again" and remained in homosexual monogamous relationships - for a season. We are all sinners. Particular sins are revealed, not in a moment, but in progressive fashion.

But, it is my own sense that it does not take long in the Christian walk of sanctification before one happens upon the discernment that homosexuality indeed is sin.

I would guess that IF your niece is a spiritual person and given her contentment in homosexuality, she is at a baby stage in her walk.


Back to the "Christians." I do not think most have any idea how truly difficult this particular sin is. And I think this is precisely WHY it is biblically referred to as an abomination. The sin itself has such binding cords. Recovery is a process. It may take years.

As an example, I know one homosexual for whom the very thought of being intimate with a woman is totally repulsive to him.

How would any of you like to be like that? How would you like to be such a way that you sexually burn for your own sex and are repulsed by the opposite sex?

Heed the admonishment of Hebrews 13 (I believe verse 3). Walk in his moccasins. Not in his sin, but understand the prison bars that hold him. Trace cause and effect.

If you did, there would be far more compassion and love - and NO judgment. That would be left to God.

Tony (o2)

Poly
February 27th, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by o2bwise
And Poly, your words about "evil loving evil," well, thank God that while we were still sinners (evil), Christ died for us.


Yes, thank God, He did so that we could be (evil) no more.

Do you embrace a theology so deviant from that of Christ?
No

o2bwise
February 27th, 2003, 02:27 PM
Poly,

My point stands, unrefuted. God loves that niece, thus, it need not follow that wickwoman loves her niece because she (wickwoman) is evil.

You seem to have some understanding of the law. I look forward to the day you have a deeper understanding of its weightier matters.

o2

Poly
February 27th, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by o2bwise

You seem to have some understanding of the law. I look forward to the day you have a deeper understanding of its weightier matters.


Oh let me guess. By saying weightier matters you must be refering to the idea that Jesus was embarrassed by what His Father the mean old tyrant, said in the law so He came to change it around bit while He was here.

wickwoman
February 27th, 2003, 04:11 PM
Quote Polycarpadvo:

"you must be refering to the idea that Jesus was embarrassed by what His Father the mean old tyrant, said in the law so He came to change it around bit while He was here."

Jesus came to correct the idea that MAN had made his Mother/Father into a mean old tyrant.

calvinistkid
February 27th, 2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Calvinistkid:

I assume you are a Calvinist. I don't know a lot about Calvinism. Based on your post above it appears that only some are chosen by God, others will be doomed? Is that correct? I am not being critical, only curious. Have you ever referred to it as "fate?"

I am a firm believer in fate, that things are chosen beforehand to be a certain way (possibly by us in our pre-birth state) and that we choose our particular disabilities, defects, habits, or propensities so that we can learn from them and spiritually evolve into the perfect spiritual beings we are one day to be.


Yes, I am a calvinist. Yes, I believe that some are chosen by God while others are not. No, I don't refer to it as "fate", mainly because the term implies control by an impersonal force. While I do believe that our lives are controlled, I believe that this controll is exerted by a sovereign, loving, holy, and just God for the purpose of his own glory. I very firmly disagree with your suggestion that this chosing is done by us in any way. Some may ask why a holy God would choose to have some live lives of sin. To this I would reply that I honestly don't know for sure. I suspect that it is because he desires for ALL aspects of his being to be revealed. If He chose to save every man, woman, and child ever born, that would display his love, but it would end there. We would never see his justice, his holiness, his intolerance for all things impure. Even the concept of mercy would lose its beauty without something to compare it with. If God choses to create some solely for the purpose of displaying his justice in them, then so be it. It is his right as creator to do with his creation as he pleases. As far as "evolving into the perfect spiritual beings we are one day to be", I believe that this is the case for all those chosen by God, not for all of mankind. And because the Bible teaches physical ressurection (and I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God), I believe that in this perfect state we will have perfect physical bodies.


Originally posted by wickwoman
So, if someone wanted to say a homosexual chose to be such PRIOR to their birth and this "difference" would be a way for them to better themselves spiritually, then I would agree wholeheartedly. However, to say that sexual preference is a sin, is to put too much emphasis on the physical body which, for the most part, is only a vehicle we use to travel through this life.

Again, I disagree. I do not see such an extreme division between body and soul.


Originally posted by wickwoman
Look at all of nature which is only a reflection of the creator. Even flowers are sexual, it is the way they continue their species. So, as to what sex God is, if forced to chose, I would have to say he/she is a hermaphrodite. Because all came from him/her and there was no one who pre-existed God. Therefore, he would have no one to mate with in order to give birth to the universe. It is also possible that God does not have a body, so he/she is neither male, nor female.


I would agree in a sense with your statement that nature is a reflection of the creator. The Bible says "the heavens declare the Glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands." You mention that even the flowers are sexual beings. I would point out that there are no "homosexual flowers". In fact, homosexuality is only found in mankind. Why? Because since animals and plants have no souls and are not given minds as humanity is, they are incapable of sin. As far as God's gender is concerned, I believe that He is male, although since you apparently deny the authority of the Bible there is really no way to convince you of that point.


Originally posted by wickwoman
Homosexuality is a threat, mostly to men, because it brings a third sex into the equation - one who may look like something on the outside, but feel like something else on the inside. And since, at the root of Christianity is the belief that men are put at the head of the family, thus superior, this makes things a little muddy.


Actualy, Christianity does not teach that man is "superior", it teaches that he has a position of authority. There is a difference.

If you would like to learn more about what I believe, feel free to send me an e-mail or private message. I am always open to friendly discussion.

In Christ,
Leon

wickwoman
February 27th, 2003, 04:47 PM
Dear Leon:

Re: homosexual plants

Actually, there are plants that contain both the male and female "necessary components." Just for accuracy.

thanks for sharing your beliefs.

calvinistkid
February 27th, 2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Leon:

Re: homosexual plants

Actually, there are plants that contain both the male and female "necessary components." Just for accuracy.

thanks for sharing your beliefs.

Yes, but aren't the "male" parts interacting with the "female" parts? Wouldn't that still be hererosexual activity, even though both are on the same plant? Is there an example of two male plant parts interacting or two female plant parts interacting for some reason? I admit that I only have a highschool-level knowledge of biology, but I have never heard of anything like that happening.

Wonder Woman
February 27th, 2003, 06:12 PM
Tony (02),

Thank-you for your post. Nice to hear a small wise voice in the midst of damning cries.

How are you, BTW?

o2bwise
February 27th, 2003, 08:10 PM
Hi WW!,

Thanks!

I'm doing pretty good! How are you? Good, I hope.

It's really great to hear from ya...

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

firechyld
February 28th, 2003, 12:34 AM
Homosexuality and bisexuality occur in many animal species. If you'd like, I can throw sources at you until your head explodes. It's certainly not an unheard of phenomena... just not a very popular one amongst the homophobic.

wickwoman
February 28th, 2003, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by calvinistkid


Yes, but aren't the "male" parts interacting with the "female" parts? Wouldn't that still be hererosexual activity, even though both are on the same plant? Is there an example of two male plant parts interacting or two female plant parts interacting for some reason? I admit that I only have a highschool-level knowledge of biology, but I have never heard of anything like that happening.

If two male plants interacted with each other there would be no new plants produced. Since plants interact purely from a level of propagation of the species, the element of desire is not an issue. Plants do not have sex for pleasure, however, human beings do.

wickwoman
February 28th, 2003, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by firechyld
Homosexuality and bisexuality occur in many animal species. If you'd like, I can throw sources at you until your head explodes. It's certainly not an unheard of phenomena... just not a very popular one amongst the homophobic.

Please do. I would love to learn more about it.

Re human beings: I am familiar with studies of children born with the sexual organs of one sex on the outside and the organs of the other on the inside. I believe the term is intersexed. Do you know about this also?

Eireann
February 28th, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by firechyld
Homosexuality and bisexuality occur in many animal species. If you'd like, I can throw sources at you until your head explodes. It's certainly not an unheard of phenomena... just not a very popular one amongst the homophobic.
I saw this piece once on Discovery Channel about a species of frog in, I believe, South America. All members of the species are male, but during mating season, some of them will spontaneously change sexes in order to produce young. However, they still combine sexually during the off-season. They just don't produce offspring at that time.

Elena Marie
February 28th, 2003, 12:02 PM
I enter here only because seeing animal behavior used to support human behavior drives me nuts.


Disturbing Behaviors of the Orangutan

Anne Nacey Maggioncalda and Robert M. Sapolsky
Scientific American, June 2002 Pp. 60-5.

". . ..[T]he study of primates has demonstrated time and again that the behavior of these animals is far from Disney-esque. Just consider the strategic infanticide of lanur monkeys or the organized aggression--some call it genocide--between groups of chimpanzee males.

". . .. More important, the orangutan's physiology, life history and social structure are completely unlike those of any other primate. Orangutans have evolved a unique set of adaptations [in the case of this article, rape] to survive in their environment and hence it would be the height of absurdity to draw simpleminded parallels between their behavior and those of humans.

Eireann
February 28th, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Elena Marie
I enter here only because seeing animal behavior used to support human behavior drives me nuts.


Nevertheless, it's a very relevent argument. Many a time have opponents of homosexuality offered that homosexuality is unnatural and occurs only as a perversion in humans and nowhere else in nature. Observations of animal behavior prove that argument bunk, so the opponents of homosexuality are unable to use the "it's unnatural" argument. It may not lead to propogation, but that has no bearing on whether or not the act is natural, or the inclination.

Flipper
February 28th, 2003, 08:26 PM
Elena Marie quoted:


Just consider the strategic infanticide of lanur monkeys or the organized aggression--some call it genocide--between groups of chimpanzee males.


33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain


- Deuteronomy 2

It's certainly a bit more flowery in its prose, as befits the literary primate.

Sozo
February 28th, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Eireann
Many a time have opponents of homosexuality offered that homosexuality is unnatural and occurs only as a perversion in humans and nowhere else in nature. Observations of animal behavior prove that argument bunk, so the opponents of homosexuality are unable to use the "it's unnatural" argument. It may not lead to propogation, but that has no bearing on whether or not the act is natural, or the inclination.

I repent!!

Although I have argued otherwise, I am inclined to agree that homosexuality is natural...

... and so is murder, lying, stealing, adultery, envy, coveting, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these.

"Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."

That is why it is essential that we are born-again...

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast."

To protect us from our "natures" we must enforce strict laws to keep us from natural, but inappropriate behavior. This is why God desires all men to be saved and receive a new nature...

"...in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. "

In Romans Chapter 1, Paul clearly spells out the fact that the natural function of man is with woman, and likewise the natural function for woman is to be with man. But, God has given all over to depraved minds, and to death, so that all men apart from God are on the same level. Likewise, all who are in Christ are also the same.

o2bwise
March 1st, 2003, 06:31 AM
Hi wickwoman,

I am curious why my post did not elicit a response from you.


Hi firechyld,


just not a very popular one amongst the homophobic.

Just my "sense," but this statement causes me to think your understanding of the subject was formed very much by voices that are political. The idea that homophobia is some all-inclusive reason why all persons who have a contrasting take on homosexuality have that "take," is highly naive and thoughtless.

I do not believe I am afraid of homosexuals or of homosexuality.

o2

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Elena Marie
I enter here only because seeing animal behavior used to support human behavior drives me nuts.



I believe a Christian was the first to bring this up. That being said, humans are animals. And I remember my psychology text being filled with animal studies that were related to human activity.

Sozo
March 1st, 2003, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Hank


That being said, humans are animals. And I remember my psychology text being filled with animal studies that were related to human activity.

And there you have it... :nono: more proof that the psychological profession is the perpetrator of anti-Christ rhetoric, whose primary purpose is to brainwash the weak-minded, and keep us looking to ourselves for truth.

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Sozo


And there you have it... :nono: more proof that the psychological profession is the perpetrator of anti-Christ rhetoric, whose primary purpose is to brainwash the weak-minded, and keep us looking to ourselves for truth.

Now that was profond.

I’ll bet you don’t believe the earth rotates around the sun either. LOL

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Why shouldn't the evil love the evil?

I find it hard to believe someone with such a beautiful avatar can be so cold-hearted towards a group of people. Were you abused as a child? Were your parents not affectionate towards you? Do you have homosexual thoughts and feel you must yell louder than anyone to make sure no one has any inkling of those thoughts?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic Poly, I’m just immensely curious as to what makes you have so much hatred.

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by o2bwise
Hi wickwoman,

I am curious why my post did not elicit a response from you.

o2

I know it wasn't addresed to me but although I might not agree with everything you said, I thought it was well thought out, courteous and relevant.

wickwoman
March 1st, 2003, 12:04 PM
In response to your offer to give us more evidence of bisexual plants, etc., I posted this reply. You must have missed it before.


Originally posted by wickwoman


Please do. I would love to learn more about it.

Re human beings: I am familiar with studies of children born with the sexual organs of one sex on the outside and the organs of the other on the inside. I believe the term is intersexed. Do you know about this also?

wickwoman
March 1st, 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


And there you have it... more proof that the psychological profession is the perpetrator of anti-Christ rhetoric, whose primary purpose is to brainwash the weak-minded, and keep us looking to ourselves for truth.

Aha! A conspiracy theorist in our midst. That's what I love about TOL, you never know what kind of person you'll run into. Being an Aquarian, I enjoy meeting all kinds of "interesting" people.

Sozo
March 1st, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Aha! A conspiracy theorist in our midst. That's what I love about TOL, you never know what kind of person you'll run into. Being an Aquarian, I enjoy meeting all kinds of "interesting" people.

Idiot! It has nothing to do with "conspiracies". It has to do with a underlying philosophical foundations.

Poly
March 1st, 2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Hank


I find it hard to believe someone with such a beautiful avatar can be so cold-hearted towards a group of people. Were you abused as a child? Were your parents not affectionate towards you? Do you have homosexual thoughts and feel you must yell louder than anyone to make sure no one has any inkling of those thoughts?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic Poly, I’m just immensely curious as to what makes you have so much hatred.
Why would I have to have had some terrible childhood experience in order to hate evil the way my God commands of me? Homosexuals sicken me as God expects that they should. If a homosexual truely repents and turns to God then you'll find nobody on this Earth that would be rejoicing more than me as has been the case.

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Why would I have to have had some terrible childhood experience in order to hate evil the way my God commands of me? Homosexuals sicken me as God expects that they should. If a homosexual truely repents and turns to God then you'll find nobody on this Earth that would be rejoicing more than me as has been the case.

I didn’t say you had a terrible childhood experience, I was asking if that was the reason. Usually someone who has so much hate towards others has had some bad experiences. If you say it’s just because you think God told you to then so be it. I’m sorry you have that opinion of God.

Eireann
March 1st, 2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


And there you have it... :nono: more proof that the psychological profession is the perpetrator of anti-Christ rhetoric, whose primary purpose is to brainwash the weak-minded, and keep us looking to ourselves for truth.
How do you get a conspiracy out of comparison and contrast between animal behavior and human behavior? Do you not believe that humans are part of the animal kingdom? Do you not believe that we can get insight into human behavior by observing our close cousins in nature?

Sozo
March 1st, 2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Eireann

How do you get a conspiracy out of comparison and contrast between animal behavior and human behavior? Do you not believe that humans are part of the animal kingdom? Do you not believe that we can get insight into human behavior by observing our close cousins in nature?

What?

Are you reading my last 3 posts? Why would you ask this?

Eireann
March 1st, 2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


What?

Are you reading my last 3 posts? Why would you ask this?
It was your next to last post. Your last post -- "Idiot! It has nothing to do with "conspiracies". It has to do with a underlying philosophical foundations." -- had to do with Wickwoman's accusation of conspiracies based on the post I quoted.

But as to why I asked this, why do you think the psychology profession is perpetrating anti-Christ rhetoric because they observe animals that exhibit similar behavior to humans in order to gain insight into how and why humans behave, especially infants? Why is that anti-Christian? Where in the Bible does it say to not observe animals to learn from them?

Sozo
March 1st, 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Eireann

It was your next to last post. Your last post -- "Idiot! It has nothing to do with "conspiracies". It has to do with a underlying philosophical foundations." -- had to do with Wickwoman's accusation of conspiracies based on the post I quoted.

