Off Topic Messages

Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:05 pm

epfan22 wrote:no wonder i left this site


So why are you back?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:23 pm

TJ wrote:
The fact that the punishment of death was extended to other activities does not undermine the point. If anything, it embarrassingly highlights how no disctinction is made between homosexuality, incest and beastiality in terms of what is right and wrong.


You missed the point I was trying to make T.J. That homosexual activity is listed along with incest and bestiality is because these were all sexual activities that were part of pagan cultic worship practices. It's in this context that the crime and punishment sections of Leviticus 18 and 20 should be understood. In other words, it's pagan idolatry and the practices associated with them that is being condemned in these passages. In this context they are connected. This is borne out by Paul's comments on same sex relations in Romans. It is seen as a 'symptom' of pagan idolatry, which was what Paul was criticizing. That's not to say that same sex relationships conducted apart from pagan idolatry would have been hunky dory. We just don't know, as the ancient Israelites didn't seem to have a concept of homosexuality apart from pagan worship activities or male prostitution. The infamous Sodom story doesn't really apply, as it's more akin to modern-day prison rape, which isn't really about homosexuality, but rather about power and domination.

T.J. wrote:As for looking at it in the historical context, I do, which is what I was saying about finding the Bible to be an interesting historical document. However, if the Bible is the word of God, we shouldn't have to make the excuse of taking the passages with a pinch of salt because of the historical context. If God's word is just, our human interpretations of what is right or wrong should not override that with the passage of time. With some of the frankly bizarre passages in the Bible, that process is unavoidable in the interests of decency.


No 'pinch of salt' required, just understanding what exactly the passage is saying - and what it's not. (Admittedly no easy task with an ancient book that was originally written in an ancient language, some aspects of which are still not understood.)

T.J. wrote:It may be right that environment plays a role in some cases, but so what? Unless homosexuality occurs ONLY under those circumstances, the argument falls apart.


Agreed. But let me throw this into the mix. Elton John was married to a woman, and has had sexual relationships with women. There are many cases of homosexual men who were married to women and even had children, then left the marriage for a same sex relationship. Given this would it not be fair to characterize these people as bi-sexuals with a preference or stronger attraction to members of the same sex?

T.J. wrote: There is a huge difference between homosexuality and child molestation for the simple reason that the former is consensual and not harming either party.


If you meant to say that the former is between consenting adults then I agree with you.

T.J. wrote:It's easy to say that people should resist the temptation of sex if they are that way inclined, but that's like telling a straight person to be celibate for life, which is hardly realistic and hardly fair. Everyone deserves happiness and if it doesn't harm others, there are more important things to worry about.


Everyone deserves happiness? I don't agree with that. Regarding celibacy it's described by Jesus as a gift that not everyone possesses. That said,
we should not view sex as something that people can't live without. But I agree that there are far more important things to worry about than what takes place sexually between two consenting adults.

T.J. wrote:Are you suggesting that will be a difficult task? There are countless examples, not least Jesus being born of a virgin, turning water into wine, riding into town on a donkey, and dying and being resurrected in three days. I have dinner and pay per view boxing to consider, so don't have time to put together a large list. :wink: I'll come back to this later.


Nope. But I will suggest that it will be difficult to find material on these various myths that pre-date the New Testament. The vast majority of the surviving literature comes from the post-New Testament period. So one can legitimately claim who's copping from whom?
And don't forget to cite the Osirus legend T.J. That's one I've done some research on.

Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:51 pm

Renan wrote:
epfan22 wrote:no wonder i left this site


So why are you back?


:D :D :D :D

Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:47 am

epfan22 wrote:no wonder i left this site


I left too awhile back. However, unlike you I did not come back. With threads like this one, I won't be back either.

Now...where is that I'm Leaving thread again?

Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:59 am

Nobody Knows.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:04 am

Rob -

You wrote:
Now...where is that I'm Leaving thread again?


It left.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:06 am

Well, if it ever comes back......I'm outta here!

Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:09 am

ColinB wrote:Pete -

You wrote:
Regardless of what religious views - or lack thereof - we might hold, most of us recognize that adultary, incest, child molestation, and bestiality are wrong. And I believe most of us who are parents will try to discourage our teen-age/high school age children from engaging in sexual relations, so at least in that sense we're not in favor of pre-marital sex.

So folks, how do we arrive at the notion that these things are wrong?


It's simple.

Is anyone getting hurt ?

In all the things you list, someone is getting hurt:

incest & molestation = the child

adultery = the cuckolded partner

bestiality = the non-consenting animal

In same-sex relationships, two [adult] people love each other so no harm done !

You will notice I didn't say this was wrong simply not normal behaviour.


