Off Topic Messages

Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:56 am

:?
Last edited by elvissessions on Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:21 am

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.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:21 am

i'm not religious, i'm against gay marriage (but i have nothing against gay people other than i don't believe it's normal human behavior)...

as far as sex, language, and violence on tv and in movies, it doesn't bother me at all. ratings clearly tell parents who care about their kids being exposed to it whether to change the channel or not. and your tv can block off certain ratings if you really care about being exposed yourself. frankly, i feel i'm mature enough where a show rated tv-14 isn't going to bother me. it takes a pretty strong r to phase me as well.

thing is, i don't get all immoral/moral on things. i spent 10 months in a rehab for depression with a rather squeaky clean record in comparison with junkies, sex addicts, bolemics, anorexics, bipolars...you name it. and they were all between the ages of 14 to 18. i've come to not judge somebody until i know them. some of these people were the nicest people around who happened to make some bad decisions.

that's why i am able to be a fan of elvis without making judgements. i also love his gospel music. i listen to it often. and i'm fine that elvis was religious and i respect that. he spent his life looking for answers, though i don't think he ever found them. my dad actually commented on that.

speaking of which, some of my favorite comedians are aykroyd and belushi--belushi as you probably know died of overdose back in '82. but that doesn't mean he wasn't a brilliant comedian. just like elvis was a great entertainer, singer, and humanitarian.

what crosses my lines of moral/immoral are things like jane fonda, john kerry, etc... that's treason. and yes, that does cross my lines. maniacs like stalin, hitler, hussein, etc...they also cross my lines.

and i'm republican and very pro-bush, btw.

in the end, nobody is perfect. and i don't like people who go around trying to label people. until they show their true colors for the good or bad, i don't judge.

as far as i'm concerned elvis was a good man, somewhere in the gray area as far as morals are concerned, but good.

i honestly prefer the gray area, because isn't that where we all are? it's also way more interesting than seeing everything as black and white.
Last edited by Elvis' Babe on Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:27 am

Jeff, I really find these posts of yours terribly obnoxious, not because i disagree but because you KNOW exactly what you are going to get when you post something like this, and you act so surprised when you do. get a grip fella. you know what kinda bunch you're dealing with on this board. These aren't sunday school teachers. Sure if you met most in person, they are good joes and you'd see them for who they really are. but on here, most are an incredibally depressing, lost bunch. And I don't mean lost as in what might think. They just make being an Elvis fan a really depressing experience. Its a shame it has to come with all the knowledge.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:38 am

Well you're right Carolyn, maybe he isnt surprised. Maybe he enjoys the abuse, or its his clever way of trying to share what he believes and someone will pay attention! hehehehe Btw Carolyn, you're cool! even tho i disagree with you on this. :)

Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:58 am

Pete Dube wrote:TJ -
Your use of the bible's bit about putting to death homosexuals is a disingenous straw man. There are other sexual 'crimes' listed in those passages (adultary, incest, bestiality) for which the punishmnet is death, yet while we don't put to death those who engage in these things, neither do we approve of them as a society.


There's nothing disingenuous about it. That we don't actually put people to death for those actions is simply because it's a ludicrous suggestion in one of numerous ridiculous passages in the Bible.

The problem with Jeff's interpretation of homosexuality is that, like many conservative Christians, he believes it is learned behaviour - nurture over nature. Now he has to take that angle of course because otherwise God would have taken the illogical step of creating someone whose sexuality is inherently sinful. It's quite disturbing to think that anyone really believes no one is born gay, but precisely the kind of blinkered nonsense I have come to expect from those who rigorously defend every word in the Bible as being the word of God. How every word can be sacred when it has gone through so many incarnations and the product of so many sources is beyond me. Still we have some believing that the Old Testament was written by Moses. Anyone who makes a little effort to research that claim will soon find out that it's a ridiculous notion.