But as to why I asked this, why do you think the psychology profession is perpetrating anti-Christ rhetoric because they observe animals that exhibit similar behavior to humans in order to gain insight into how and why humans behave, especially infants? Why is that anti-Christian? Where in the Bible does it say to not observe animals to learn from them?


We are not animals. God is not an animal. Man is created in the image of God, not monkeys.

I hope you had a chance to read the post that showed I have changed my view regarding the "natural" condition of homosexuals.

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Sozo



We are not animals. God is not an animal. Man is created in the image of God, not monkeys.


Well that may be true but we look so much like monkeys that sometimes conservative Christian scientist have trouble determining whether a fossil is human or ape. LOL

You throw around the word idiot a lot but I’m beginning to wonder if you realize we are in the 21st century and discovered that humans are animals a long time ago. We have superior reasoning skills (well some do) and many believe that we have a spirit that is in the image of God but physically we are animals. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

Eireann
March 1st, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Sozo
We are not animals. God is not an animal. Man is created in the image of God, not monkeys.
We are animals. We are arguably the highest form of animal, but we are still animals (as opposed to plants or minerals, or spirits if you consider that a viable "kingdom"). We share all the common characteristics and requirements for animalhood. Naturally, like all animals, we do possess some of the traits of the other groups, especially mineral, but we are animals first and foremost. Ultimately, the mineral kingdom is the predominate kingdom, as both animals and plants are built of mineral substances.

God is neither an animal nor a human. We presume that God is a spirit. When the Bible said that we are made in the image of God, it wasn't referring to a physical or biological image. The image of God does not remove us from being animals. We are part of the animal kingdom. There are only three -- animal, plant, and mineral. If you're not one, you're one of the other (or a combination thereof, as algae seem to be). And last time I checked, we're not minerals or plants. We're animals.


I hope you had a chance to read the post that showed I have changed my view regarding the "natural" condition of homosexuals.
Yes, I did. I'm glad you understood my viewpoint, and you are right that its being "natural" does not necessarily make a statement about the rightness or wrongness of the act, nor was I trying to make any such statement. I don't hold strongly one way or the other about homosexuality. I think homosexual men are great ... it means less competition for those of us who aren't! :p

Sozo
March 1st, 2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Hank


Well that may be true but we look so much like monkeys that sometimes conservative Christian scientist have trouble determining whether a fossil is human or ape. LOL

You throw around the word idiot a lot but I’m beginning to wonder if you realize we are in the 21st century and discovered that humans are animals a long time ago. We have superior reasoning skills (well some do) and many believe that we have a spirit that is in the image of God but physically we are animals. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

It's hard to use the word idiot with you, becuase it is slightly above your intellectual level to understand what the word means.

Sozo
March 1st, 2003, 05:36 PM
You guys are completely seduced by science fiction. We are not animals. Classifications are devised by man to do away with God's sufficiency. It is quite laughable that man actually thinks that he can replace God, through redefining His creation.

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


It's hard to use the word idiot with you, becuase it is slightly above your intellectual level to understand what the word means.

Coming from an intellectual giant like yourself that really hurt. LOL

Sozo
March 1st, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Hank


Coming from an intellectual giant like yourself that really hurt. LOL

As most pseudo intellectuals mistakenly believe, intelligence and knowledge are not the same.

You may have a great deal of knowledge, but so what :rolleyes: , anybody can read books. You have already proven yourself to be void of intelligence.

Freak
March 1st, 2003, 05:55 PM
I'm curious, Wickwoman, why did you stray from your Christian upbringing?

Eireann
March 1st, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Sozo
You guys are completely seduced by science fiction. We are not animals. Classifications are devised by man to do away with God's sufficiency. It is quite laughable that man actually thinks that he can replace God, through redefining His creation.
Well, the notion that man is an animal far predates the earliest science fiction.

Why don't you explain just why we aren't animals? Even if we're made in the image of God, how does that make us not animals? Also, don't forget to address the fact that we possess all the biophysical characteristics of animals.

The "image of God," whatever that ultimately means, may well serve to separate us from the other animal species, in the sense that it advances us to a higher form, but it does not remove us from being what we are -- animals. Do we not bleed? Do we not require ingested nourishment to survive, food and water? Do we not reproduce and propogate our species? Do we not possess a cellular structure like all other animals, consisting of a nucleus, protoplasm and a cell membrane?

And why do you believe that taxonomy and classification is an attempt to replace God, especially considering that many in the science fields believe in God? And again, where does the Bible say we are not animals?

Why are you so insulted that people consider humans to be animals? If anything, I would say it is the rest of the animals who should feel insulted. It isn't them that made a real mess of this home planet of ours. It's us, God's ultimate creation, that is the true embarassment to creation.

Hank
March 1st, 2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


As most pseudo intellectuals mistakenly believe, intelligence and knowledge are not the same.

You may have a great deal of knowledge, but so what :rolleyes: , anybody can read books. You have already proven yourself to be void of intelligence.

Ooh......pseudo intellectual. Now you are intimidating me with those big words. Yesterday I didn’t even know what one was and today I is one. LOL

My wife agreed with you. You are a real hoot and a lot of fun Sozo. At first I didn’t but now I’m beginning to like you because you make both of us laugh.

Flipper
March 2nd, 2003, 04:07 PM
Hank, Eireann and Wickwoman:

You have to learn that a towering intellectual giant like sozo has entirely dispensed with the need to provide any kind of evidence for his sweeping assertions because he's so clever. For if he speaks it then lo! It is so!

By throwing around terms like "idiot" and "pseudo-intellectual" he effortlessly establishes his dominance in the intellectual hierarchy. Sozo's world view doesn't need evidence. It just is. He's kind of a solipsist that way.

wickwoman
March 2nd, 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Freak
I'm curious, Wickwoman, why did you stray from your Christian upbringing?

Freak:

De ja vus. I believe you asked me this months ago. Anyway, for the #1 reason look at the posts of people like Sozo who call themselves Christian. #2 reason I know God, he/she's not like that. #3 I grew beyond it we all will eventually. It is for people who don't like to think for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus is my hero. I've always found him a very amazing person. If I could be just a little like him before I die, I will have evolved enough for this lifetime.

Sozo
March 2nd, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Flipper
He's kind of a solipsist that way.

No, God is the only reality. Unlike you, and your friends, I know Him. God doesn't have any opinions, and mine are to express what God has revealed to all men who are "smart" enough to deny their own understanding.

Lion
March 2nd, 2003, 05:17 PM
wickedwoman-you said
Are you making an argument for pedophilia? It seems you believe that nobody is harmed by pedophiles. Either that or you've gotten your sins mixed up.

I haven't seen a reasonable challenge to the idea that being gay harms no one.Really, well the wicked are blind, so I guess that would make sense. Let’s see, how many homos die every year from aids? Well, that isn’t really hurting anyone is it? How many children die from aids? Oh, well they don’t really count. How many wives get aids from their (supposedly) bi-sexual spouses? No problem, not according to you, anyway. Not to mention the highest rate of murder, drug addiction and violent crime among any group in America, is homo on homo crime. Male homo’s die at an average age of 43, if they don’t get aids. If they do, a few years drop off of that. But, no, it doesn’t hurt anyone, there’s no evidence to show that. Only all of society and themselves. But wickedwoman thinks that’s just fine.

Hank
March 2nd, 2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Flipper
Hank, Eireann and Wickwoman:

You have to learn that a towering intellectual giant like sozo has entirely dispensed with the need to provide any kind of evidence for his sweeping assertions because he's so clever. For if he speaks it then lo! It is so!

By throwing around terms like "idiot" and "pseudo-intellectual" he effortlessly establishes his dominance in the intellectual hierarchy. Sozo's world view doesn't need evidence. It just is. He's kind of a solipsist that way.

There you go Flipper throwing around those big words like Sozo. This used to be fun here at TOL. Now I have to keep a dictionary by my computer to keep up with you and Sozo. Maybe my wife is correct when she tells me I am from the shallow end of the gene pool. LOL

Hank
March 2nd, 2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


No, God is the only reality. Unlike you, and your friends, I know Him. God doesn't have any opinions, and mine are to express what God has revealed to all men who are "smart" enough to deny their own understanding.

Smart enough to deny my own understanding? So I should affirm my misunderstanding? Well how can you argue with that?

Man I simply pointed out that mankind was classified as an animal in our biological classification system. I hate to think what Zozo would be saying about me if I had said something a little less obvious.

Lion
March 2nd, 2003, 05:42 PM
Not only is she blind, but a liar as well
Don't get me wrong, Jesus is my hero. I've always found him a very amazing person. If I could be just a little like him before I die, I will have evolved enough for this lifetime.You mean to tell me you have as a hero the person you hate most in all the world? Or do you really think Jesus was heroic when He said these things?
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.Boy what an ego, and you like Him?
John 3:18-21 “He who believes in Jesus is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men and wickedwoman) loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”You mean this Guy? This is the Guy you think is a hero?
Luke 19:27 ‘But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”He sounds a little judgmental, don’t you think?
Lev 20:13 ‘If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.Oh, no, you can’t mean Him, not Him.
Mat 15 4-9“For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”No, way you can’t mean Him?
Mat 16:15-17 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.Wow, He’s the Christ? The Son of the living God? So, let me see now. He’s your hero, right? That must mean you believe Him when He says He is the son of the living God? Is that what you believe, oh wickedwoman?
Mark 14:62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”Better run wickedwoman, because your hero is coming, and He’s coming for you!

firechyld
March 2nd, 2003, 06:20 PM
Aak! Sorry, people waiting for a response from me... I missed your posts. I'll get to it later today.

Flipper
March 2nd, 2003, 06:32 PM
No, God is the only reality. Unlike you, and your friends, I know Him. God doesn't have any opinions, and mine are to express what God has revealed to all men who are "smart" enough to deny their own understanding.

I don't recall God ever expressing his opinions as fact on psychiatry and psychology, or a number of other topics that you've held forth on.

Sozo
March 2nd, 2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Flipper


I don't recall God ever expressing his opinions as fact on psychiatry and psychology, or a number of other topics that you've held forth on.

Right Flipper, the God who is creator of the universe and all that is in it, is unacquainted with the problems that plague the heart & mind such as fear, depression, hope, mental stability, & anxiety. So I guess the over 1000 verses that deal with those issues are just mindless chaff.

Freak
March 2nd, 2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Freak:

De ja vus. I believe you asked me this months ago. Anyway, for the #1 reason look at the posts of people like Sozo who call themselves Christian. #2 reason I know God, he/she's not like that. #3 I grew beyond it we all will eventually. It is for people who don't like to think for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus is my hero. I've always found him a very amazing person. If I could be just a little like him before I die, I will have evolved enough for this lifetime.

When did you start calling God he/she?

OMEGA
March 2nd, 2003, 09:37 PM
In this stressful era , it is hard to be a Christian.

So, you have to forgive the rest of us if we are a

little bit embittered at someone who takes the easy way out .

Go your way . It is not your time yet to be judged .

YOUR TURN WILL COME LATER !


(1 Pet 4:17 KJV) "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"

(1 Pet 4:18 KJV) "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"


:thumb:

Hank
March 3rd, 2003, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by OMEGA
In this stressful era , it is hard to be a Christian.

So, you have to forgive the rest of us if we are a

little bit embittered at someone who takes the easy way out .

Go your way . It is not your time yet to be judged .

YOUR TURN WILL COME LATER !


(1 Pet 4:17 KJV) "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"

(1 Pet 4:18 KJV) "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"


:thumb:

I don’t know where you are from Omega but in the Bible belt where I’m from it easier to be a Christian than not. I just find it hard to believe it’s hard to be a Christian anywhere in America.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Lion
wickedwoman-you saidReally, well the wicked are blind, so I guess that would make sense. Let’s see, how many homos die every year from aids?

The disease kill people every year - not the homosexuals. Our ultra conservative government doesn't think the lives of homosexuals are important enough to devote the kind of money needed to find a cure.

I still haven't found out why you think pedophilia doesn't hurt anyone.

You seem to have elevated yourself to quite a high place. You get to decide who dies, who goes to Hell. Interesting. It must be quite an awesome responsibility, being judge of humanity.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 06:52 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lev 20:13 ‘If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's funny, I never realized Jesus wrote the book of Leviticus. I was thinking it was Moses. Silly me.

You always have something intelligent to say. Do you get all of your words from the Bible? If you're not using your brain, you could donate it to science. It would make for very interesting studies.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Hank


I don’t know where you are from Omega but in the Bible belt where I’m from it easier to be a Christian than not. I just find it hard to believe it’s hard to be a Christian anywhere in America.

Dear Hank:

I agree wholeheartedly. I have experienced more stress in my life since I decided to begin figuring things out for myself. It's very easy to accept the religion we were spoon fed as children in Sunday school. It's another matter altogether to actually set out to discover if that religion holds water.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Freak


When did you start calling God he/she?

Dear Freak:

Is that all you've got?

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 07:02 AM
Dear Lion and Sozo:

Just fresh from church this Sunday evening and you've got so many wonderful and loving things to say. You know, if you keep talking so sweet to me I might start to like you!

Nothing like a scathing message from a red faced, fried chicken eating, preacher to fill us all with righteous indignation. What was the preacher's message yesterday: judge thy neighbor? Well it looks like your week is off to a great start. KEEP SPREADING THE LOVE!!

Ryokan
March 3rd, 2003, 07:48 AM
Lion, its worth pointing out that quoting scriptural rhetoric to people who don't take the bible literally or as the final word for morality is pointless. Also, don't you think it is possible that social factors, in part created by people like yourself, rather than homosexuality in generally, (which doesn't have those problems in more accepting cultutres, except AIDS), cause all those issues?
Probably not.

And OMEGA, it is defintely easier to be a christian in the US.

o2bwise
March 3rd, 2003, 09:29 AM
Hello Poly,

I was going to get to this sooner or later.

Oh let me guess. By saying weightier matters you must be refering to the idea that Jesus was embarrassed by what His Father the mean old tyrant, said in the law so He came to change it around bit while He was here.

Um yeah, that’s a pretty good guess!

I would hazard to guess that Mr. Enyart’s church has some biblical explanation for how Jesus treated the woman caught in adultery. Regardless, the following is my understanding of that event.

The Pharisees catch a woman caught in adultery. The law is CLEAR. She is to be stoned to death. The Pharisees seem ready to pick up stones and do just that, however, Jesus prompted something quite different. The woman was not stoned.

Or was she?

It is written that Jesus is the Chief cornerstone and he who falls on the rock is broken in pieces. He on whom the rock falls is crushed. That woman was stoned, her heart was broken in a zillion pieces, and she “died” and “rose again” to live life anew.

So, Poly, just WHAT law are you referring to?

Those laws are there, but is it possible that their rendering is person-dependent? Is it possible there is a plurality of ways to understand those laws? A plurality that is a function of the degree to which one grows in a knowledge of God?

Two thousand years ago, a bunch of clergymen plotted the crucifixion of the Son of God. At the very same time, they were obedient to all the details of the law as they performed the Passover service. And why not? Atonement is made by animal blood, says their holy book – over and over again. And no one is to drink of the blood. This alleged Messiah insisted one must drink His blood or one does not have life.

Heretic!

This is a case in point where an understanding of “law” was undergoing a bit of a shift. No more animal blood. It’s cool to drink Christ’s blood (in some sense – I believe it is a metaphor).

I suggest that the law of which you refer has some of the same attributes. Like the stoning law. Sure, you can see it through the lens of a Jew walking this earth 2300 years ago, but you can also see it through the lens that is the life of Christ as well as His observance of that law, such as when that woman was caught in adultery.

The day will come when to have a view of “the law” that you have will be tantamount to strictly following the Passover feast, in all its details. All the while Christ, in a sense, is crucified anew. This time by the misrepresentation of His character – which you most surely have done. And continue to do every time you misrepresent him with your deeply impersonal and succinct replies, not even bothering to address alleged brothers in Christ by their name.

There is a coldness of heart that feels like an arctic chill. Yeah, I meant weightier matters and you can BANK on that.

You wrote, in another post:

Homosexuals sicken me as God expects that they should.

