Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
Matthew 19:4-6

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Jesus did not say "male and male" in that passage, which He very well could have if it was OK.

He also did not say it was okay for the man to remain single - "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife".  Therefore, remaining single is a sin.

Jesus did not say "male alone" in that passage, which He very well could have if it was OK.

You're taking the word "will" out of context. "Will" refers to the reason that men will leave their parents. It isn't a prophecy for every single man that will ever exist.
82




It's scary to them, because then they have to deal with the fact that we have to take measures to control pedophiles, for the protection of children.  Pre-emptively.  Which is harder to justify, morally, when the person hasn't actually done anything wrong (yet).  Which is why being sexually attracted to children is not, in and of itself, illegal.  Being attracted to children is not something the pedophile chooses; acting on it is.


Then I can say that being a homosexual is not wrong, just acting on it is wrong.
But, how can you tell a pedophile, "Just don't do it!" when they are attracted to children? It would be inevitable., wouldn't it?

Just like how you claim that telling homosexuals "just don't do it!" is going to be extremely hard for them.
83
Matthew 19:4-6

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Jesus did not say "male and male" in that passage, which He very well could have if it was OK.

He also did not say it was okay for the man to remain single - "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife".  Therefore, remaining single is a sin.

Jesus did not say "male alone" in that passage, which He very well could have if it was OK.
84
If someone is against incest, I wouldn't call them an incestophobe.

If someone is against bestiality, I wouldn't call them a beastophobe.

If someone is against pedophilia, I wouldn't call them a pedophobe.

Wouldn't that sounds ridiculous if I did call them that?

I actually agree with you that "-phobe" is a misnomer here.  Those who want black people to be slaves again are not termed "negrophobes", they're just called racists.  We need a similar concise term for those who hate gay people.  Fear may be in evidence, but not always, and maybe not even in the majority of cases.  The hate is in evidence, though.

They are either sexual attractions you are born with, or they are free choices. You can't cherry pick which ones are free choices and which ones aren't. It's very scary for people to think about the fact that pedophiles might have been born with an attraction to children.

It's scary to them, because then they have to deal with the fact that we have to take measures to control pedophiles, for the protection of children.  Pre-emptively.  Which is harder to justify, morally, when the person hasn't actually done anything wrong (yet).  Which is why being sexually attracted to children is not, in and of itself, illegal.  Being attracted to children is not something the pedophile chooses; acting on it is.

In any case...
Protection of children is a cause to despise pedophilia.  This also applies, in most cases, to incest.
Protection of animals is a cause to despise bestiality.

What is a parallel sentence for despising homosexuality, Skep?
85
General Religious Discussion / Re: The existence if Israel
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 01:56:57 AM »
If blue collar jobs paid well and had benefits like they did back when a majority of the US workforce was unionized, I would not have a problem with my students pursuing those careers. It would be nice if we were willing to pay decent wages to the people who grow our food and wait on us in stores. But we are not. We want everything on the cheap. We want our workers to compete with slaves from North Korea working in Chinese sweat shops. We vote for people who make working class folks lives more and more difficult. We make it harder for them to stay out of debt. We even vote against them being able to get health care.

I come from a working class background of blackabillies from the south. My parents were the first generation off the land. I have cleaned houses and washed dishes and done farm work. I have lived and worked with low income people all my life. I have watched the economy increasingly help the rich and screw over ordinary working folks during the past 30 years. So I try to help working class people get the education they need to get better jobs as nurses and teachers and managers instead of cleaning houses and picking fruit. It is not about getting rich. It is about having the option of not being poor.

I want my students to be able to support their families decently and not have to depend on welfare. I want them to be able to buy a car that runs, and a house if they want, to go to the doctor when they are sick, and to have dental work when they need it, to afford therapy if they have mental problems. I want them to not have to declare bankruptcy at 30 due to unpaid medical bills. Landscaping and retail and waiting tables don't pay enough for people to afford rent in most cities. Look at the average wage and look at average rent. There is a big disconnect there.