The Bible is interesting, as an historical document. It's fascinating to investigate how it came into being, the motivations of the various contributors and the strong reliance on existing traditions - many of the incidents in the Bible are essentially a retelling of older pagan myths.
To take every word literally is a huge mistake in the opinion of the majority of serious theologians.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:22 am

moses floating down the nile in a reed basket is a retelling of the story of king sargon...

and speaking of moses, ramses II had 200 kids and lived to be 92, meaning half his kids died before him, including the first 13--merenptah succeeded him at the age of 50 and died at 54. amun-kepchef (first born son) wasn't quite the shock as in the exodus.

if you want proof that the exodus was rather...embellished...watch a documentary by egyptological historian bob brier on ramses II...i think it's in the great pharaohs series--a trilogy along with akhenaten and hatchepsut.

it goes incident by incident through the exodus and explains them historically.

also, it was the sea of reeds, not the red sea. that was a translation error. translations of the bible have a lot of them. the sea of reeds is a marsh.

and for the record, the only faces in the bible we've ever seen are in fact seti I and ramses II.

and for the record, the shroud of turin was dated as significantly more recent--like 1000 years off. also most religious relics like st. nicholas' finger are in fact pig's knuckles and such.

yeah, you can't particularly take things said by the church or in the bible as fact. there are a lot of embellishments and tall tales that started off with a slightly less impressive but more historical story.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:37 am

Elvis' Babe,

I really enjoy your posts but you need to get your punctuation and use of paragraphs sorted out. :wink:

Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:54 pm

TJ wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:TJ -
Your use of the bible's bit about putting to death homosexuals is a disingenous straw man. There are other sexual 'crimes' listed in those passages (adultary, incest, bestiality) for which the punishmnet is death, yet while we don't put to death those who engage in these things, neither do we approve of them as a society.


There's nothing disingenuous about it. That we don't actually put people to death for those actions is simply because it's a ludicrous suggestion in one of numerous ridiculous passages in the Bible.


Disingenous in that you mentioned nothing about those other sexual 'crimes,' which is taking it out of context. Regardless of how harsh we may view the punishment sentence to be we would certainly hold today that the various activities listed in Leviticus 18 (with the exception of the prohibition of homosexual relations) are not good things. The reference to homosexual activity listed in Lev. 18:22 needs to be seen as a part of the whole. Viewed in this light it may be that what is being referred to here are activities that were part of pagan cultic worship practices. All of these activities would be seen as expressions of idolatry, potentially harmful to the people.
The idea that they were killing folks caught in these activities may not be accurate. Num. 35:31 is the passage that leads some scholars to believe a 'ransom' for crimes that didn't involve murder was possible.

As for the harsh punishments this must be viewed against the cultural backdrop of the time. Capital punishment of this nature was the norm. When compared against laws of other cultures of the time period the Mosaic law is actually much more humane overall. As someone who has studied the Bible, and the cultural background(s) from which it sprang in some depth, it's extremely frustrating to me when people view it through a modern day prism with little, if any, knowledge of the cultural background of the time in which it is set.

T.J. wrote:The problem with Jeff's interpretation of homosexuality is that, like many conservative Christians, he believes it is learned behaviour - nurture over nature. Now he has to take that angle of course because otherwise God would have taken the illogical step of creating someone whose sexuality is inherently sinful. It's quite disturbing to think that anyone really believes no one is born gay, but precisely the kind of blinkered nonsense I have come to expect from those who rigorously defend every word in the Bible as being the word of God.


There are two assumptions here T.J. that I would question: 1.) That everyone who is gay was born that way. 2.) That a person's sexuality is inherently sinful. Personally, I suspect that both nature and nurture plays
a role in determining whether a person is homosexual. In some cases it's genetic, in others environment, in still others a bit of both. But the genetic argument used by pro-gay activists doesn't really work. There are those who believe that some people may be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. But we certainly would not clap those folks on the back and say "Hey Pal, have another drink 'cause God made ya this way!"
Nor would we watch an epileptic writhe on the ground and not attempt to help them because they were 'made that way.'

The sexual desire in and of itself is not what is inherently 'sinful,' but rather it's the acting on these desires, the activities, that are prohibited in Mosaic law. And, homosexuality aside, we still recognize that activities such as adultary, incest, bestiality are not acceptable activities. In the cases of incest and child molestation many would, from both an emotional and intellectual standpoint be in favor of putting those who perpetrate these acts to death. At the very least we recognize that people who engage in incest and child molestation have some extremely serious psycho-sexual problems. We also still frown upon adultary. It's only in the last 30 years or so that homosexuality has been increasingly viewed in a different, more favorable light, and this may due to a well-intentioned, but perhaps mis-guided sense of 'enlightenment.'