I am not sure that homosexuals sicken God (while I am sure that their homosexual acts certainly do).

Regardless,

God first loved us. Christ asked forgiveness for the folks who nailed Him to the cross. He loves us in our sin. We may end up lost, but still He loves us.

Tony (o2)

Goose
March 3rd, 2003, 10:09 AM
My cousins are all homophobic and I love them for it. And so does God.

Poly
March 3rd, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by o2bwise
He loves us in our sin. We may end up lost, but still He loves us.

Tony (o2)
Will He love the lost when they are in hell?

Freak
March 3rd, 2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Dear Freak:

Is that all you've got?

Well, I guess we are trying to figure your bizarre ideas out. It's not normal to call God a she. I have traveled to nearly 30 countries of this world and have yet come by someone who calls God a "she"--quite strange.

calvinistkid
March 3rd, 2003, 11:15 AM
Just wondering... is there a single debate/discussion thread on this site that HASN'T turned into a name-calling free-for-all after the first few pages? Are there even two people on this site who are able to discuss a controversial topic without resorting to ad hominem arguments, and more importantly, able to ignore the ones that ARE used. I mean, honestly, does namecalling even deserve to be recognised and responded to, or should we ignore it during the course of the discussion and rebuke it later, like a discontent two year old tugging on his mother's pant leg while she is trying to talk to a friend?

Hank
March 3rd, 2003, 11:51 AM
By CK


Just wondering... is there a single debate/discussion thread on this site that HASN'T turned into a name-calling free-for-all after the first few pages? Are there even two people on this site who are able to discuss a controversial topic without resorting to ad hominem arguments, and more importantly, able to ignore the ones that ARE used. I mean, honestly, does namecalling even deserve to be recognised and responded to, or should we ignore it during the course of the discussion and rebuke it later, like a discontent two year old tugging on his mother's pant leg while she is trying to talk to a friend?

When I first started posting here it kind of hurt my feelings when someone called me a name. I thought they were being un-Christian and I thought I was just trying to debate the subject in a rational way. But over time, I realized it was a sure sign that someone had no logical reply and had conceded the point. Also it’s a good opening to insert a little humor. And I have a great sense of humor.

However that being said I do understand your point about every thread turning into a name-calling contest and agree with you on that.

o2bwise
March 3rd, 2003, 11:53 AM
Hello Poly,

If you grabbed a Greek Old Testament (Septuagint or LXX), you would realize that the Greek words aion and aionios need not mean of eternal time duration. Once that is realized, it follows that the mere presence of those words, in a text of scripture, does not lend any more weight with respect to referring to eternal time duration versus temporal time duration.

Of the eternal fires:

Isaiah 33:14-15
14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites: "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" 15 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, He who despises the gain of oppressions, Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes, Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed, And shuts his eyes from seeing evil:


It is the righteous who dwell in the eternal fires.

And just what are the eternal fires? What is the unquenchable fire, that cannot be put out?

Song of Solomon 8:6-8
6 The Shulamite to Her Beloved Set me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For love is as strong as death, Jealousy as cruel as the grave; Its flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame. 7 Many waters cannot quench love, Nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love All the wealth of his house, It would be utterly despised.


What a contrast! You ask if God will love the lost when in “hell” while the Bible states that the eternal fires ARE love!

As the parable of the two houses demonstrates, the same storm that causes one house to be destroyed, is endured by the other. This storm is an unveiled revelation of the love of God. For it is His goodness that reveals our character.

Isaiah 33:17-18b
17 Your eyes will see the King in His beauty; They will see the land that is very far off. 18 Your heart will meditate on terror:

Isaiah 28:17-20
17 Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place. 18 Your covenant with death will be annulled, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it. 19 As often as it goes out it will take you; For morning by morning it will pass over, And by day and by night; It will be a terror just to understand the report." 20 For the bed is too short to stretch out on, And the covering so narrow that one cannot wrap himself in it.


The report is an unveiled revelation of our sin-sick souls. The house built on the rock is as the spiritual man in James. All people who are of this house, in the last days, receive the storm progressively and are purified by it.

James 1:23-25
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Psalm 12:6
The words of the Lord are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times.


There is the unveiling – seven times. And there is the furnace. For one group, it enables chastening, cleansing and for another, it is their final destruction (Daniel 3 is a nice parallel to this, in the physical realm).

Matthew 13:40-43
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!


Note the parallels. Furnace. Fire. Note the righteous shine forth as the sun (boy, that is pretty fiery!). Jesus exhorts, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” While most sit on the surface of the word and thus, understand less God’s lovely character.

Whether the object lesson be storm, furnace, water, sword, birth pangs, cup, or whatever, the illustrations are similar. Two groups are exposed to the same thing.

One is destroyed and one is perfectly cleansed.

The lost are destroyed by a full revelation of love because they see too much of their sinfulness in too short a time frame. They “pull a Judas” and the pain comes from their own burning psyche, just as with Judas.

Why does God do this? Does He relish the sufferings of the lost? No!

He must vindicate His justice before the universe. When the righteous are prepared to survive the storm, He allows them to be subjected to it. They feel to be altogether sinful, but they survive because they are righteous. The lost are destroyed by the very same revelation. They feel no more sinful. But, lacking righteousness, their response is despair.

This twinfold revelation proves:
1. Salvation is innate to righteousness itself.
2. Condemnation is innate to sinfulness.
3. The same load that crushes the lost can be endured by the righteous.

God cannot bear false witness. The universe sees how good righteousness is and how bad sin is and the revelation is so intense that while free will is not denied them, no one will ever choose sin again. The universe is eternally safeguarded from sin.


Poly, in a book I read, the author wrote that people cannot rise above their conceptions of Deity. I now know partially why you are as obviously cold-hearted as you are. You have assigned attributes to God that are satanic – and you do not rise above your misunderstood conception of the Lord.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

calvinistkid
March 3rd, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Hank
By CK



When I first started posting here it kind of hurt my feelings when someone called me a name. I thought they were being un-Christian and I thought I was just trying to debate the subject in a rational way. But over time, I realized it was a sure sign that someone had no logical reply and had conceded the point. Also it’s a good opening to insert a little humor. And I have a great sense of humor.

However that being said I do understand your point about every thread turning into a name-calling contest and agree with you on that.

Yeah. It doesn't "hurt my feelings". I have done enough discussion/evangalism in my short life to get beyond that. It is annoying, however. Perhaps I was wrong, but I had just assumed that Christians were held to higher standards than the rest of the world.

evseeker
March 3rd, 2003, 01:07 PM
I am just new to this thread, but as I read through some of it I noticed a request to explain the story of the women caught in adultery and why Jesus did not uphold the Law.

I wondered about this myself until someone pointed out the opening verses of this that are usually omitted in discussions about it.

John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

I understand that under the rule of the Romans, the Jews were not permitted (under penalty of death?) to publicly advocate or carry out the death penalty for infractions of their Law.

It seems to me that Jesus acted very wisely in order to thwart the evildoers who were intent on trapping Him and thus prematurely ending His ministry. In addition, it serves to illustrate His divinity because only God has the power to forgive a sin that was not committed against us.

o2bwise
March 3rd, 2003, 02:39 PM
Hi evseeker,

As I tried to point out, if the law is looked at in a deeper way, Jesus actually did stone the woman caught in adultery.

God Bless,

Tony

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by o2bwise
Hi evseeker,

As I tried to point out, if the law is looked at in a deeper way, Jesus actually did stone the woman caught in adultery.

God Bless,

Tony

Did he also go and find the man she was caught in adultery with and "stone" him as well? We don't read that in the Bible do we? Since the scribes who recorded these events were probably conditioned to be chauvinistic, it seems they didn't find that important to mention in the Bible.

Poly
March 3rd, 2003, 04:57 PM
O2b,
Had I known this was going to turn into "What exactly is Hell?" I would have rephrased the question. So let me do so now.
Will God love those who are seperated from Him for all eternity due to their not accepting Him while on Earth?


Originally posted by o2bwise


I now know partially why you are as obviously cold-hearted as you are.


You've brought this up several times now making it seem as though I don't have a shred of compassion in my whole body. You need to stop. I have compassion where compassion is deserved. Just because homosexuals sicken me and I make no bones over how I feel toward them, as is expected of me by God, does not mean I am a completely cold-hearted person.

You have assigned attributes to God that are satanic – and you do not rise above your misunderstood conception of the Lord.
What attributes have I assigned to God that are Satanic?

DEVO
March 3rd, 2003, 05:06 PM
There all lots of different types of people.

I see two types of people emerging on this thread.

Those that claim they have compassion and demonstrate that compassion through generally apathy.

And then there are those claim they have compassion and demonstrate that compassion even if it means others may perceive them as having no compassion.

True compassion may (and most likely will) involve discomfort.

Assume your brother is a drug addict. The true compassionate would warn the brother of his destructive lifestyle and risk the brother's friendship in an effort to save his life.

Poly
March 3rd, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by DEVO
There all lots of different types of people.

I see two types of people emerging on this thread.

Those that claim they have compassion and demonstrate that compassion through generally apathy.

And then there are those claim they have compassion and demonstrate that compassion even if it means others may perceive them as having no compassion.

True compassion may (and most likely will) involve discomfort.

Assume your brother is a drug addict. The true compassionate would warn the brother of his destructive lifestyle and risk the brother's friendship in an effort to save his life. :thumb:

If a child in in the middle of the railroad tracks and a train is dangerously close am I going to say sweetly in a soft voice, "little girl, you need to get off the track" or am I going to scream my full head off at her to get off and even shove her off if need be which could result in some bumps and bruises?

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by DEVO
True compassion may (and most likely will) involve discomfort.

Assume your brother is a drug addict. The true compassionate would warn the brother of his destructive lifestyle and risk the brother's friendship in an effort to save his life.

I see no parallel between drug addiction and homosexuality. It is uncomfortable for Polycarpadvo to love a homosexual, therefore, he finds them disgusting. That doesn't make him compassionate.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

What attributes have I assigned to God that are Satanic?

Hate.

Eireann
March 3rd, 2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo
If a child in in the middle of the railroad tracks and a train is dangerously close am I going to say sweetly in a soft voice, "little girl, you need to get off the track" or am I going to scream my full head off at her to get off and even shove her off if need be which could result in some bumps and bruises?
Not a valid comparison. A child standing on the tracks, presumably unaware of approaching danger, is not an informed lifestyle decision. The feelings of homosexuals may or may not be inborn, but to live the lifestyle is a conscious decision. I'd wager that the vast majority of them are well aware of the physical dangers associated with the lifestyle and are more than well aware of the social stigma attached. Screaming your head off at them to get "off the tracks" is less than useless. And shoving them "off the tracks" isn't your right. So you can keep up the fantasy that you're showing some misbegotten heroism, or you can be a true compassionate, let them know that you're there for them if they need you, but recognize that the decision is theirs to make, not yours.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Well, I guess we are trying to figure your bizarre ideas out. It's not normal to call God a she. I have traveled to nearly 30 countries of this world and have yet come by someone who calls God a "she"--quite strange.

If you know about pagans then you know that pagans believe in gods and goddesses that represent the different aspects of the one true God who is the "all."

This would be a good place to Eireann to step in if he's still watching this thread.

Unity is a Christian religion that addresses God as he/she or mother/father in some churches, out of respect for people who do not believe God has sexual organs. Do you?

Eireann
March 3rd, 2003, 05:44 PM
yeah, I've meet quite a few people who call God a "she." Not just pagans, either. I've known Christians of various denominations to do so. Some were feminists, some were just trying to seem less chauvenistic, some even just said that when they thought of God, they felt more like the attributes of God they most connected with were maternal rather than paternal. I usually refer to God as S/he, incorporating both genders. Of course, we have no real idea if God even has a gender, so to speak. The Hebrew personification understandably reflects the patrifocal structure of that society, but doesn't really speak to whether God is male, female, both, or neither. Remember, even though the Bible says God created man in "their" image, at the same time, we create God in ours. In other words, in an attempt to understand or relate to God, we give him/her human attributes that may or may not be an accurate reflection of who or what S/he actually is. It might be more accurate to refer to God as It, but I doubt many would be comfortable doing so, as it just seems a bit disrespectful and subhumanizing. I don't see how calling God by a feminine pronoun is disrespectful, though. It's a choice.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by o2bwise
My view is definitely in contrast to everyone else's here.wickwoman,

Here is my view and it is the view of one within recovery for homosexuality. No one chooses to be homosexual. I agree.

But, it is at least hypothetically possible that humans were created in such a way that were they to be 100% "whole" in a psychological sense, their only mode of sexual expression could be heterosexual within a life-long committed monogamous relationship.

Conversely, if one is homosexual, that is symptomatic of an inner brokenness of heart. And were that brokenness healed, the person would be homosexual no more.

I state this as a hypothetical. Assuming it is true, far be it from me to insist that "unwellness" is "wellness."

Now, you claim that your niece may be gay because of genetic factors, i.e. she was born that way. Well, so what? Biblically speaking, even our very flesh has a moral component. Sin is of the mind, but our flesh is a source of pulls to submit to sin.

The Christian life is, in part, a call to have the lusts and passions of the flesh be crucified. One is not appealing to biblical Christianity when one advocates a certain behavior on the premise that one has a propensity for that behavior due to one's very own genetics.

I am not here to insist your niece is "lost." I know of homosexuals who were "born again" and remained in homosexual monogamous relationships - for a season. We are all sinners. Particular sins are revealed, not in a moment, but in progressive fashion.

But, it is my own sense that it does not take long in the Christian walk of sanctification before one happens upon the discernment that homosexuality indeed is sin.

I would guess that IF your niece is a spiritual person and given her contentment in homosexuality, she is at a baby stage in her walk.


Back to the "Christians." I do not think most have any idea how truly difficult this particular sin is. And I think this is precisely WHY it is biblically referred to as an abomination. The sin itself has such binding cords. Recovery is a process. It may take years.

As an example, I know one homosexual for whom the very thought of being intimate with a woman is totally repulsive to him.

How would any of you like to be like that? How would you like to be such a way that you sexually burn for your own sex and are repulsed by the opposite sex?

Heed the admonishment of Hebrews 13 (I believe verse 3). Walk in his moccasins. Not in his sin, but understand the prison bars that hold him. Trace cause and effect.

If you did, there would be far more compassion and love - and NO judgment. That would be left to God.

Tony (o2)

I saw your post but did not reply. The reason - I disagree. But I would never presume to try to convince you that your decision to "recover" is wrong. I cannot walk in your shoes. I'm not gay and I have never "burned" for another woman. I can tell you, however, that my neice is a normal, healthy young woman and the only obstacles she must overcome in her life are those created by the very ones who claim be "showing her the way."

A family member said tearfully about my neice - I'm just so afraid she'll be ostracized and ridiculed. My response? Well don't then!

It is illogical and I will never be convinced that God would purposely cause a person to be born with a "sin" or even to acquire that "sin" by some event beyond their control and then damn them to Hell for not overcoming it. You have said you do not condemn my neice, however, the very idea that she must "overcome" what is her natural state of existence is to imply that there is some negative associated with that lifestyle. The only negative is the stigma created by "Christians" and other homophobes who think that God looks down on gay people and points his bony finger in disgust. Meanwhile, they believe that same God will have mercy and grace for their continual judgmental, hateful, and prejudicial words.

In my opinion, if there was a Hell - and there isn't, the first tenants would be the hatemongers. Like the ones you see posting here. Thank God we all get the same measure of grace, karma, or call it what you will. Some of us have many lives to go before we reach our natural glorious state of existence. That is clearly reflected here.

Freak
March 3rd, 2003, 06:09 PM
Wickwoman don't be so hateful. There is no reason to say this:

In my opinion, if there was a Hell - and there isn't, the first tenants would be the hatemongers. Like the ones you see posting here

Poly
March 3rd, 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Hate.

Psalm 5:5 "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity."
Psalm 5:6 " The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty man."
Psalm 11:5 "The Lord trieth the righteous, but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hates."
Psalm 45:7 "Thou loveth righteousness and hateth wickedness."
Romans 12:9 "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil."
Your god may not hate but the God of the bible hates. (I know, you don't believe in the bible.)