If I am arrogant, so are the lower income students at the public, tax-supported institution where I teach. They are in college because they don't want to be unemployed or underemployed. They want well-paying jobs with benefits. They want to get their parents out of the fields and I want to help them get there.  :angel:
86
Something occurred to me.  Jesus said not a thing about homosexuality.  And you simply cannot tell me that Mary Magdeline, as a prostitute, did not have lesbian customers...why the silence then?

Matthew 19:4-6

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Jesus did not say "male and male" in that passage, which He very well could have if it was OK.
87
Homophobes need to embrace the term.

Just admit that you don't want gays to have the same rights as you do. Admit that you want them to live sad, marginal lives of fear, shame and secrecy.  Admit that you want them to pretend to be heterosexuals and get married to people they cannot feel attraction to. You want them to lie to themselves and others if they want to be accepted by people like you who will always despise them anyway and discriminate against them.

You put gays in the same category as people who molest children and do the nasty with animals. If you could, you would put people who "choose the gay lifestyle" in jail, or into mental institutions, or force them to get electric shock, or take drugs to destroy their sexuality. For their own good. Because all that worked so well in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

And if those "treatments" fail, there is always the option of suicide, still more prevalent among gay teens than straight teens. Some religious a$$holes, I mean parents, even push their children into suicide. Better they go to heaven as celibate virgins than act on their gayness and end up in hell, right? Or else they get put out of their homes and end up on the street where the wonderful world of drugs and exploitation await them. Do you know that a majority of homeless youth in Utah are gay kids abandoned by their religious families?

Why are you ashamed to be called a homophobe? If you don't like gay folks, you are afraid of what effect they have on you and on society. You are afraid they will destroy what it means to be male and female. You are afraid they will destroy your marriage.  You are afraid of laws that give them the same chance at life as you. You are afraid of them flaunting their deviance by openly holding any job, serving freely in the military, running for office, having a business, being served in any establishment, buying a house anywhere they want, getting married and raising children like normal people. They make you fearful and uneasy. The best you can do is feel sorry for them, and hope it isn't catching. Of course, you pray to your god that they will just stop being gay.

You are a homophobe. Be proud.

If someone is against incest, I wouldn't call them an incestophobe.

If someone is against bestiality, I wouldn't call them a beastophobe.

If someone is against pedophilia, I wouldn't call them a pedophobe.

Wouldn't that sounds ridiculous if I did call them that?

They are either sexual attractions you are born with, or they are free choices. You can't cherry pick which ones are free choices and which ones aren't. It's very scary for people to think about the fact that pedophiles might have been born with an attraction to children.
88
I think Skeptic also has to recognise the fact that his holy books says that people were made in the image of god. Both heterosexual people and homosexual people that is - oh, well, er, transexual, transgender and bisexual that is too. So we have to conclude that either -

1. God is, for some reason unable to get the sexuality / gender right when overseeing the growth of a foetus in the womb (Ps 139) and this there are errors.

2. God deliberately creates people other than the standard heterosexual model but then bans them for having sex for .... (insert reason, probably we cannot know the mind of god or it is mysterious)

3. People put the bits in the bible about homosexuality in the bible as they, personally, despised it and in so doing went against the will of god.

I could think of other things but I am cooking dinner too. So which could it be? Surely an all-powerful god can have his creation exactly as he wants it so in reality, only 2 and 3 are seriously possible. Which could it be, Skep?

Transgender people are sinning as well. It's just that in this day and age we glorify sin, so people feel more free to sin in public. There's even TV shows out now about transgendered people. They are trying to brainwash the public by shoving it in people's faces. If you're transgender, that's one thing, but it's another thing to try to shove it in everyone's faces. That turns a lot of us off, even if we are trying to be tolerant. How can we be tolerant when they demand special treatment and TV shows? If they want to be equal, they don't have to shove it in people's faces.
89
General Religious Discussion / Re: Will a Christian explain freewill to me
« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 12:14:22 AM »
we may not know 100% that planes can fly after all just because at any given moment there is over 100 000 civilian planes in the sky does not mean we can know for a FACT that it is true that the theory of flight is a fact, after all it is only a theory and we know that planes do crash. it could be that they just appear to be flying.

you could argue planes kind of just leap instead of actually really fly for a fact.

therefore god is true.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10