A frank discussion on Homosexuality.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Paul Osborne

Post by _Paul Osborne »

It seems so primitive.


Primitive? Do you mean the crucifixion of Christ? I'll bet you think many things that God does are primitive. I'll bet you think God is primitive.

This life is all about trials. The next life is all about eternity.

Homosexuals must hand over their lives to God and commend themselves to live the laws of God. If that means no sex and no marriage for the time being - then so be it. Obeying the commandments of God is what truly counts.

Paul O
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Paul Osborne wrote:
It seems so primitive.


Primitive? Do you mean the crucifixion of Christ? I'll bet you think many things that God does are primitive. I'll bet you think God is primitive. Why do you think that i would consider "God" or His doings primitive? Not in the least!

This life is all about trials. The next life is all about eternity. This life is about living fully in the justice of "God" and with goodwill towards all of "God's" creations. Especially with my "neighbors" as Christ taught we should.

Homosexuals must hand over their lives to God and commend themselves to live the laws of God. If that means no sex and no marriage for the time being - then so be it. Obeying the commandments of God is what truly counts. Are homosexuals the only folks who "must hand over their lives to God", and, "to live the laws of God."? You are right there, "...obeying...God is what truly counts." Recall the beam and mote parable?

Paul O


(I've responded above to some things in bold)

Paul O. below is pasted some of my post that i hope will help you understand what i mean by "primitive":
I'm surprised to read the old "test" theory from you. Am i safe in assuming "God" puts a test on a lot of folks besides Gays? Those born maimed, blind, deaf, etc. Is there a limit in this? I guess we're all tested or challenged in some way to some degree by that theory. It seems so primitive.

You say: "part of a master plan to test the inner strength during a mortal trial here on earth."
What makes you think that? How do you validate that beyond personal-pondering? Or, essoteric "knowledge" for the priveleged?


"primitive" in that, that is the reasoning of primitive superstitious folks with no knowledge of science or understanding of biology or how "God" really does govern the Universe. It is not by Priest Craft or through secret combinations that cast blessings or curses as tests or by fancy.

The crucifixtion of Christ was indeed primitive, as it was barbaric, and of its time and place. You didn't validate your thinking re "the master plan" ... Warm regards, Roger M.
_keene
_Emeritus
Posts: 10098
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 pm

Post by _keene »

Gazelam wrote:There is no such thing as a "gay person", but there is such a thing as perversion.


Prove it. I claim otherwise. And if rights are going to be withheld (marriage), it better be damn-well provable.
_OUT OF MY MISERY
_Emeritus
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:32 pm

Post by _OUT OF MY MISERY »

keene wrote:
Gazelam wrote:There is no such thing as a "gay person", but there is such a thing as perversion.


Prove it. I claim otherwise. And if rights are going to be withheld (marriage), it better be damn-well provable.



why do you bother with Gazzy Boy...sorry but he just talks in circles and when he does post he just posts gibberish..

and Gazelam can't prove anything except he is a little bit off his rocker...because to him we are all perverts..
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

A FRANK discussion of homosexuality? Four pages of atavistic leftwing tropes and sentimental can't dealing with this issue, puntcuated by a few words of original thought and defense of the faith by Gaz and Paul, and you call this a frank discussion? Well, perhaps frank, but hardly serious intellectually.

A giant groupthink party mediated by a continuous flow of fashionable verbiage and pop PC rhetoric that has little purpose but to frustrate serious discussion of the issue isn't frank, in the sense of being substantive.

Oh the pain...
_marg

Post by _marg »

Coggins7 wrote:A FRANK discussion of homosexuality? Four pages of atavistic leftwing tropes and sentimental can't dealing with this issue, puntcuated by a few words of original thought and defense of the faith by Gaz and Paul, and you call this a frank discussion? Well, perhaps frank, but hardly serious intellectually.

A giant groupthink party mediated by a continuous flow of fashionable verbiage and pop PC rhetoric that has little purpose but to frustrate serious discussion of the issue isn't frank, in the sense of being substantive.

Oh the pain...


And what have you added? For you to be able to appreciate nothing intellectual has been added in this thread, it logically follows that you must think you have the intelligence which others don't possess to recognize this fact. How wonderful for you that you think you are so superior to others intellectually.
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Post by _MormonMendacity »

marg wrote:How wonderful for you that you think you are so superior to others intellectually.

Right. Loran retreats into the last resort of the narcissistic, pseudo-intellectual: YOU'RE ALL STUPID!
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_marg

Post by _marg »

MormonMendacity wrote:
marg wrote:How wonderful for you that you think you are so superior to others intellectually.

Right. Loran retreats into the last resort of the narcissistic, pseudo-intellectual: YOU'RE ALL STUPID!


Well, in this particular thread Loran hasn't demonstrated intellectual superiority by adding ad hominems only and nothing else.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

The curse against homosexuality cannot be proven to have originated with God. It is like all things in the scriptures: given to the rest of mankind via a prophet's filters. And what influences a prophet's filters? The culture in which he lives. Thus the supposed ban against homosexuality is as useful as the ban against blacks having the priesthood: not at all useful. It is cultural, not God-breathed. We have so little that is God-breathed, we fill in the blanks with culture... and look what it gets us: repeated and continual oppression of those without power (and that group is quite large).
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

harmony wrote:The curse against homosexuality cannot be proven to have originated with God. It is like all things in the scriptures: given to the rest of mankind via a prophet's filters. And what influences a prophet's filters? The culture in which he lives. Thus the supposed ban against homosexuality is as useful as the ban against blacks having the priesthood: not at all useful. It is cultural, not God-breathed. We have so little that is God-breathed, we fill in the blanks with culture... and look what it gets us: repeated and continual oppression of those without power (and that group is quite large). (bold added)


"Ain't it the bold truth!" A Jack Nicolson line, "You can't handle the truth!" The curse of religion i respectfully suggest. Roger
Post Reply