Freak
March 3rd, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


If you know about pagans then you know that pagans believe in gods and goddesses that represent the different aspects of the one true God who is the "all."

This would be a good place to Eireann to step in if he's still watching this thread.

Unity is a Christian religion that addresses God as he/she or mother/father in some churches, out of respect for people who do not believe God has sexual organs. Do you?

Your strange.

Yes, Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, had sexual organs, and your point? But God the Father & Holy Spirit don't (for they are spirit).

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo


Psalm 5:5 "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity."
Psalm 5:6 " The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty man."
Psalm 11:5 "The Lord trieth the righteous, but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hates."
Psalm 45:7 "Thou loveth righteousness and hateth wickedness."
Romans 12:9 "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil."
Your god may not hate but the God of the bible hates. (I know, you don't believe in the bible.)

Thank you for telling me what David and Paul said about God. However, I disagree. Obviously, it is easier for you to agree so that God can be more like you.

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Freak


Your strange.

Yes, Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, had sexual organs, and your point? But God the Father & Holy Spirit don't (for they are spirit).

thank you, but I believe the discussion was about God "the father."

Strange, I will agree, "wicked" as an earlier sweety called me, is relative.:kiss: :kiss:

HerodionRomulus
March 3rd, 2003, 06:33 PM
"....Let’s see, how many homos die every year from aids?...."
According to CDC AIDS in US (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm)
<<<As of December 31, 2000, 774,467 persons had been reported with AIDS in the United States; 448,060 of these had died;....Of these, 79% were men, 61% were black or Hispanic, and 41% were infected through male-to-male sex.
NOTE: 41% of 448,060.

3 million die annually, most in sub-Saharan Africa, most acquired the virus from heterosexual behavior.Global AIDS (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a3.htm)

The fact is, the #1 mode of transmission is penis/vagina intercourse, the 2nd is mother to infant thru maternal milk.

"Not to mention the highest rate of murder, drug addiction and violent crime among any group in America, is homo on homo crime."
What are your credible citations for these statistics? Post them or recant them.

"...Male homo’s die at an average age of 43, if they don’t get aids...."
Wrong, the average lifespan of gay men in the US is so short because HIV/AIDS has been factored in.
At least you know enough to specify "men" since the safest sex is lesbian sex. There has never been ONE verifiable case of HIV/AIDS transmission from lesbian sex.

HerodionRomulus
March 3rd, 2003, 06:37 PM
What do credible experts say:

Neurobiology of Sexual Behaviour (http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year2/Sexbehav.htm)

Implications for biological basis for sexual orientation (http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/sexdiff.htm)

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 06:58 PM
Dear HerodionRomulus:

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967


MLKing Jr. has always been a hero of mine. Funny, I was thinking about posting something very similar to this in reply to Lion's post about homosexuals dying of aids. If we spent the many billions of dollars we're spending on the impending war with Iraq or chasing down Osama Bin Laden, we could have found a cure by now. The sad part is, many many more have died of aids than died in the WT Center bombing on 9/11/01.

Freak
March 3rd, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


thank you, but I believe the discussion was about God "the father."

Strange, I will agree, "wicked" as an earlier sweety called me, is relative.:kiss: :kiss:

But we love you!

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Freak


But we love you!

I know. Thanks. I will enjoy every minute of your love while I live in your imaginary Hell that your "loving" God is going to send me to.

Eireann
March 3rd, 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
If we spent the many billions of dollars we're spending on the impending war with Iraq or chasing down Osama Bin Laden, we could have found a cure by now. The sad part is, many many more have died of aids than died in the WT Center bombing on 9/11/01.
This is off-topic, but this post reminded me of a bumper sticker I once saw:

"It'll be a great day when we spend as much on Education as on Defense ... and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber!"

wickwoman
March 3rd, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Eireann

This is off-topic, but this post reminded me of a bumper sticker I once saw:

"It'll be a great day when we spend as much on Education as on Defense ... and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber!"

Great indeed. I'd even bake cookies for them!

Freak
March 3rd, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


I know. Thanks. I will enjoy every minute of your love while I live in your imaginary Hell that your "loving" God is going to send me to.

But my friend you don't have to go to hell.....God does love you but you need to repent....hey come join us in chat tonight...

la rubia
March 3rd, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by o2bwise
Hello Poly,

I was going to get to this sooner or later.


Um yeah, that’s a pretty good guess!

I would hazard to guess that Mr. Enyart’s church has some biblical explanation for how Jesus treated the woman caught in adultery. Regardless, the following is my understanding of that event.

The Pharisees catch a woman caught in adultery. The law is CLEAR. She is to be stoned to death. The Pharisees seem ready to pick up stones and do just that, however, Jesus prompted something quite different. The woman was not stoned.

Or was she?

spot ON!!! Oh, my sakes alive!!!!!! I have had such trouble seeing the meaning of this passage, but o2 you have just shown me something I have never before realized!!!! Dude, I am totally buzzed right now from this. It is amazing. I am totally amazed when I am shown things like this. The stoning would be a perfect type or shadow of the way that JESUS really did stone her. WOW. It is so awesome how the new testament reflects the old, and that it really does not "change"... it just gets spiritual, in a lot of ways. Man, O2bwise, thank you sooo much for posting that. I am totally getting it. That has to be the highest point of my day. This has totally got me buzzed. Thank you!!!!

It is written that Jesus is the Chief cornerstone and he who falls on the rock is broken in pieces. He on whom the rock falls is crushed. That woman was stoned, her heart was broken in a zillion pieces, and she “died” and “rose again” to live life anew.

So, Poly, just WHAT law are you referring to?

Those laws are there, but is it possible that their rendering is person-dependent? Is it possible there is a plurality of ways to understand those laws? A plurality that is a function of the degree to which one grows in a knowledge of God?

Two thousand years ago, a bunch of clergymen plotted the crucifixion of the Son of God. At the very same time, they were obedient to all the details of the law as they performed the Passover service. And why not? Atonement is made by animal blood, says their holy book – over and over again. And no one is to drink of the blood. This alleged Messiah insisted one must drink His blood or one does not have life.

Heretic!

This is a case in point where an understanding of “law” was undergoing a bit of a shift. No more animal blood. It’s cool to drink Christ’s blood (in some sense – I believe it is a metaphor).

I suggest that the law of which you refer has some of the same attributes. Like the stoning law. Sure, you can see it through the lens of a Jew walking this earth 2300 years ago, but you can also see it through the lens that is the life of Christ as well as His observance of that law, such as when that woman was caught in adultery.

The day will come when to have a view of “the law” that you have will be tantamount to strictly following the Passover feast, in all its details. All the while Christ, in a sense, is crucified anew. This time by the misrepresentation of His character – which you most surely have done. And continue to do every time you misrepresent him with your deeply impersonal and succinct replies, not even bothering to address alleged brothers in Christ by their name.

There is a coldness of heart that feels like an arctic chill. Yeah, I meant weightier matters and you can BANK on that.

You wrote, in another post:


I am not sure that homosexuals sicken God (while I am sure that their homosexual acts certainly do).

Regardless,

God first loved us. Christ asked forgiveness for the folks who nailed Him to the cross. He loves us in our sin. We may end up lost, but still He loves us.

Tony (o2)

la rubia
March 3rd, 2003, 08:42 PM
Hey, wait a minute- I wrote stuff after quoting O2bwise!!!
Oh, well, anyway, SPOT ON!!!! Thank you sooo much for posting that about Jesus actually DID stone her! I have had so much trouble with that passage, as I see both sides of the arguments, and never really could reconcile. But now, looking at it a little deeper, I am totally getting it, man. The stoning is a perfect type or shadow of JESUS bein' the rock. Oh, my sakes alive- He really DID stone her!!!!!!! WOW. I am totally buzzed right now from this- I just love it when I learn things like this. I love seeing how the things of the old testament and in what ways they are shadows and types of what was to come. That is totally awesome. You guys don't know how stoked I am right now. Thank you, O2bwise!!!!!!

Flipper
March 4th, 2003, 02:37 AM
Calvinistkid:


Perhaps I was wrong, but I had just assumed that Christians were held to higher standards than the rest of the world.



Not in my observation. Remember, Elijah made fun of the pagan priests, so anything any Christian says on here is okay.

OMEGA
March 4th, 2003, 02:56 AM
I wasn't talking about Petty Coat Junction People Playing

at Christianity and Neighbourliness.

I was talking about REAL Christians

like Paul and how the World Hates you and gangs up on you

and how you suffer like Job did and you starve all alone

in the Wilderness of life while your mind is turned inside out.

I don't think that you know what a Real Christian is .


(John 15:18 KJV) "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."

(John 15:19 KJV) "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

:nono:

Hank
March 4th, 2003, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by OMEGA

(John 15:18 KJV) "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."

(John 15:19 KJV) "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

:nono:

I've always thought those verses were a good indication that Christians in America today are not following the teachings of Jesus. If they were following his teachings, they would be in a small minority. Heck they run the country. If there is any hatred going on it’s mostly the Christians hating the non-Christians, as is clear from this thread and the animosity towards wickwoman. All she has done is talk about a loving God. And for that, she is called evil. She is the one that is following the teachings of Jesus. And those verses you quoted, if anything, are descriptive of her.

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by OMEGA
I don't think that you know what a Real Christian is .


If I were depending on this thread to show me one I'd have little evidence. Not necessarily a reflection on you.

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Hank
If there is any hatred going on it’s mostly the Christians hating the non-Christians, as is clear from this thread and the animosity towards wickwoman. All she has done is talk about a loving God. And for that, she is called evil. She is the one that is following the teachings of Jesus. And those verses you quoted, if anything, are descriptive of her.

Thank you, Hank. It's amazing how angry some "Christians" get when you start talking about how God loves everyone.

beanieboy
March 4th, 2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by DEVO
There all lots of different types of people.

I see two types of people emerging on this thread.

Those that claim they have compassion and demonstrate that compassion through generally apathy.

And then there are those claim they have compassion and demonstrate that compassion even if it means others may perceive them as having no compassion.

True compassion may (and most likely will) involve discomfort.

Assume your brother is a drug addict. The true compassionate would warn the brother of his destructive lifestyle and risk the brother's friendship in an effort to save his life.

Telling someone that you hate them is compassion?
<coughbigbrothercough>

beanieboy
March 4th, 2003, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Thank you, Hank. It's amazing how angry some "Christians" get when you start talking about how God loves everyone.

I believe it's because they don't love everyone, and they don't want God to either. I think there is more emphasis on the ability to say, "I'm going to heaven, and you're not! Nyah."

beanieboy
March 4th, 2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Hank


I've always thought those verses were a good indication that Christians in America today are not following the teachings of Jesus. If they were following his teachings, they would be in a small minority. Heck they run the country. If there is any hatred going on it’s mostly the Christians hating the non-Christians, as is clear from this thread and the animosity towards wickwoman. All she has done is talk about a loving God. And for that, she is called evil. She is the one that is following the teachings of Jesus. And those verses you quoted, if anything, are descriptive of her.

Unfortunately, there are those who believe the more they are hated, the more they are Godlike. But people hate Hitler. People hate Pol Pot. People hate a lot of very bad people.

And the more I am here, the more I am convinced that this board chases people away from God more than anything else. And what better place for Satan to work than on a christian board, mascarading as christian and sucker punching people in the face.

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 08:58 AM
I do not believe there's anyone who's saying we don't love Wick and her friends. Quite the contrary. We do love her that is why we are pointing her to the truth.

beanieboy
March 4th, 2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Flipper
Calvinistkid:




Not in my observation. Remember, Elijah made fun of the pagan priests, so anything any Christian says on here is okay.

And then killed them.
Feel the love.
Convert or die.

Poly
March 4th, 2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy



Feel the love.
Convert or die.
Hey this would make for a great TOL T-shirt!:D

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Freak


Well, I guess we are trying to figure your bizarre ideas out. It's not normal to call God a she. I have traveled to nearly 30 countries of this world and have yet come by someone who calls God a "she"--quite strange.


"The Primordial Vastness is the sky. The Primordial Vastness is the sphere of space. The Primordial Vastness is the mother, the father, the son. The Primordial Vastness is all the Gods, the five sorts of men, all that was born and shall be born."

-Rig Veda
Excerpted from

Have you ever visited India?

Poly
March 4th, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman



"The Primordial Vastness is the sky. The Primordial Vastness is the sphere of space. The Primordial Vastness is the mother, the father, the son. The Primordial Vastness is all the Gods, the five sorts of men, all that was born and shall be born."

-Rig Veda
Excerpted from

Have you ever visited India?
Well, this clears everything up. Of course God is a she.:rolleyes:

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman



"The Primordial Vastness is the sky. The Primordial Vastness is the sphere of space. The Primordial Vastness is the mother, the father, the son. The Primordial Vastness is all the Gods, the five sorts of men, all that was born and shall be born."

-Rig Veda
Excerpted from

Have you ever visited India?

I have traveled throughout Southeast Asia. In fact, my wife and I traveled for a couple weeks throughout Thailand last March. I am quite familiar with Hinduism and Buddhism. In October spent a couple weeks in Port-au-Spain, Trinidad (where there is a sizeable Hindu community) visiting and ministering to Hindus. I have spent some time in Hindu temples (and seen the hideous rituals) and have read portions of the Veda Scriptures.

I know something about Hinduism, probably alot more then yourself, and have concluded Hinduism to be a very dangerous religion. I have dealt with a numerous Hindu spirits. They are bloodthirsty and seeking to destroy ones soul.

beanieboy
March 4th, 2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Hey this would make for a great TOL T-shirt!:D

I thought you were partial to...
bloooooood. I need blooooooood. :p

beanieboy
March 4th, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Well, this clears everything up. Of course God is a she.:rolleyes:

ugh. Are we now arguing whether God has sex organs?

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 11:54 AM
Wickwoman--

Since you think Hinduism is so hip why don't you come with my wife and I to India later this year and see for yourself how hip it truly it is.

:D

Poly
March 4th, 2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy


I thought you were partial to...
bloooooood. I need blooooooood. :p
I think you're starting to figure me out.:D

Hank
March 4th, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Freak
I do not believe there's anyone who's saying we don't love Wick and her friends. Quite the contrary. We do love her that is why we are pointing her to the truth.

Poly made this quote about Wickwoman.

"Why shouldn't the evil love the evil?"

I don't think most people would think she was talking about loving Wick.

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

Well, this clears everything up. Of course God is a she.:rolleyes:

You misunderstand the purpose of the post. The idea is that God is all, neither man nor woman, a spirit, not possessing genetalia, possessing both femine and masculine qualities. I.e. neither.

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Freak


I have traveled throughout Southeast Asia. In fact, my wife and I traveled for a couple weeks throughout Thailand last March. I am quite familiar with Hinduism and Buddhism. In October spent a couple weeks in Port-au-Spain, Trinidad (where there is a sizeable Hindu community) visiting and ministering to Hindus. I have spent some time in Hindu temples (and seen the hideous rituals) and have read portions of the Veda Scriptures.

I know something about Hinduism, probably alot more then yourself, and have concluded Hinduism to be a very dangerous religion. I have dealt with a numerous Hindu spirits. They are bloodthirsty and seeking to destroy ones soul.

Oh, that's right. I remember your post about the supposedly demon possessed woman who breastfed a monkey in tribute to the Goddess Kali. Thank you for that most educated and "highly insightful" article.

Yes, you've got the Hindus all figured out, my bad.

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Wickwoman--

Since you think Hinduism is so hip why don't you come with my wife and I to India later this year and see for yourself how hip it truly it is.

:D

Thanks, but I'm a little busy. Osama Bin Laden is taking me on a tour of Israel. :doh:

beanieboy
March 4th, 2003, 01:06 PM
Yeah, and I'm busy, uh, rearranging my sock drawer...

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Thanks, but I'm a little busy. Osama Bin Laden is taking me on a tour of Israel. :doh:

I knew you'd be gutless when given the opportunity to point to all the great things Hinduism has done to a poverty-stricken country like India.

Hinduism is a worthless religion that honors demon gods.

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Freak


I knew you'd be gutless when given the opportunity to point to all the great things Hinduism has done to a poverty-stricken country like India.