Not for the first time, Pete has no answer to the steely logic of my case.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:36 am

eh...

incest can be between two consenting adults.

tutankhamen and his sister ankhsunamen are a great example (there are two fetuses mummified in tut's tomb from them)--and don't even get me started on other royals and gods/goddesses of mythology.

ok, a few more.

hatchepsut and her brother thutmoses...ok, so she was the powerhouse here.

cleopatra VII was forced to marry her brother ptolemy VIII who was 12 at the time.

arsinoe and ptolemy VIII also married when arsinoe was playing queen...then cleopatra rolled herself out in the carpet for julius caesar.

the ptolemies had a lot of incest as well even earlier on in the lineage.

zeus/jupiter had sexual relations with a lot of his daughters, including aphrodite/venus. their child is eros/cupid. there's myths for ya.

jerry lee lewis and myra--second cousins.

fdr and eleanor roosevelt--fifth cousins.

with the exception of myra, none of these were minors. and myra was consenting to the fact that they remained married until 1971.

well, tutankhamen and ankhsunamen were actually even younger, but we are talking ancient egypt and royals here.

actually, i want to say husband/wife-god/goddess osiris and isis were brother/sister as well.

homosexuality and incest are just as immoral. and incest is NOT always non-consenting. actually, in many cases it has been consenting "love" and even wanted for the sake of lineage. immoral yes, but equal to homosexuality. actually homosexuality, in my opinion is even worse. at least incest still can produce children, although they are more genetically prone to deformities.

if homosexuality is lawful, then incest definitely is as well.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:37 pm

jeffreyjames wrote:God has decided what is right and wrong, not you or I.


I don't accept this argument.

It's amazing that with all of us Elvis fans and Elvis being the Christian that he was and sang dozens of gospel songs, that there are so many athiests in is fandom!


I'm not an athiest, I'm a rookie Buddhist. I appreciate Elvis's spirituality and his passion for his God in his songs, without necessarily agreeing with the details of his faith.

I think there is more than one "path". People who insist that their religion is the only way trouble me greatly - for that's the kind of attitude that causes wars and hatred.

I consider you a bigot because you regard homosexuality as "immoral" and "wrong".

Jules

Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:38 pm

Tits McGhee wrote:Will little dumpy Reg the chocolate packer be buying a new rug for the event? And which of the two will wear the bridal outfit? Both of them?


Grow up, McGhee.

:roll:

Jules

Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:56 pm

Jules -

You wrote [to Jeff R]:
I consider you a bigot because you regard homosexuality as "immoral" and "wrong".


Jeff doesn't put forward much of a case for believing, does he ?

Too entrenched in old-fashioned rhetoric, kinda like a Quaker or Hamish religious outlook.

Pete Dube presents a more persuasive, modern, flexible, and acceptable argument.

But even he hasn't converted this non-believer !

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:26 am

ColinB wrote:
ColinB wrote:Pete -

You wrote:
Regardless of what religious views - or lack thereof - we might hold, most of us recognize that adultary, incest, child molestation, and bestiality are wrong. And I believe most of us who are parents will try to discourage our teen-age/high school age children from engaging in sexual relations, so at least in that sense we're not in favor of pre-marital sex.

So folks, how do we arrive at the notion that these things are wrong?


It's simple.

Is anyone getting hurt ?

In all the things you list, someone is getting hurt:

incest & molestation = the child

adultery = the cuckolded partner

bestiality = the non-consenting animal

In same-sex relationships, two [adult] people love each other so no harm done !

You will notice I didn't say this was wrong simply not normal behaviour.


Not for the first time, Pete has no answer to the steely logic of my case.


Colin -
I have no recollection of never having answered one of your posts. Regardless, I was interested in everyone's responses to my question.
As for an answer to what you wrote here, I agree with you - save for beastiality. Have you not heard of animal husbandry? Or contemplated how it could potentially increase your marital prospects? :wink: :)

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:33 am

ColinB wrote:Jules -

You wrote [to Jeff R]:
I consider you a bigot because you regard homosexuality as "immoral" and "wrong".


Jeff doesn't put forward much of a case for believing, does he ?

Too entrenched in old-fashioned rhetoric, kinda like a Quaker or Hamish religious outlook.

Pete Dube presents a more persuasive, modern, flexible, and acceptable argument.

But even he hasn't converted this non-believer !


Thanks for the fair-minded assessment Colin! But for the record I'm not trying to convert anybody. Conversion ain't my job. I'm just trying to provide counterpoint in defense of my faith.

Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:46 am

Pete -

You wrote:
I have no recollection of never having answered one of your posts.


True.

But there have been occasions where I've had to coax, cajole or chastise you [like now] to elicit an answer.

As for my marital prospects, they are fine !

So, if you agree with me that the 'no one getting hurt' stance is a legit one, what need of the Holy Ghost ?

Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:19 am

familyjules wrote:
Tits McGhee wrote:Will little dumpy Reg the chocolate packer be buying a new rug for the event? And which of the two will wear the bridal outfit? Both of them?


Grow up, McGhee.

:roll:

Jules

Noooooooooooo.

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:43 pm

joeroberts wrote:I would say that a man who cheats on his wife is greatly more immoral than an honest gay relationship.

Yes, that means, in my opinion and on this issue, Elvis was far more immoral than Elton John (providing Elton doesn't cheat). Doesn't make Elvis (or Elton) less brilliant.


I didnĀ“t read this before. Are you kidding?

Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:46 pm

Elvis Babe -

As for incest between consenting adults, my 'is anyone getting hurt?' rule still applies.

In these cases, it is the progeny who are at risk.

Mangled genes etc. !

Look what happened to the royal family !

So it's 'wrong' in my book.

Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:32 pm

Colin, it's widely known that the royal family does not have a problem with two men marrying.....

Image