Despite our post-modern sense of enlightenment (particularly when we view ourselves against ancient cultures), which includes a general tendency towards an 'I'm ok your ok' brotherly-love-lite philosophy we may not be as enlightened as we'd like to think we are. And we certainly do not know everything there is to know. It may very well be that, if we allow for the sake of discussion that God exists (or at least allow for the possibility), from His perspective the prohibition of homosexual activity (regardless of it's causes) is just as much in our best interests as is the prohibition of the other activities.
That said, the ostracization of homosexuals in our societys should cease.

T.J. wrote: How every word can be sacred when it has gone through so many incarnations and the product of so many sources is beyond me. Still we have some believing that the Old Testament was written by Moses. Anyone who makes a little effort to research that claim will soon find out that it's a ridiculous notion.


Not all Christians are Biblical literalists in the sense you mean T.J. What you are critizing is the 'Bibliolatry' of certain fundamentalist factions. However, I know of no one who claims Moses wrote the Old Testament. I believe you probably meant the first 5 books of the OT. But the Bible itself doesn't make that claim, only that Moses wrote certain things down. These books are thought of as Mosaic, because they cover the Mosaic period, and reflect his authority. So you should rightly question the notion that Moses wrote everything in the first 5 books. But you should also apply a bit of that scepticism to some aspects of the documentary hypothesis, which also has it's flaws.

T.J. wrote:The Bible is interesting, as an historical document. It's fascinating to investigate how it came into being, the motivations of the various contributors


Agreed! :)

T.J. wrote:and the strong reliance on existing traditions - many of the incidents in the Bible are essentially a retelling of older pagan myths.


Cite some examples please.

T.J. wrote:To take every word literally is a huge mistake in the opinion of the majority of serious theologians.


Fair statement.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:12 pm

T.J. wrote:and the strong reliance on existing traditions - many of the incidents in the Bible are essentially a retelling of older pagan myths.


Pete Dube wrote:Cite some examples please.


moses' reed basket story is king sargon's sumerian myth. look it up. and i think king sargon qualifies as pagan--as in polytheistic. he and his story also predate moses.

there's a lot of retellings in the bible. then again, roman mythology is almost in entirety a rip-off of the greek mythology.

it happens.

a lot of this stuff was orally passed down through the millenia, and when stuff is passed down a lot of stories get embellished to seem more amazing to the new generation.

mucking around a swamp called the sea of reeds (find that puppy on a map) while chariots get stuck in the mud, doesn't seem quite as impressive as moses splitting the red sea.

really, the true historical accounts aren't quite as mystical.

oh and for the record, any snake charmer can wrap a cobra around a staff to immobilize it (this actually paralyzes the snake), then you release it and it rears up.

similarly with the nile turning red from sediment, locusts, famines, etc...

stuff like that isn't quite so magical. though many people back when science wasn't common knowledge, a lot of things were blamed on and accredited to god(s).

Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:09 pm

Pete Dube wrote:
TJ wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:TJ -
Your use of the bible's bit about putting to death homosexuals is a disingenous straw man. There are other sexual 'crimes' listed in those passages (adultary, incest, bestiality) for which the punishmnet is death, yet while we don't put to death those who engage in these things, neither do we approve of them as a society.


There's nothing disingenuous about it. That we don't actually put people to death for those actions is simply because it's a ludicrous suggestion in one of numerous ridiculous passages in the Bible.


Disingenous in that you mentioned nothing about those other sexual 'crimes,' which is taking it out of context. Regardless of how harsh we may view the punishment sentence to be we would certainly hold today that the various activities listed in Leviticus 18 (with the exception of the prohibition of homosexual relations) are not good things. The reference to homosexual activity listed in Lev. 18:22 needs to be seen as a part of the whole. Viewed in this light it may be that what is being referred to here are activities that were part of pagan cultic worship practices. All of these activities would be seen as expressions of idolatry, potentially harmful to the people.
The idea that they were killing folks caught in these activities may not be accurate. Num. 35:31 is the passage that leads some scholars to believe a 'ransom' for crimes that didn't involve murder was possible.

As for the harsh punishments this must be viewed against the cultural backdrop of the time. Capital punishment of this nature was the norm. When compared against laws of other cultures of the time period the Mosaic law is actually much more humane overall. As someone who has studied the Bible, and the cultural background(s) from which it sprang in some depth, it's extremely frustrating to me when people view it through a modern day prism with little, if any, knowledge of the cultural background of the time in which it is set.



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. 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.