Hinduism is a worthless religion that honors demon gods.

O.K., now that was a metaphor. Try to keep up.

I have read the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and portions of the Rig Veda. I find Indian Guru's to be among the most enlighted of our species. I am not a student of India as a country, just of Hinduism as a religion.

You, on the other hand, have not earned the right to criticize either because you've proven your complete ignorance of any religion other than your own. Wait, I take that back, I'm not sure you even know your own religion.

Poly
March 4th, 2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


O.K., now that was a metaphor. Try to keep up.

I have read the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and portions of the Rig Veda. I find Indian Guru's to be among the most enlighted of our species. I am not a student of India as a country, just of Hinduism as a religion.

You, on the other hand, have not earned the right to criticize either because you've proven your complete ignorance of any religion other than your own. Wait, I take that back, I'm not sure you even know your own religion.
If knowing about other religions is what gives you the right to criticize then why are you doing it? You apparently do not understand Christianity.

wickwoman
March 4th, 2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Polycarpadvo

If knowing about other religions is what gives you the right to criticize then why are you doing it? You apparently do not understand Christianity.

I read the Bible cover to cover more than once and I was a member of a Christian church for over 21 years.


O.K. As usual, we digress. Back to the subject at hand. Freak, if you want to discuss your hatred of Hindus further, start your own thread. I know, you don't hate Hindus, "you love them."

The quote from the Rig Veda was in reply to your mention of your vast world travels and worldly wise ideas that no one in history has ever referred to God as a She. Many have, many will. End of discussion.

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


O.K., now that was a metaphor. Try to keep up.

I have read the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and portions of the Rig Veda. I find Indian Guru's to be among the most enlighted of our species. I am not a student of India as a country, just of Hinduism as a religion.

You, on the other hand, have not earned the right to criticize either because you've proven your complete ignorance of any religion other than your own. Wait, I take that back, I'm not sure you even know your own religion.

Blah Blah blah....

You said: I find Indian Guru's to be among the most enlighted of our species.

Then why is it in their Indian cities they have ghats that lead up to lingams? Is this enlightening? Does this make the gurus enlightened? Tell me why the Ganges, is considered holy (even god like) by these enlightened gurus, yet this deity can't keep the waters pure---the cholera statistics prove their deity is incapable of helping the people that worship in the Ganges.

HerodionRomulus
March 4th, 2003, 05:23 PM
Regarding God and gender:

I recall the words of a hymn, I forget the title but the second verse says:

"Our God is not a woman, our God is not a man, our God is both and neither, our God is I Who Am."

Yet, there is plenty of feminine imagery of God in the Bible: at the end of Matt ch 23 Jesus compares himself to a mother hen gathering her chicks
In Matt. 11:19, in reference to the Holy Spirit Jesus says "Yet Wisdom is vindicated by her children."
It was standard practice to refer to the HS in the OT as Wisdom, a feminine name i.e. Sophia.
"Does not Wisdom call, and does not understanding raise her voice?" Prov. 8:1.

HerodionRomulus
March 4th, 2003, 05:25 PM
One of the oldest civilizations in the world was that of the Indus Valley.
But you cannot compare that to modern India which has been traumatized, abused, pillaged and raped by many including self-righteous British "Christians."

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus
One of the oldest civilizations in the world was that of the Indus Valley.
But you cannot compare that to modern India which has been traumatized, abused, pillaged and raped by many including self-righteous British "Christians."


...modern India which has been traumatized, abused, pillaged and raped by many crazed demonized Hindus content in allowing millions to suffer because of karmic law.

Eireann
March 4th, 2003, 06:20 PM
I guess we have a different view of karmic law. What is karmic law, as you see it, Jay?

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 09:59 PM
Hinduism is hideous, Eireann.

Shiva assumes such sickening disguises such as: Bhairava, Ardhanarisvara, Nataraja, Nandi, these four alone represent a god of terror, a lord with 4 arms, and a white bull (Nandi) that Shiva rides as he encourages starvation & self-mutilation.

Karmic law is a law of retributive justice which basically calls for an onward movement adding good and evil to its credit in a merciless manner. Some seek moksha (liberation) but resign to the fact that they might have to be reborn millions of times to find liberation from this vicious cycle.

This is sad.

Eireann
March 4th, 2003, 10:12 PM
I don't know a whole lot about Hinduism, as I've never studied it in depth. But having a God of evil or terror does not in itself make the religion hideous. After all, you've got one of those, too (Satan). The evils which the Hindus attribute to their evil gods are the same evils you attribute to yours, generally, I think. I'm sure there are subsets of the Hindus who worship those Gods. There are also Christians who worship their god of evil (i.e. Satanists, who are a subset of Christianity). The gods of evil and destruction in Hinduism also have their good and beneficent counterparts, as does Satan in Christianity. Really, the only difference I see there is in numbers. They have many of each, and you have one of each.

Karmic Law is simply the idea that you get back what you give. If you do good, you get good in return. Do evil, get evil in return. What comes around goes around. The Golden Rule. Etc. That's Karmic Law. Not all religions that believe in Karmic Law take it to the extreme that Hinduism may, with an endless cycle of reincarnation.

Speaking of reincarnation, just remember that you don't have any real evidence that it doesn't happen that way. I don't count teachings from a holy text as evidence. I'm not saying that I do or don't believe in reincarnation. I make no commitment on it. I've heard several afterlife theories, from reincarnation to heaven/hell, and so far no one has shown me anything to nudge me more in one direction than another. I would almost say that what little empirical evidence there is of a possible afterlife favors at least some notion of reincarnation.

Freak
March 4th, 2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Eireann
I don't know a whole lot about Hinduism, as I've never studied it in depth. But having a God of evil or terror does not in itself make the religion hideous. After all, you've got one of those, too (Satan). The evils which the Hindus attribute to their evil gods are the same evils you attribute to yours, generally, I think. I'm sure there are subsets of the Hindus who worship those Gods. There are also Christians who worship their god of evil (i.e. Satanists, who are a subset of Christianity). The gods of evil and destruction in Hinduism also have their good and beneficent counterparts, as does Satan in Christianity. Really, the only difference I see there is in numbers. They have many of each, and you have one of each.

Karmic Law is simply the idea that you get back what you give. If you do good, you get good in return. Do evil, get evil in return. What comes around goes around. The Golden Rule. Etc. That's Karmic Law. Not all religions that believe in Karmic Law take it to the extreme that Hinduism may, with an endless cycle of reincarnation.

Speaking of reincarnation, just remember that you don't have any real evidence that it doesn't happen that way. I don't count teachings from a holy text as evidence.

Moksha is not possible as many Hindus acknowledge. So its a cruel religion. Christianity offers mercy.

There is no personal loving gracious relationship with the Divine in Hinduism. But Jesus offers a loving relationship with those who come to Him.

Flipper
March 4th, 2003, 11:57 PM
I don't think Nandi is actually Shiva, Freak, rather his divine vehicle. Well, perhaps only in the sense that in Hinduism, all things are just manifestations of another ultimate reality.

Flipper
March 5th, 2003, 12:00 AM
Moksha is not possible as many Hindus acknowledge. So its a cruel religion. Christianity offers mercy.

Buddhism was presented as a way off the eternal treadmill too. In fact, it is the duty of those who have found a way out from the eternal cycle of life and death to help others achieve this goal. The buddhist delays his own personal salvation to help others achieve theirs. So, I guess, Buddhism is even more merciful?

OMEGA
March 5th, 2003, 01:47 AM
I am beginning to see a more mature side to you .

I am pleased that you seem to show more Mercy

in your understanding of other peoples of this world.

It is too bad beany boy does not share your Altruism .

" Then why is it in their Indian cities they have ghats that lead up to lingams? Is this enlightening? Does this make the gurus enlightened? Tell me why the Ganges, is considered holy (even god like) by these enlightened gurus, yet this deity can't keep the waters pure---the cholera statistics prove their deity is incapable of helping the people that worship in the Ganges ":nono:

wickwoman
March 5th, 2003, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Freak
Hinduism is hideous, Eireann.

Shiva assumes such sickening disguises such as: Bhairava, Ardhanarisvara, Nataraja, Nandi, these four alone represent a god of terror, a lord with 4 arms, and a white bull (Nandi) that Shiva rides as he encourages starvation & self-mutilation.

Karmic law is a law of retributive justice which basically calls for an onward movement adding good and evil to its credit in a merciless manner. Some seek moksha (liberation) but resign to the fact that they might have to be reborn millions of times to find liberation from this vicious cycle.

This is sad.

#1: Have you read Revelation lately?

#2: Karmic law, in its simplicity, is the idea that no good deed goes unrewarded, no bad deed goes unpunished. It frees us from the ideas in this life that the bad will "get away with it" because they will not. They will continue to be reborn until they reach perfection. It is a very hopeful idea in that all will eventually be perfect. It also explains some very hopeless situations, like children born with hideous birth defects and disabilities or born into abusive homes. These children may be working out karma from previous lives.

#3: the cycle of birth and death is not endless. In the end, the soul reaches Nirvana which is basically Heaven.

To sum up, karma makes God seem a lot nicer and just. He/she is just and all will be rewarded for their actions. Sometimes we do not see justice in action but we can be assured it will come. It is as real as the law of gravity, which, I might add, God does not have to monitor. It was set into action the day the world was formed. It is the same with karma. God can allow everything to continue on it's natural course. Which is the most wonderful thing about karma - EVERYTHING IS AS IT SHOULD BE.

Sozo
March 5th, 2003, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman

It also explains some very hopeless situations, like children born with hideous birth defects and disabilities or born into abusive homes. These children may be working out karma from previous lives.

This nonsensical notion perpetuates evil. The abuser is a victim of fatalism.

wickwoman
March 5th, 2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Sozo


This nonsensical notion perpetuates evil. The abuser is a victim of fatalism.

Lots of things perpetuate evil. That does not make them evil in and of themselves. A person who is committed to evil will do as he will absent your intervention or mine.

In reality, evil is a word that has no real meaning. You give it the meaning you would have it hold because you believe the world is an evil and frightening place. I say that evil means nothing except that certain people have not yet evolved to a higher state of being.

Evil is a vague and silly word that many use because they think is sounds menacing. So boo back at you!:p

Freak
March 5th, 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Flipper


Buddhism was presented as a way off the eternal treadmill too. In fact, it is the duty of those who have found a way out from the eternal cycle of life and death to help others achieve this goal. The buddhist delays his own personal salvation to help others achieve theirs. So, I guess, Buddhism is even more merciful?

Your eyes are being opened, Flipper, as you see no hope for the Hindu.

Hinduism offers a bleak view of reality, a lila , where Christianity offers peace, mercy, redemption through Jesus Christ

Sozo
March 5th, 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Lots of things perpetuate evil. That does not make them evil in and of themselves. A person who is committed to evil will do as he will absent your intervention or mine.

In reality, evil is a word that has no real meaning. You give it the meaning you would have it hold because you believe the world is an evil and frightening place. I say that evil means nothing except that certain people have not yet evolved to a higher state of being.

Evil is a vague and silly word that many use because they think is sounds menacing. So boo back at you!:p

Aren't you just a bit embarassed to voice your opinions in a public forum?

So, you don't believe that rape, murder, & child molestation are evil?

Those are perfectly valid ways for someone to behave that is enforcing punishment on those who have "bad karma"?

:nono:

Freak
March 5th, 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Sozo


Aren't you just a bit embarassed to voice your opinions in a public forum?

So, you don't believe that rape, murder, & child molestation are evil?

Those are perfectly valid ways for someone to behave that is enforcing punishment on those who have "bad karma"?

:nono:

Sozo, you must understand, these Hindus are programmed to believe in maya with all of its ramifications--hence they can go to a place like Haiti or Calcutta and not be bothered. Matter is an illusion. Sin/evil is an illusion.

The suffering, wickwoman sees, is not real. Remember, it is maya and therefore unworthy of any efforts to alleviate. What a brutal religion Hinduism truly is.

Sozo
March 5th, 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Freak


Sozo, you must understand, these Hindus are programmed to believe in maya with all of its ramifications--hence they can go to a place like Haiti or Calcutta and not be bothered. Matter is an illusion. Sin/evil is an illusion.

The suffering, wickwoman sees, is not real. Remember, it is maya and therefore unworthy of any efforts to alleviate. What a brutal religion Hinduism truly is.

Well, maybe they are right. There is no evidence that they have one ounce of brain matter.

Freak
March 5th, 2003, 11:06 AM
Wickwoman, your atman, yearns not for union with Brahman but rather for a living relationship with Jesus Christ.

You are in a conundrum, my friend, you view reality as being one is essence but in truth (which Hindus insist) reality has various expressions (polytheism). Hindus speak of ego/self being dissolved, existingushed by a oneness--becoming God.

Wickwoman--you need deliverance. Demons have truly ensnared you. Jesus however can set you free.

wickwoman
March 5th, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


Aren't you just a bit embarassed to voice your opinions in a public forum?

So, you don't believe that rape, murder, & child molestation are evil?

Those are perfectly valid ways for someone to behave that is enforcing punishment on those who have "bad karma"?

:nono:

I am never embarassed by what I believe. Are you embarassed at your total lack of understanding of basic concepts that were accepted by religions that pre-existed Christianity for thousands of years?

wickwoman
March 5th, 2003, 01:44 PM
THE BIBLE and the HOMOSEXUAL

© 1992 by Dean Worbois

The Bible does not speak of gays. Nor does it speak of the earth orbiting the sun. Sexual identity was not a concept of biblical times.

It speaks of homosexual acts only when they are part of sacred prostitution, idolatry, promiscuity, seducing children, rape, or violating hospitality. It condemns all such acts, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or having nothing to do with sex.
Of the thousands and hundreds of words, pages, stories, laws, and commandments in the Bible, very few deal with homosexual acts. A little study of history reveals these references are fewer than we have come to believe.

The Sodom Story:

Probably no story in the Bible has been used more to persecute homosexuals than the story of Sodom. By the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas had come to see all disasters of any kind as God's wrath at homosexual sin. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, collapsing buildings, runaway horses, women falling into ditches - all these and more were understood to be expressions of God's displeasure at "the wickedness of Sodom."

Yet in Old Testament times we never find references to the destruction of Sodom being equated with homosexual acts. For these references we must look to the last centuries before Christ.
In the two centuries before Christ, the Hebrews became better acquainted with the Hellenistic world as they traveled, traded, and settled in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. Heterosexual and homosexual acts were traditional expressions of fertility worship in the Hellenistic world. Having been raised under the Holiness Laws, the Hebrews found these practices offensive. Among the Hebrew's reaction to these worship practices we find the first texts equating homosexual acts with Sodom. There are also references to the iniquity of sexual acts between Hebrews and Gentiles ("your union shall be like unto Sodom and Gomorrah")
By 50 AD we find the first time the sin of Sodom is associated with homosexual acts in general. In the Quaest. et Salut. in Genesis IV.31-37, Philo interpreted the Genesis word yădhŕ as "servile, lawless and unseemly pederasty." Around 96 AD, Josephus first used the term sodomy to mean homosexual acts. From Antiquities: "They hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices."

Since Old Testament times did not equate the Sodom story with homosexual acts, what was the crime of Sodom - a crime worth the destruction of five thriving, wealthy cities on the fertile plains?
The crime was pride. And it was inhospitality.

We have to remember the Hebrews were a nomad people in a dry, hostile environment. Weather and suspicious neighbors made hospitality a matter of survival. Being welcomed in a stranger's home or tent could mean the difference between life and death.

Throughout the Old Testament, Sodom is held up as a lesson in wickedness that deserves utter destruction for reasons other than homosexual acts. Examples: Ezekiel 16:49 - 50, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Isaiah tells of lack of justice. Jeremiah emphasizes moral and ethical laxity. The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin as pride and inhospitality; in Wisdom 19:13-14, we read "...whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them." In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride." In the New Testament, too, there is reference to Sodom and inhospitality: In Luke 10:10-13, Christ talks about cities that are inhospitable to his disciples. He warns: "...it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city." It's not until the very late books of 2 Peter (2:4) and Jude (6), that sex is considered a sin of Sodom. These books were written several generations after the deaths of the apostles and were talking about the transgression of the natural order of life when angelic and human beings have heterosexual relations - a major concern to the popular Stoic philosophy of the time.

Not only are there no references to homosexual acts when Scripture refers to Sodom, there are no references to Sodom when the Scriptures refer to homosexuality. There are several biblical passages we've come to understand as condemning homosexual acts. Not one of these gives Sodom as an example of the result of homosexual behavior. Considering how often Sodom was used as an example of the result of wicked behavior, it's apparent that biblical times did not see homosexual acts as the important lesson of the destruction of Sodom.

How did the lesson of Sodom become so identified with homosexual acts that the very word for one of those acts became Sodomy? The answer is in the Hebrew word: yădhŕ.
Yădhŕ has two meanings: "to know" and "engage in coitus." Of 943 times yădhŕ is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used to mean sexual intercourse, and all of these are heterosexual coitus. The Old Testament uses the word shăkhabh to mean homosexual acts and bestiality.

Lot was a resident alien in Sodom. When Lot invited strangers into his home, the townspeople approached Lot and demanded "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them (yădhŕ)." Judging from the biblical references we've just discussed, it seems the townspeople were asking to get to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city.
The absolute sacredness of a guest was a principle well known to Lot. Lot also understood the way crowds give in to hostile acts against outsiders (see Judges 19:1- 21:25 for a similar tale of hostility to strangers.) So he protected his guests and refused to hand them over to the crowd. When the crowd insisted, he offered his two daughters as the most expedient diversion for a hostile situation.

The Letters of Paul:

The New Testament has three main references to homosexual acts. These references are not found in the disciples' accounts of Christ's teachings. Rather they are found in the letters of an early convert. Paul sent these letters to early Christian communities: the Romans, the Corinthians, and to Timothy. Paul's philosophy, his reaction to foreign culture, and his understanding of Jewish history all influenced these letters.

The disciples were mostly simple fishermen. But Paul was highly educated, especially in philosophy. Stoicism was a popular philosophy in the first century AD and Paul was one of its avid teachers.

"Reason" was the soul of the Stoic world. God was seen as logos (reason) spread through the heavens. Nature was not instinct, but reason expressed in biology. To "live according to nature" (meaning reason) was to become united with the divine. Whatever distracted from living the reasonable life was evil: the passions of pleasure, pity, sorrow, desire, and love were irrational and, therefore, unnatural. Affectionate and sexual relationships were "unnatural" because they bred passions.
Some results of Christian Stoicism were: Monks separated themselves from society to achieve the ideal state of emotional indifference. The male became the soul (natural reason) of heterosexual relationships while the female became the body (unnatural passion). The Eve story became symbolic of temptation and lust. Females were seen as mutilated males, this "accident" often caused by warm winds blowing at the time of planting the seed. Christian philosophers declared that Christians entered marriage only for the reason of having children. St. Augustine came to identify any sexual pleasure or attraction as sinful passion, saying the "normal exercise of the will" would have the husband lie calmly on his wife and procreation would occur without disturbing the hymen; the semen would enter through it the same way menstrual blood flows from a virgin .

This is the same Stoicism Paul was teaching when he wrote letters to early Christian communities. Culturally, Paul was raised a conservative Jew in Palestine. The society he had been raised in was shaped by the Holiness Laws and he did not understand much of the worship of the Hellenists. When he traveled to Asia Minor, Greece and Rome as a Christian, he reacted to the foreign cultures with shock and contempt.

Paul's understanding of Jewish history was shaped by the teachings of Hebrews who themselves were reacting to Hellenistic society. As we've seen when considering the Sodom story, about 300 years before Paul's letters the Hebrews were giving new meaning to traditional stories. Paul took these new meanings as tradition.

Paul's letters consider homosexual acts to be the result of idolatry, reasoning that only when abandoning the true god for idol worship could a person abandon what Paul considered sexual "nature." His main concern was idolatry, not the sexual acts.

Considering Paul's Stoic philosophy, his shock at Gentile worship practices, and his understanding of idolatry, it's surprising he condemned homosexual acts in so few of his many letters to Christian communities - and only in brief passages.
Even then, Paul's use of Greek makes his messages very confusing. In fact, one test of whether a passage was truly written by Paul is whether the Greek is used in confusing ways.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, he used malakoi, which literally means "soft" and was used in moral contexts for "loose" and "lacking self control." In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and in 1 Timothy 1:10, he used arsenokoitai, which was the first time the plural noun had been used.

In Romans 1:26, Paul called homosexual activity para phusin. The English translation is usually: "against nature." But Paul's understanding of "nature" was based on Stoic philosophy, and is not the understanding we have today. To Stoics, "nature" was reason. Paul always associated the word "nature" with cultural heritage and religious teachings. In Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians he refers to Jews being Jews by nature, Gentiles being uncircumcised by nature, and all of us being children of wrath by nature. Paul saw nature as a condition of social training in 1 Corinthians, 11:14: "Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" When he uses para phusin, Paul seems to use a Stoic term based on "nature" in the place of the Old Testament word toevah. Toevah was the concept of what is not proper according to Jewish law and custom.

At the time of Paul's letters there were names for people who did homosexual acts (arrenomanes, kinaidos, paiderastes, paidophthoro, pallakos and others). Paul never used these words in his letters.

Scripture and Homosexuality:

Considering these cultural and historical facts, it's surprising Scripture has so few references to homosexual acts. What's not surprising is that these references always condemn homosexual behavior.

But Scripture never condemns homosexual behavior by itself. It is condemned when practicing idolatry or sacred prostitution. It is condemned when promoting promiscuity. It is condemned when forcing violent rape or seducing children. And it is condemned when violating a guests' right to dignity as a male.
Also, Scriptural references only speak of homosexual acts - not homosexual people. Not until the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (revised from the King James version in 1885) do we find references to homosexuals themselves. These occur in translating the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" in Paul's letters. Never is the issue of homosexual behavior between loving, homosexual partners addressed in Scripture. The reason is simple: biblical cultures did not have knowledge of homosexuality as a psychological identity. In biblical times homosexuality was known only by the acts people committed, not as a sexual personality. A person born heterosexual assumed homosexual acts to be something people did for dominance or in perversion of their inner identity.

Flipper
March 5th, 2003, 08:27 PM
Freak:


Hinduism offers a bleak view of reality, a lila , where Christianity offers peace, mercy, redemption through Jesus Christ


Well I don't give a literal interpretation of karma any credence because reincarnation (other than the repurposing of our atomic material through decay) not only is entirely unsupported by evidence, it also seems logically incoherent.

So I file it in the same place as I do the supernatural doctrines of Christianity.

wickwoman
March 6th, 2003, 06:36 AM
"I got this today," they say; "Tomorrow I shall get that. This wealth is mine, and that will be mine too. I have destroyed my enemies. I shall destroy others too! Am I not like God? I enjoy what I want. I am successful. I am powerful. I am rich and well-born. Who is equal to me? I will perform sacrifices and give gifts, and rejoice in my own generosity." This is how they go on, deluded by ignorance. Bound by their greed, and entangled in a web of delusion, whirled about by a fragmented mind, they fall into a dark hell.

-Bhagavad Gita 16:13-16

Sozo
March 6th, 2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
"I got this today," they say; "Tomorrow I shall get that. This wealth is mine, and that will be mine too. I have destroyed my enemies. I shall destroy others too! Am I not like God? I enjoy what I want. I am successful. I am powerful. I am rich and well-born. Who is equal to me? I will perform sacrifices and give gifts, and rejoice in my own generosity."

Is that the homosexual creed?

wickwoman
March 6th, 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Sozo


Is that the homosexual creed?

No, that is from the Bhagavad Gita which is often referred to as the Hindu gospel. Based on your response it was quite appropriate here.

HerodionRomulus
March 6th, 2003, 05:34 PM
Gee, I thought it was the motto of the Republican Party. :shocked:

Flipper
March 8th, 2003, 03:13 AM
HR:

haw! Bueno.

Flipper
March 8th, 2003, 03:14 AM
sozo wrote:



Is that the homosexual creed?


You could possibly be the stupidest person posting on this site, and believe you me, the competition is extremely stiff.

Sozo
March 8th, 2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Flipper
sozo wrote:
You could possibly be the stupidest person posting on this site, and believe you me, the competition is extremely stiff.

"God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are"

My opinion of you is irrelevant, but God's isn't.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

o2bwise
March 9th, 2003, 08:27 AM
Hi Polycarpadvo,

Please excuse my lateness in responding. It has been a very turbulent and stressful week.

First, I am sorry I called you cold. Please accept my apology. (By the way, I believe I did so twice.) The monitor is a "cold" medium. The warmth that is in people's hearts often doesn't transmit through very well.

But, you do come accross a bit chili, Polycarp. Simple things like saying "Hi" or saying goodbye with a "God Bless You and Yours" and trying to add more warmth would come a long ways, I think.



Had I known this was going to turn into "What exactly is Hell?" I would have rephrased the question.

Well, I find it impossible not to get into details about hell in order to explain the basis for an answer to such a question, so while you intimate that you would prefer the conversation did not veer into that subject with some detail, I on the other hand, find that veering to be crucial.

In saying the following, please consider this point. I am applying reason, however the reason I am applying did not produce the view I have, it followed the view I came to have, a view I came to via ample study of the scriptures. I say this because I have shared reason with respect to the character of God and have been accused of coming to views based on reason rather than submission to the word of God.


Anihilation View
My understanding is that love is a drawing power, it does not, indeed cannot, compel. Philemon is a neat example of how love operates, yet for love's sake I rather appeal to you... Another example is where Christ uses the metaphor of a mother hen. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I wanted to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing! Here we see conflicting wills. The will of Jesus (and thus the will of God) and the will of some other. The locus of these conflicting wills is salvation itself. I wanted to save you, but you were not willing.

We all know that free will is able to stand in the way of God.

If one superimposes this with the anihilist view, I believe the following fits.

The lost are ultimately lost because their will thwarted God's will. God's hands are tied. He wants all to be with Him in the Kingdom, but some "willed" another course.

So, what does God do? Is what He does consistent with love? I believe it is.

For the sake of length, I will not go into an explanation, but I believe "hell" is the experience of the lost within the presence of God's love. Song of Solomon states that unquenchable fire is God's love. A verse in Isaiah asks who dwells in the everlasting burnings. The answer? The righteous dwell there. Jesus refers to lost cast into a furnace of fire where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. His very next remark? The righteous shine as the sun.

There is something about the revelation, to the universe, that the house built on the Rock survives the same storm which destroys the house built on the sand.

There is a crucial testimony there.

Love itself, unveiled, causes the lost to be consumed. For it reveals to the unrighteous their full immoral state and THAT is what destroys.

The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law.

Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But, sin, that it might appear sin was producing death in me through what is good so that sin through the commandment, might become exceedingly sinful.

With this view, it can be reasoned that, as I said, God's hands are tied. Their lost state is an ache in His heart (consider again Christ's dialogue where He alluded to Himself as a mother hen). He cannot bear false witness. There comes a time when He simply causes the lost to see who they are, via the mirror that is the perfect law of liberty (that being an unveiled revelation of His character).


Eternal Conscious Torment View
One cannot even begin to broach the subject of God's fairness (justice) with this view. It cuts any such discussion at the knees.

The lost suffer pain for eternity and thus pain, sin, and sinners exist forever. Not only that, but a pocket of the universe is not God's Kingdom for His Kingdom is one of righteousness and there is still a locale wherein the very opposite of righteousness, that being evil, resides forever.

Why? Why choose to create intelligent beings in such a way that should they choose unrighteousness, they still must live, because they innately have life.

"He who has the Son HAS LIFE."



So let me do so now.

Will God love those who are seperated from Him for all eternity due to their not accepting Him while on Earth?

Yes.

You provided scripture which showed that God hates, but what you did not do is consider another possibility.

God's ways are not our ways.

For example, divine wrath is most thoroughly treated, in the scriptures, in Romans 1. It is not the same as human wrath. At least three times, it says that God gave them up. It doesn't have the flavor of someone like Zeus zapping thunderbolts, it more has the flavor of man initiating by his rebellion and God having His hands tied.

I suggest that all emotions, when applied to God, have an understanding not adequately defined by Webster, given Webster defines them as applied to humans.

We know this is true with love, realizing that the Greek writers used a little used term, agape, when applied to divine love. Still, as with Christ's conversation with Peter (Feed My sheep), Christ is referred with agape, Peter with eros.

I suggest those hate verses operate in a similar fashion. A fashion compatible with:

1. The anihilation view with the reason I attached to it (how compatible with God's character).

2. Christ forgiving the Jews as they are crucifying Him.

3. Christ aching in His heart as He refers to those whose rebellion to Him is complete, knowing there will be no repentence (mother hen text).

It is a mis-use of scripture to assign human hate to "divine hate" just as it would be with all other emotions, such as wrath.

Finally, this need not be taken to mean God is being deceptive. A line upon line, comparing spiritual with spiritual study provides ample evidence for the meaning of these terms, such as hate, when applied to God.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

wickwoman
March 9th, 2003, 08:33 AM
Dear O2bwise:

What do you think about the article with an alternative view of the scriptures on homosexuality I posted above?

Dear Sozo:

Would you like to address those also or would you like to continue hurling meaningless insults about homosexuals?

o2bwise
March 9th, 2003, 08:43 AM
Hi wickwoman,

How are ya?

Ummm, I am WAY behind! Note that I just now replied to Polycarp and an earlier reply to you awaits.

I read a portion of that post, very quickly, but I will read it in its entirety.

My impulsive take is that the article has a rather interesting assumption, in order to be valid. That assumption is that our omniscient God "decided" to be 100% SILENT with respect to His moral guidance where homosexuality is concerned.

Why would He do so?

Why not at the beginning would God throw in, "Sometimes man and woman will be one flesh, sometimes man and man, and sometimes woman and woman?"

The article seems to require that God would decide to be THAT silent all the while everytime explicit mention of homosexuality is made, it is made in a negative light.

So, the article requires utter silence AND the assumption that all negative statements about homosexuality are to be understood as compatible with the idea that God created certain people to be homosexual and desires and approves of such people to enjoy homosexual activity.

What are the odds of those two assumptions being true, wickwoman? Is the Bible really that incomplete a moral guide?

God Bless Ya...

Tony (o2)

Sozo
March 9th, 2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Sozo:

Would you like to address those also or would you like to continue hurling meaningless insults about homosexuals?

How can I take a biased view seriously, when the writer does not believe that Paul was influenced by Jesus (whom Paul claims influenced him), but was instead tainted by the Stoics?

Z Man
March 9th, 2003, 03:17 PM
Wickwoman and everyone else who is posting here,

This is ridiculous. Wickwoman, your niece is a homosexual; so what? I bet she's lied before too, or spoken hateful things to someone, or has stolen something - basically, she has sinned everyday in her life, guareented. We all have. I don't know if your niece was born gay or not, and personally, i don't care, nor does it matter. The point is, she was born a sinner, just like the rest of us.

Everyone of us in the world in the past, present, and future is born of a nature of sin. No one has to teach a child to be mean, talk-back to their parents, steal cookies from the cookie jar, argue and fight with siblings and friends, that's all natural behavior for a human. In fact, every parent spends thier whole parenthood teaching children how to behave; right from wrong. The point is, she, nor anyone else in the world, will ever go to hell for a sin they committed. People go to hell because our nature is corrupt. This gives us a very nasty, dirty, and disgusting image in the realm of God's perfect reality. We are not worthy to live there, so God has made a place for those who cannot attain perfection; Hell. But thank God we can attain perfection, through and by the blood of Jesus Christ, but that's another story.....

Those who don't hang out with homosexuals, accept them into their homes, church, whatever, are hypocrites. Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, cheating, stealing, whatever. No Christian is any better than a homosexual.

Sozo
March 9th, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
Those who don't hang out with homosexuals, accept them into their homes, church, whatever, are hypocrites. Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, cheating, stealing, whatever. No Christian is any better than a homosexual.

I agree with everything you said regarding homosexuality in relation to God, and the gospel.