Pete Dube wrote:
T.J. wrote:The problem with Jeff's interpretation of homosexuality is that, like many conservative Christians, he believes it is learned behaviour - nurture over nature. Now he has to take that angle of course because otherwise God would have taken the illogical step of creating someone whose sexuality is inherently sinful. It's quite disturbing to think that anyone really believes no one is born gay, but precisely the kind of blinkered nonsense I have come to expect from those who rigorously defend every word in the Bible as being the word of God.


There are two assumptions here T.J. that I would question: 1.) That everyone who is gay was born that way. 2.) That a person's sexuality is inherently sinful. Personally, I suspect that both nature and nurture plays
a role in determining whether a person is homosexual. In some cases it's genetic, in others environment, in still others a bit of both. But the genetic argument used by pro-gay activists doesn't really work. There are those who believe that some people may be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. But we certainly would not clap those folks on the back and say "Hey Pal, have another drink 'cause God made ya this way!"
Nor would we watch an epileptic writhe on the ground and not attempt to help them because they were 'made that way.'

The sexual desire in and of itself is not what is inherently 'sinful,' but rather it's the acting on these desires, the activities, that are prohibited in Mosaic law. And, homosexuality aside, we still recognize that activities such as adultary, incest, bestiality are not acceptable activities. In the cases of incest and child molestation many would, from both an emotional and intellectual standpoint be in favor of putting those who perpetrate these acts to death. At the very least we recognize that people who engage in incest and child molestation have some extremely serious psycho-sexual problems. We also still frown upon adultary. It's only in the last 30 years or so that homosexuality has been increasingly viewed in a different, more favorable light, and this may due to a well-intentioned, but perhaps mis-guided sense of 'enlightenment.'

Despite our post-modern sense of enlightenment (particularly when we view ourselves against ancient cultures), which includes a general tendency towards an 'I'm ok your ok' brotherly-love-lite philosophy we may not be as enlightened as we'd like to think we are. And we certainly do not know everything there is to know. It may very well be that, if we allow for the sake of discussion that God exists (or at least allow for the possibility), from His perspective the prohibition of homosexual activity (regardless of it's causes) is just as much in our best interests as is the prohibition of the other activities.
That said, the ostracization of homosexuals in our societys should cease.


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

Pete Dube wrote:
T.J. wrote: How every word can be sacred when it has gone through so many incarnations and the product of so many sources is beyond me. Still we have some believing that the Old Testament was written by Moses. Anyone who makes a little effort to research that claim will soon find out that it's a ridiculous notion.


Not all Christians are Biblical literalists in the sense you mean T.J. What you are critizing is the 'Bibliolatry' of certain fundamentalist factions. However, I know of no one who claims Moses wrote the Old Testament. I believe you probably meant the first 5 books of the OT. But the Bible itself doesn't make that claim, only that Moses wrote certain things down. These books are thought of as Mosaic, because they cover the Mosaic period, and reflect his authority. So you should rightly question the notion that Moses wrote everything in the first 5 books. But you should also apply a bit of that scepticism to some aspects of the documentary hypothesis, which also has it's flaws.


You are right, I was referring to the fundamentalist view and I was referring to the first five books of the OT. My criticism was of the blinkered view of those who do claim that Moses was responsible of every word of the first five books and, as you know, there are those who stand firm by that false assertion.

Pete Dube wrote:
T.J. wrote:and the strong reliance on existing traditions - many of the incidents in the Bible are essentially a retelling of older pagan myths.


Cite some examples please.
[/quote']

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.

Pete Dube wrote:
T.J. wrote:To take every word literally is a huge mistake in the opinion of the majority of serious theologians.


Fair statement.


And I'm glad that you agree. It is really only the literalists that I have a hard time understanding. Even though they are believers, it appears they have made no effort to investigate the origins of the book.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:32 pm

Elvis' Babe wrote:
T.J. wrote:and the strong reliance on existing traditions - many of the incidents in the Bible are essentially a retelling of older pagan myths.


Pete Dube wrote:Cite some examples please.


moses' reed basket story is king sargon's sumerian myth. look it up. and i think king sargon qualifies as pagan--as in polytheistic. he and his story also predate moses.


See my response to you on this particular claim on the other thread.

Elvis Babe wrote:
there's a lot of retellings in the bible. then again, roman mythology is almost in entirety a rip-off of the greek mythology.


In fairness to the ancient Romans it wasn't so much a rip-off as it was the Romans immersing themselves in Hellenistic culture.


Elvis' Babe wrote:mucking around a swamp called the sea of reeds (find that puppy on a map) while chariots get stuck in the mud, doesn't seem quite as impressive as moses splitting the red sea.