So, do you think it should be criminalized like other sins, such as murder, stealing, etc?

okinrus
March 9th, 2003, 05:12 PM
Wickedwomen you must understand that there are people
in the Church who are celibrate. To be in heaven you
must hold christ more dear to you than anything else.
That is why heaven is hard to get to.
The church accepts homosexuals just as any sinners
but they must not partake in the eucharist unless
they fully repent and confess of it. By say that you are born this way you are admiting to the philosophy that murders are born that way, rapist are born that way etc. To say is bad but
when you practice it, it will become reality.

I'm much worse sinner than your niece. She is happy
now because she has a friend but what will happen when that friend will leave her? The more times she engages in this type
of behavior the harder it will be to repent of it.

As to the old testment notions of punishment. Read the
story of Jesus, the pharisees, and the adultress.
People will always be physically allured to different types of
sin. For example the blind will have a tough time
looking at pornography.

wickwoman
March 10th, 2003, 07:09 AM
Dear O2BWise:

I'm fine. Thank you for asking. How are you?

The Bible is silent about a lot of issues. It doesn't address the morality of artificial intelligence, human cloning, abortion, cross dressing, drug use, right to die, gardening, or wearing red to church on Sundays for that matter. It is not a complete moral handbook. It doesn't adress many problems and situations encountered in every day life. Human beings have felt free to decide what scriptures apply to the particular behaviors they find bothersome.

The point here is the logic in condemning a particular sexual behavior simply for it's "differentness." Now, you can cling to the argument of AIDS killing homo and hetero-sexuals alike, but let's get real, people were dying of syphillis hundreds of years ago.

My point here is simple, using logic only to evaluate the situation, which I must say is virtually impossible for many of those posting here, you will see that there really is no logical reason that homosexuality should be a sin. Just because some homo-phobes find it repulsive does not give me sufficient logical explanation as to why God would agree. In Bible times, people believed you could marry 12 year olds. That doesn't mean the Bible condones it. Just because people who lived in Bible times and contributed to the Bible found homosexuality repulsive, that doesn't mean that God does.

-WICKWOMAN (notice the missing "ed" - not you O2B)

Z Man
March 10th, 2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Sozo:

I agree with everything you said regarding homosexuality in relation to God, and the gospel. So, do you think it should be criminalized like other sins, such as murder, stealing, etc?

Sozo, if all sins were criminalized, don't you think we'd all be doing time in this world? Our justice system may not condemn homosexuality, but we know God does. It may not be a crime in this world, but in reality and in God's everlasting realm, it is.

I don't promote homosexuality, and I really wish the public wouldn't either (I really hate that show "Will and Grace"), but as for making it outlawed, I don't know. That may be going to far in political terms. If a politician came up with a law that banned it, of course I'd support them, but I really don't think that that will ever happen in my lifetime..... :nono:

Besides, homosexuality is just one sin out of millions that should be banned in this world. The hard facts of this life is that people will never ban the things they enjoy. We're just pilgrims in a foreign land, and one day we can look forward to sin being justified once and for all....

Sozo
March 10th, 2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Z Man
Originally posted by Sozo:


Sozo, if all sins were criminalized, don't you think we'd all be doing time in this world? Our justice system may not condemn homosexuality, but we know God does. It may not be a crime in this world, but in reality and in God's everlasting realm, it is.


Thanks for your answer.

You just appeared to be very hard on those who disagreed with these godless witches that want to justify homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, which as you said, it is not.

Although I agree that our objective is to share Christ with a lost world that is only doing what is natural, I think that if we remain silent on this issue, we may make it appear as though we endorse the behavior.

Hank
March 10th, 2003, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Flipper
sozo wrote:



You could possibly be the stupidest person posting on this site, and believe you me, the competition is extremely stiff.

LOL.

Z Man
March 10th, 2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Sozo:

Although I agree that our objective is to share Christ with a lost world that is only doing what is natural, I think that if we remain silent on this issue, we may make it appear as though we endorse the behavior.

Sozo, let me clear everything up here. Of course I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But I don't think that we need to harp on just this one sin. There is no need, and we definitely have no right, to go around and start pointing fingers at people and saying there going to hell or what not for one, single sin. I hate it when "Christians" go around with a holier-than-thou attitude. I may not be a homosexual, but I have watched porno, even though I'm married. That means I have committed a sexual sin also. I have aslo lied, stole, cheated, etc., etc. I sin everyday and will continue to sin until I leave this corrupted flesh of mine.

Here's a verse I like from Project 86s' new album, Truthless Heroes:
"I was wrong to take my fill of you,
You were wrong to take me all,
The more I taste the more you make me ill.
The more I taste the more I need, need my fill of you."
- Team Black, Truthless Heroes

Like I said before, no christian is any better than a homosexual. In fact, no christian is any better than anyone else in this world, past or present. That means, Sozo, that you and I are no better than Hitler. People have to get this mindset out of their heads. There is no such a thing as a "good person".

Sozo
March 10th, 2003, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Z Man
Originally posted by Sozo:


Sozo, let me clear everything up here. Of course I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But I don't think that we need to harp on just this one sin. There is no need, and we definitely have no right, to go around and start pointing fingers at people and saying there going to hell or what not for one, single sin. I hate it when "Christians" go around with a holier-than-thou attitude. I may not be a homosexual, but I have watched porno, even though I'm married. That means I have committed a sexual sin also. I have aslo lied, stole, cheated, etc., etc. I sin everyday and will continue to sin until I leave this corrupted flesh of mine.

Here's a verse I like from Project 86s' new album, Truthless Heroes:
"I was wrong to take my fill of you,
You were wrong to take me all,
The more I taste the more you make me ill.
The more I taste the more I need, need my fill of you."
- Team Black, Truthless Heroes

Like I said before, no christian is any better than a homosexual. In fact, no christian is any better than anyone else in this world, past or present. That means, Sozo, that you and I are no better than Hitler. People have to get this mindset out of their heads. There is no such a thing as a "good person".

Though many will disagree with that, I won't. However, if you were the pastor of a church and some kept standing up in your congregation promoting a pro-abortion agenda, it might be important on your part to say something, so that those who may have found themselves with child, would not consider this as an option.

In regards to who we are and who Christ is, my signature line used to read...

"There are no great men of God, there is only a great God of men".

According to the flesh, we have the propensity to do or be anything that is short of the glory of God. As a matter of fact, according to the flesh, we are incapable of doing anything other than sin. But thanks be to God, that we are no longer walking in the flesh, but in the spirit.

o2bwise
March 10th, 2003, 08:23 AM
Hi wickwoman!,

I confess a deep conviction the Bible is inspired, wickwoman and I readily acknowledge that for many, such as possibly yourself, this deserves my being labeled "archaic" or "naive."

wick, I've been going to recovery meetings for years now. Most homosexuals I know have a history of being abused that if one did an objective statistical analysis of two groups (homosexual men and heterosexual men), the differences would be staggering.

This leads to two basic possibilities. One, WHO homosexuals are "influenced" folks into being more inclined to want to abuse them. Two, the abuse inclined the abused to be homosexual.

One thing I find paradoxical, wickwoman, is that the terrain of your dialogue seems mainly intellectual, however, in that very terrain, I sense a little bit lacking. Homosexuality is a condition, however, there may be underlying CAUSES of such a condition. If so, this invites a DEEPER level of intellectual vigor.

But, you don't go there. It's almost like "not going there" is part of "your" religion.

If you were willing to go there and apply principles, such as the statistical example I offered, certain conclusions would be glaringly evident.

Their environments are very, very different, wickwoman. Something happened and often at a very young age. Lies were believed. Things of rather foundational natures happened to form homosexuality before the concept was even aware to the person, usually.

Regardless of our contrasting views, I hope the following is apparent to you. My theology asks of me one thing. To love. To always love. I may fall short of that, but that is the one thing I am called to do.

To repeat something I wrote before. In love, I cannot and will not call what I believe to be "unwellness," "wellness." I want all people to be free from their personal prison houses.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Freak
March 10th, 2003, 10:34 AM
Wickwoman--

Since homosexuality is no problem with you what about other sexual perversions like bestality or necrophilia? Would you support someone who indulges in these wicked practices?

wickwoman
March 10th, 2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Wickwoman--

Since homosexuality is no problem with you what about other sexual perversions like bestality or necrophilia? Would you support someone who indulges in these wicked practices?

To borrow from the Wiccans: "Insomuch as ye harm none, do as ye will."

That is the criteria I follow. If these two behaviors harmed none, then they would be acceptable. Since they do, then they are not acceptable. However, I don't believe in sin so I do not call them "sins" per say.

You are intentionally bringing up repulsive and disgusting behaviors to be insulting. I don't appreciate it. You call yourself a Christian. You are insulting and rude.

wickwoman
March 10th, 2003, 12:07 PM
Dear O2BWise:

You said:

"One thing I find paradoxical, wickwoman, is that the terrain of your dialogue seems mainly intellectual, however, in that very terrain, I sense a little bit lacking. Homosexuality is a condition, however, there may be underlying CAUSES of such a condition. If so, this invites a DEEPER level of intellectual vigor.

But, you don't go there. It's almost like "not going there" is part of "your" religion."

"going there" is not necessary in this circumstance in my opinion. Be it genetics or be it environment, the fact remains it is beyond the control of the homosexual person in question. Therefore, to assume God would condemn such a person is not reasonable IF you believe God is loving and reasonable.

You have made it clear you do believe God is loving and reasonable. And I don't think you've said you believe the homosexual is headed for hell for only that sin. So, I can agree to disagree with you on the point that sin exists at all.

Eireann
March 10th, 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
You are intentionally bringing up repulsive and disgusting behaviors to be insulting. I don't appreciate it. You call yourself a Christian. You are insulting and rude.
While I generally agree with you about the "harm none" rule, Jay does have a valid point, even if it was made with rather unsavory examples. After all, "repulsive and disgusting" are rather subjective terms. What may be repulsive and disgusting to the majority may not be to the person actually committing the acts.

As to whether such acts as bestiality and necrophilia constitute "harming" someone, that would be a very interesting question to debate, semantically speaking. However, even if it can't be necessarily established that anyone or anything is being harmed, it certainly defies practically every sense of normality that we have and would very likely be linked to some mental illness or severe deviance.

wickwoman
March 10th, 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Eireann

While I generally agree with you about the "harm none" rule, Jay does have a valid point, even if it was made with rather unsavory examples. After all, "repulsive and disgusting" are rather subjective terms. What may be repulsive and disgusting to the majority may not be to the person actually committing the acts.

As to whether such acts as bestiality and necrophilia constitute "harming" someone, that would be a very interesting question to debate, semantically speaking. However, even if it can't be necessarily established that anyone or anything is being harmed, it certainly defies practically every sense of normality that we have and would very likely be linked to some mental illness or severe deviance.

In the case of beastiality, an animal is harmed. In the case of necrophilia, I suppose an argument could be made as to the lack of harmfulness, absent certain health concerns to the live person of course. However, both of these behaviors are crimes so that would "harm" the person who committed these acts since they would face jail or other legal ramifications.

Z Man
March 10th, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Wickwoman
In the case of beastiality, an animal is harmed. In the case of necrophilia, I suppose an argument could be made as to the lack of harmfulness, absent certain health concerns to the live person of course. However, both of these behaviors are crimes so that would "harm" the person who committed these acts since they would face jail or other legal ramifications.

:crackup: I can't believe you guys are actually debating wheter or not beastiality and necrophilia are harmful or not! :crackup: Like you said wickwoman, both of these behaviors are crimes. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Is it maybe because these disgusting sexual acts are immoral? Could it be that, us being humans and having a moral code, know deep down inside that doing any type of these sick behaviors is wrong? I agree with Eireann on this one; if any sick person commits any of these behaviors, something is missing "up stairs", if you know what I mean. Obviously, they have a distorted view of what's right and what's wrong, which by the way, we all know the difference deep down inside....

wickwoman
March 10th, 2003, 03:04 PM
Dear ZMan:

You said:

"I agree with Eireann on this one; if any sick person commits any of these behaviors, something is missing "up stairs", if you know what I mean. Obviously, they have a distorted view of what's right and what's wrong, which by the way, we all know the difference deep down inside...."

I'll let Eireann speak for himself, but I've seen his posts before and, based on past experience, I didn't get that meaning from what he said. I've argued subjective morality before and I'm not trying to do it now, though I supposed it could be relvant to the subject. I'm guessing Eireann's post was more along those lines. What say you Eireann?

Eireann
March 10th, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear ZMan:

You said:

"I agree with Eireann on this one; if any sick person commits any of these behaviors, something is missing "up stairs", if you know what I mean. Obviously, they have a distorted view of what's right and what's wrong, which by the way, we all know the difference deep down inside...."

I'll let Eireann speak for himself, but I've seen his posts before and, based on past experience, I didn't get that meaning from what he said. I've argued subjective morality before and I'm not trying to do it now, though I supposed it could be relvant to the subject. I'm guessing Eireann's post was more along those lines. What say you Eireann?
You're both right, in a way, as far as interpreting what I meant. Morality is culturally defined, after all. If someone from our culture, a culture that definitely believes it is wrong, and even has laws to that effect, were to practice the act, they would either have to be doing so with the knowledge that it is wrong according to the culture they are a part of (which would indicate severely deviant behavior) or they would be doing so without knowledge that it is wrong according to the culture (which would indicate mental illness). However, if it were someone from a culture that doesn't have any strictures against such things (is there such a culture?), then it really is a different story, because morality is very subjective.

okinrus
March 10th, 2003, 03:51 PM
"going there" is not necessary in this circumstance in my opinion. Be it genetics or be it environment, the fact remains it is beyond the control of the homosexual person in question. Therefore, to assume God would condemn such a person is not reasonable IF you believe God is loving and reasonable.

Demons have the power to influence dreams to the point
that dream becomes the present. They have the power to talk
to you as if they are the voices of real people.

Homosexuality harms the participants. By engaging in this says to God that marriage was only there for pleasure.
By repeativly doing it, there is
habbit instilled that would make it almost impossible the
participants to engage in a normal marriage.

If there's been physical or they have been abused then the degree of the sin is lessened. Depending on the type of abuse they
might be blameless. But we have the right to say that
God condems this sin but not the person. Not even the
angles have the right to condem someone. To go to heaven
you must put God first.

Eireann
March 10th, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by okinrus

Demons have the power to influence dreams to the point
that dream becomes the present. They have the power to talk
to you as if they are the voices of real people.
to prove that, you need to prove demons actually exist. Good luck.


Homosexuality harms the participants. By engaging in this says to God that marriage was only there for pleasure.
Where did you get that idea?


By repeativly doing it, there is habit instilled that would make it almost impossible the participants to engage in a normal marriage.
And why is that? Define a "normal marriage." "Normal" according to whom? According to straights? According to Americans? According to Christians? According to Hindus? According to Chinese?


But we have the right to say that
God condems this sin but not the person.
No, you have only the right to say you believe God condemns the sin. To say absolutely, you must be able to prove that God even exists to be able to condemn anything.

Freak
March 10th, 2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


To borrow from the Wiccans: "Insomuch as ye harm none, do as ye will."

That is the criteria I follow. If these two behaviors harmed none, then they would be acceptable. Since they do, then they are not acceptable. However, I don't believe in sin so I do not call them "sins" per say.

You are intentionally bringing up repulsive and disgusting behaviors to be insulting. I don't appreciate it. You call yourself a Christian. You are insulting and rude.

Wickwoman, perhaps bestality and necrophlia would be considered evil. Would you call these wicked practices "evil"?

Yes, I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and yes I'm judging you for being a wicked person.

calvinistkid
March 10th, 2003, 06:45 PM
Wickwoman, you made the statement "you call yourself a christian", seeming to imply that you thought the person you were refering to was acting contrary to the Christian religion. Why? I have brought up this point with you before. Just because a statement does not make sense to you does not mean that it is inconsistent with Christian belief. I do not mean to be "insulting", but by what authority do you make this statement? By your own admonition you are not a Christian. In the future you might want to assume (unless blatantly proven otherwise) that the actual ADHERANTS of a religion know more about their own faith than you do.

wickwoman
March 11th, 2003, 07:04 AM
Dear Eireann:

Thanks for your post. I agree with most of what you've said. I'm a little unclear on subjective morality. Since I do not have any real set of guidelines to tell me what I should think (like the Bible, for instance), I do not always know for sure how I feel about every issue that arises. Like abortion, for instance. I don't think I'd personally have one, yet I don't feel that I should limit another person's right to do so. Logic tells me the world is overpopulated as it is and that the children (not given up for adoption) born to women who were not allowed to have abortions would be in loveless homes.

It's the same with many other issues that can be argued from both sides. I am capable of listening to both sides. Though, if I find a person bases their morality on something other than logical thinking, well, then I guess I'm not so reasonable. I am very prejudiced against stupid people.

Dear Calvinistkid:

You're right I shouldn't be angry at Freak for telling me I'm wicked and going to Hell. I should thank him. Thank you Freak for doing me the huge favor of telling me I'm damned. You know, you don't find friends like that often. As a matter of fact, as the old saying goes, "with friends like that, who needs enemies." And, if Freak hadn't told me, how would I have known? Oh, the 21 years I spent listening to red faced, screaming preachers I'm sure wasn't enough to convince me. It was the "loving" voice of Freak that really pushed me over the edge this time!

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 07:29 AM
Wickwoman--

Your judgements are getting tiresome. Don't you ever settle down?

We love and care for you that is the reason we are sharing the good news that Jesus loves you deeply and wants to save you. He desires a personal relationship with you.

wickwoman
March 11th, 2003, 08:17 AM
I'm not judging you Freak. You see, judgment implies punishment and I don't believe in punishment. My belief about your eternal demise is that you will continue to live more lives until you realize that God is wonderful and loving and only good and kind.

I don't believe you are influenced by evil, because I don't believe in Satan. I don't think you are demon possessed, I don't think you are a "witch." I'm not trying to save you from yourself because I know that what you are going through right now is necessary for your spiritual evolution and that everything is going according to plan.

I am trying to get you to pay me the same courtesy to me that I pay you. You deserve to exist because you are one of God's wonderful creatures. However, you are infringing on my right (and the rights of other people who are "different") to be who I am. That is the problem I have with you.

Sozo
March 11th, 2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
I'm not judging you Freak. You see, judgment implies punishment and I don't believe in punishment. My belief about your eternal demise is that you will continue to live more lives until you realize that God is wonderful and loving and only good and kind.

I don't believe you are influenced by evil, because I don't believe in Satan. I don't think you are demon possessed, I don't think you are a "witch." I'm not trying to save you from yourself because I know that what you are going through right now is necessary for your spiritual evolution and that everything is going according to plan.

I am trying to get you to pay me the same courtesy to me that I pay you. You deserve to exist because you are one of God's wonderful creatures. However, you are infringing on my right (and the rights of other people who are "different") to be who I am. That is the problem I have with you.

There you go, perpetuating evil again, even though you claim beating a child to death, having sex with animals or dead people, and molestation are simply training exercises, and not evil.

Everbody "desrves" what they get in you're estimation.

So adult A, molests child B because child B is getting what it deserves because of a past life. So adult A will now have to "learn a lesson" in a future life for molesting (someone has to be the molestor), and may have to be molested by adult C or perhaps a reincarnation of child B. Yet you claim this is not a perpetuation of evil.

You are one sick wickwoman!

wickwoman
March 11th, 2003, 09:58 AM
Dear Sozo:

I'm sorry your world is so frightening and meaningless. If those things happen and there is no meaning is it not even more terrible? Those things are terrible, but they are not meaningless and futile. The only hope we have is that in the end "all things will work together for good." By the way, that's in your Bible.

Sozo
March 11th, 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Sozo:

I'm sorry your world is so frightening and meaningless. If those things happen and there is no meaning is it not even more terrible? Those things are terrible, but they are not meaningless and futile. The only hope we have is that in the end "all things will work together for good." By the way, that's in your Bible.

So, besides the fact that I have proven your entire belief system is a fraud, and perpetuating, without the possibilty of "all things working together for good", you are going to wallow in it anyway?

What a clever person you are :rolleyes:

wickwoman
March 11th, 2003, 10:09 AM
Dear Sozo:

Your belief system is that that abused child who grows up to be a homosexual will go to an eternal and everlasting Hell. Sounds a little screwed up to me.

We digress. Does anyone have anything that is actually on the subject of homosexuals and God's love. I believe we've slung enough mud to last a lifetime.

okinrus
March 11th, 2003, 10:15 AM
to prove that, you need to prove demons actually exist. Good luck.

Demons can attack faith itself.
I have seen a women speak to me...
I'm insane but that's only because of them.

If there was proof of demons
there would be proof of God. It is not in there best interest
to show themself.



And why is that? Define a "normal marriage." "Normal" according to whom? According to straights? According to Americans? According to Christians? According to Hindus? According to Chinese?

A normal marriage is one between man and wife. Producing
children and raising them together. Most culture have this
same definition of marriage.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Sozo:

Your belief system is that that abused child who grows up to be a homosexual will go to an eternal and everlasting Hell. Sounds a little screwed up to me.

We digress. Does anyone have anything that is actually on the subject of homosexuals and God's love. I believe we've slung enough mud to last a lifetime.

Wickwoman--

We told you God loves homosexuals as He loves you but if you do not repent you will end up in eternal hell with all those who indulge bestality, necrophila, homsoexuality, and all other sexual perverse activity (that you refuse to call evil). God forgives, yes! But there must be repentance!

Woe to those who called evil good and good evil.

By the way, Hinduism is so wicked it offers no personal relationship with a loving God but rather hideous submission to bloodthirsty demon gods like Kali.

Sozo
March 11th, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Sozo:

Your belief system is that that abused child who grows up to be a homosexual will go to an eternal and everlasting Hell. Sounds a little screwed up to me.

We digress. Does anyone have anything that is actually on the subject of homosexuals and God's love. I believe we've slung enough mud to last a lifetime.

That is not what I believe. I do not believe that people go to hell for being homosexuals. If people go to hell, it will be because of unbelief in Christ.

Those who remain separated from the life of God, are guilty of an abundance of different sins, and the only solution is justification, redemption, and salvation through the life that God gives to those who are willing to recognize that they are sinners, and turn to Christ. You are seeking to justify sin, as though it is perfectly appropriate.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 10:32 AM
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Zakath
March 11th, 2003, 11:07 AM
Unless they repent and get a free ticket to heaven sometime before they die... :rolleyes:

wickwoman
March 11th, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Freak


Wickwoman--

We told you God loves homosexuals as He loves you but if you do not repent you will end up in eternal hell with all those who indulge bestality, necrophila, homsoexuality, and all other sexual perverse activity (that you refuse to call evil). God forgives, yes! But there must be repentance!

Woe to those who called evil good and good evil.

By the way, Hinduism is so wicked it offers no personal relationship with a loving God but rather hideous submission to bloodthirsty demon gods like Kali.

Dear Freak:

What exactly is a "demon god?" Are you a pagan? Funny, I was thinking you only believed in one God.

wickwoman
March 11th, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Thanks for sharing who would be in your imaginary hell. You forgot the homophobes, hypocrits, gossips, litter bugs, tree haters, animal haters, slave drivers, autocrats, "evil" dictators, male cheauvinist pigs, bigots, and KKK members. They would all be in my "imaginary" hell. Thank goodness I'm not God. Thank goodness you're not either.

Z Man
March 11th, 2003, 01:15 PM
Ummm, just a reminder to all those holier-than-thou Christians in here, the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homophobes, hypocrits, gossips, litter bugs, tree haters, animal haters, slave drivers, autocrats, "evil dictators, male cheauvinist pigs, bigots, and KKK members will also be in heaven.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Dear Freak:

What exactly is a "demon god?" Are you a pagan? Funny, I was thinking you only believed in one God.

A demon god is those deities you have respect for-like Kali & Shiva.

These are examples of so-called gods who in reality are demons.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
Ummm, just a reminder to all those holier-than-thou Christians in here, the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homophobes, hypocrits, gossips, litter bugs, tree haters, animal haters, slave drivers, autocrats, "evil dictators, male cheauvinist pigs, bigots, and KKK members will also be in heaven.

ZMan re-read the apostle Paul's declaration.

If someone practices those sins they do not possess true life in Christ.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Thanks for sharing who would be in your imaginary hell. You forgot the homophobes, hypocrits, gossips, litter bugs, tree haters, animal haters, slave drivers, autocrats, "evil" dictators, male cheauvinist pigs, bigots, and KKK members. They would all be in my "imaginary" hell. Thank goodness I'm not God. Thank goodness you're not either.

Wickwoman--you forgot the Jay Bartlett's too. They belong in hell. But because of God's great love and mercy He rescued me. He can rescue you too.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Unless they repent and get a free ticket to heaven sometime before they die... :rolleyes:

Zakath, perhaps one day you will bow your heart before Jesus. Just perhaps...

Sozo
March 11th, 2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Freak


ZMan re-read the apostle Paul's declaration.

If someone practices those sins they do not possess true life in Christ.

"Those" who practice those things can only be "those" who are under the Law. Those in Christ, are free from the Law and free from sin.

Zakath
March 11th, 2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Freak


Zakath, perhaps one day you will bow your heart before Jesus. Just perhaps...

Nice diversion from my point, Jay. All those people on that list get a free pass if they repent (according to your religion).

Regarding my "conversion", don't hold your breath, Jay. You haven't even convincingly demonstrated the existence of the supernatural, let alone convinced me that your version of one of the world's religions is the correct one...

wickwoman
March 11th, 2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Freak


A demon god is those deities you have respect for-like Kali & Shiva.

These are examples of so-called gods who in reality are demons.

Freak Says: You believe in a demon God.

Wickwoman Says: What is a demon God?

Freak Says: A demon God is who you believe in.


The above discussion is an excellent example of circular reasoning. In other words. Nothing was said that had any meaning. A question was posed, it was not answered.

calvinistkid
March 11th, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Dear Calvinistkid:

You're right I shouldn't be angry at Freak for telling me I'm wicked and going to Hell. I should thank him. Thank you Freak for doing me the huge favor of telling me I'm damned. You know, you don't find friends like that often. As a matter of fact, as the old saying goes, "with friends like that, who needs enemies." And, if Freak hadn't told me, how would I have known? Oh, the 21 years I spent listening to red faced, screaming preachers I'm sure wasn't enough to convince me. It was the "loving" voice of Freak that really pushed me over the edge this time!

Wickwoman, you completely missed my point. My point was that Freak's statements were completely consistent with Christian belief, and therefore your statement "and you call yourself a Christian" is thus invalid.

As far as him telling you that you are damned (I think I missed the post where he used those exact words, but whatever), you SHOULD thank him for it, regardless of whether he is right or not. If I (or Freak) see someone in imanent physical danger, I do everything in my power to warn them. In the same way, if I see them in spiritual danger, I do everything I can to allert them of their condition. Now what if someone was walking down the street, thought they saw someone pulling a gun on you, yelled out a warning, and then discovered that they had made a mistake and that there was no danger. Would you get angry at that person? Probably not. You would probably thank them for their concern. Why should it be any different with spiritual danger? I have been told by people many times that I am going to hell because I don't agree with them. As hard as it may be sometimes, I have to understand that they honestly think I am in danger, and are doing their best to try to help me.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Sozo


"Those" who practice those things can only be "those" who are under the Law. Those in Christ, are free from the Law and free from sin.

Exactly my point. Those who delve into this kind of evil do not know Jesus Christ.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Freak Says: You believe in a demon God.

Wickwoman Says: What is a demon God?

Freak Says: A demon God is who you believe in.


The above discussion is an excellent example of circular reasoning. In other words. Nothing was said that had any meaning. A question was posed, it was not answered.

I gave you the answer but you refused to read.

I said Kali & Shiva are two examples of a demon god.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by calvinistkid


Wickwoman, you completely missed my point. My point was that Freak's statements were completely consistent with Christian belief, and therefore your statement "and you call yourself a Christian" is thus invalid.

As far as him telling you that you are damned (I think I missed the post where he used those exact words, but whatever), you SHOULD thank him for it, regardless of whether he is right or not. If I (or Freak) see someone in imanent physical danger, I do everything in my power to warn them. In the same way, if I see them in spiritual danger, I do everything I can to allert them of their condition. Now what if someone was walking down the street, thought they saw someone pulling a gun on you, yelled out a warning, and then discovered that they had made a mistake and that there was no danger. Would you get angry at that person? Probably not. You would probably thank them for their concern. Why should it be any different with spiritual danger? I have been told by people many times that I am going to hell because I don't agree with them. As hard as it may be sometimes, I have to understand that they honestly think I am in danger, and are doing their best to try to help me.

:thumb:

calvinistkid
March 11th, 2003, 04:46 PM
Well, freak, I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but I have your back this time ;)

Z Man
March 11th, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Freak


ZMan re-read the apostle Paul's declaration.

If someone practices those sins they do not possess true life in Christ.

Just because we're saved dosn't mean we don't sin anymore; it just means that we are no longer under its condemnation. All of us are guilty of it and will continue to succumb to it until the day that we die. If sinners didn't go to heaven, it would be empty.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that sinning is ok. I believe that if God has truely saved someone, they will no longer desire to do the things they use to. But we are still human, and as long as we live in this earthly flesh, we will sin everyday.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Z Man


Just because we're saved dosn't mean we don't sin anymore; it just means that we are no longer under its condemnation. All of us are guilty of it and will continue to succumb to it until the day that we die. If sinners didn't go to heaven, it would be empty.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that sinning is ok. I believe that if God has truely saved someone, they will no longer desire to do the things they use to. But we are still human, and as long as we live in this earthly flesh, we will sin everyday.

Note the word I used: practice those sins.

Z Man
March 11th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Freak


Note the word I used: practice those sins.

What's the difference between "practicing" sin and accidentally comitting them? "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to watch porn today. It just happened...." Does it matter? Will God just dismiss those who "accidentally" committed sin? Of course not. Whether you practice it or slip up, you're still guilty.

Freak
March 11th, 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Z Man


What's the difference between "practicing" sin and accidentally comitting them? "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to watch porn today. It just happened...." Does it matter? Will God just dismiss those who "accidentally" committed sin? Of course not. Whether you practice it or slip up, you're still guilty.

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

wickwoman
March 12th, 2003, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Dear Freak:

What exactly is a "demon god?" Are you a pagan? Funny, I was thinking you only believed in one God.

Still waiting . . . :rolleyes:

wickwoman
March 12th, 2003, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by calvinistkid


Wickwoman, you completely missed my point. My point was that Freak's statements were completely consistent with Christian belief, and therefore your statement "and you call yourself a Christian" is thus invalid.

As far as him telling you that you are damned (I think I missed the post where he used those exact words, but whatever), you SHOULD thank him for it, regardless of whether he is right or not. If I (or Freak) see someone in imanent physical danger, I do everything in my power to warn them. In the same way, if I see them in spiritual danger, I do everything I can to allert them of their condition. Now what if someone was walking down the street, thought they saw someone pulling a gun on you, yelled out a warning, and then discovered that they had made a mistake and that there was no danger. Would you get angry at that person? Probably not. You would probably thank them for their concern. Why should it be any different with spiritual danger? I have been told by people many times that I am going to hell because I don't agree with them. As hard as it may be sometimes, I have to understand that they honestly think I am in danger, and are doing their best to try to help me.

I did! I did! I am Sooooooooooo thankful to him. Why, like I said before, if he didn't tell me, who would? Freak, you just don't know the impact you've had on me. :p

wickwoman
March 12th, 2003, 07:08 AM
The Lord is the operator; we are
But his innumerable instruments.
May we, in our consciousness, realize
The bliss he alone can give us.

-Shvetashvatara Upanishad


Has nothing to do with this thread but neither do the majority of the posts here.

Once again, the Christians team up and take over the thread in a barrage of scriptures and back patting. "Brother Freak, I've got your back." "Thank you brother Calvinist-God sends people to hell on purpose just to prove how just he is-kid."

Freak
March 12th, 2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Still waiting . . . :rolleyes:

I answered your question you just didn't like the answer.

BTW, God loves you and the reason your visiting a Christian forum is because you know deep in your heart that what we are sharing is true.

We love you!