See my response to this on the other thread. I will add here that a scientist with an interest in Biblical mysteries has spent time investigating this issue, and believes he's located the general crossing area, and has explained the parting of the sea as an actual physical phenomenon for which there is a technical term (I can't think of the name). All that is necessary is for the wind to blow at the right speed, from the right direction, and for the bottom of the sea to have a slope or incline of several feet in width minimum perpendicular to the direction of the wind. The end result would be a wall of water on one side of the exposed slope. I also watched a documentary several years ago where 2 engineers performed an experiment designed to replicate the sea parting which involved air being blown across a water chamber. Lo & behold they were able to create a gap in the water by the blown air, with walls of water on each side.

Of course this only demonstrates that physically it could be done. It doesn't prove that God did it. That's a matter of faith.

Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:34 am

I have to agree with Jeffrey James...

My opinion: Of course that this marriage is against God´s Law... Even if we don´t talk about religion, it´s against the Nature´s Law...

Have you ever thought if all the men in the Earth would be gay from now on ???? Well... I have thought... The human being would disappear when the last man dies... :shock:

Unfortunately, all the bad things today that are happening in the world is the lack of God.

Jeffrey: good to see you a person that reads the Bible and believes in God!!! I´m pretty sure you are aware the end of the journey is coming... :wink:





ps: I´m against gays... BUT I HAVE FRIENDS THAT ARE GAY... They are aware of that and they don´t come with "fun" with me... I can live in the same society but that´s my point of view...

Elton john

Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:38 am

... Have any of you gay bashers for one bloody minute considered the feelings of the gay Elvis fans on this board? How they feel reading your sick comments on their way of life?! Frankie, hes 57 years of age, a huge Elvis fan, gay, and a good friend of mine. Hes deeply hurt reading your comments. As a teenager he was raped several times by two catholic priests. You guys wanna talk about a sick society, lets talk about these so called servants of your god and their doings. Ofcourse these christian creeps were never convicted for their crimes, the church took care of that. Frankie on the other hand still has these nightmares on what happened to him some 45 years ago. Who cares hes only a gay man after all... May all of you sick minded christian extremists out there forever burn in hell!!

Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:02 am

That's some very strong language bud.

jeff R

Elton john

Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:23 am

...And a very weak answer from you, Jeff...

Re: Elton john

Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:06 pm

Tallhair AKA Ger Rijff wrote:May all of you sick minded christian extremists out there forever burn in hell!!


You don't believe in God or Heaven, but you believe in Hell?

Please explain.

Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:13 pm

Marco

From a non-religious point of view nature has no law.

you wrote:Have you ever thought if all the men in the Earth would be gay from now on ???? Well... I have thought... The human being would disappear when the last man dies... :shock:

And what if all humans would be men from now on? Humans wouldn't survive very long then, too. And men already make up more than half of the population. :shock:

Elton john

Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:42 pm

... Okay, change it into "may they forever burn in an Arabian dessert." And no, I have no muslim symphaties whatsoever. Or any liking for extremist christians for that matter.

Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:09 pm

jeffreyjames wrote:Well, Carolyn, I am a man and married to a woman and am very, very happy.

A man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman is immoral and against God's wishes.

I think making God happy is more important than anything. If anyone reads the Bible or listen to God's words, they will know that God detests homosexuality.

jeff R


Just a reminder, there is no god or allah or whatever. Believe me.

Re: Elton john

Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:55 pm

Tallhair AKA Ger Rijff wrote:... Have any of you gay bashers for one bloody minute considered the feelings of the gay Elvis fans on this board?


Haven´t we said that we respect their choices and can live with this even we don´t agree??

Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:11 pm

3577 wrote:
jeffreyjames wrote:Well, Carolyn, I am a man and married to a woman and am very, very happy.

A man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman is immoral and against God's wishes.

I think making God happy is more important than anything. If anyone reads the Bible or listen to God's words, they will know that God detests homosexuality.

jeff R


Just a reminder, there is no god or allah or whatever. Believe me.


That pretty much says it all, Jeff. No need to believe any longer.

Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:17 pm

Hey Renan...........do you still collect those muscle men magazines and gladiator films ?

Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:11 pm

Ezzz wrote:Hey Renan...........do you still collect those muscle men magazines and gladiator films ?


Oh, I never collected it. I think you quoted the wrong person.

Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:44 pm

no wonder i left this site