Banner
Xtra Smileys
[Open]
We Unite Gaming
May 23, 2025, 07:56:59 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to We Unite Gaming!
Formerly Wii Unite/Wii Unite Gaming
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Youtube Channel Chatbox Staff List Login Register  

A Message to All the Homosexuals

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A Message to All the Homosexuals  (Read 6050 times)
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: December 01, 2010, 08:10:58 am »


All of Leviticus 20 basically states that people will die if they perform these "illegal" acts. Where are the dead people? Shouldn't God smite them down as soon as the act is complete? I understand there is no time limit stated, but it very clearly states death. So, if you believe every word of the bible and these people aren't being killed when they commit these sins, then doesn't that prove to you that the bible is inaccurate?

I'm sorry, but the interpretation question and response are not basic. I know you stated that it is not open to private interpretation, so where is the public interpretation? I suppose God has spoken to you directly and explained it? If not, then who interprets for you? But I'm sure you will simply state the option of God speaking to you as this can't be proven or dis-proven (is that a word??).

Sorry Kreater, I don't have time to respond to your posts right now. We'll get back it tomorrow  Afro
Yes, He does say that they are to be put to death.  But if either the fact of their sin could not be proved or the magistrates did not do their duty, God would take the work into his own hands: "I will cut him off, v. 3."  Just take note that (I believe) those that escape punishment from men, yet shall not escape the righteous judgments of God eventually; Some people unfortunately deceive themselves and promise themselves exemption of the punishment of sin. To them I ask, how can they escape God's wrath and judgment?

God knows all, so the sin shouldn't have to be proven. And I will say that a lot of these sins ARE proven as people have openly stated they are homosexual or people have been caught in the act, etc., yet they still live. It doesn't state in the bible that man is the one to put them to death (at least not in Leviticus 20...not that I saw). According to Genesis, God cleared out everyone before, so he could certainly be the one to put these people to death and not rely on man. I actually interpret these passages as God being the one to enact the death. He knows who is sinning, so it makes sense that he be the one to deliver death, especially since he is the ultimate judge. Plus, we all know that if we were to put people to death for these biblical crimes then we would end up in prison as they contradict our man-made laws. If you had proof that someone was breaking these rules, would you put them to death as the bible has instructed? If you believe God is to kill them then why doesn't God do it?

I'm not going to dispute the fact that God could eventually make them pay for their sins, but why wait? It doesn't state that in those passages. It states that if they do it they will be put to death. Sounds immediate to me.

I've never really read the bible, so I'm going through it now. I'm sure there will be other sections that state things about stoning or whatever and I will eventually get there to give more examples. Some other passages in Leviticus talk about not picking all the grapes in a vineyard and leaving a certain number for the poor. I'm assuming none of you own a vineyard, so you aren't in the position to violate that one, but do you drink wine or eat grapes? If so, then I'm guessing that you are supporting the breaking of this rule. I know I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure whoever owns those vineyards isn't following that rule.

There was another passage too that talked about planting trees for food. Anyone have a garden? Did you eat anything from the garden in the first three years? According to the bible it is uncircumcised. In the fourth year it has to be used to praise God and you can eat it in the fifth year.

Not sure what it means to "not round the corners of your head", but what about not being allowed to mar the corners of your beard? Are we to infer that everyone should have a beard? And if they do, they certainly aren't allowed to mar the corners.

Anyone have a tattoo? That's not permitted either. No markings on the skin. The bible doesn't state what the punishment is, but it's not allowed.

These are just a few examples of things I found.
Report Spam   Logged

Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #211 on: December 01, 2010, 08:16:48 am »

Actually Term, I said there is no gene for sexual orientation.  Then had you even bothered to read my later posts, I went on to explain how genetic and biological are two different things.  Here, I am now saying heterosexuality is biological.  Nowhere did I say it was genetic.  I have NOT contradicted myself, nor lost credibility.  If anyone lost credibility here it is you for your lack of reading comprehension and your misunderstanding the difference between genetic and biological (although DDD has lost a lot of credibility as well for holding to the ignorant notion that all human law is based on productivity).

I did read your posts and that's where I found your contradiction. I understand what I read and I have found the contradiction. You stated that it's biological and not genetic. I didn't disagree with you. But then you stated that it's genetic. Which is it??

It's right here:

interesting theory, but too bad there does not exist a homosexual gene.  you can't really call it genetic then can you?

I like how without any reason whatsoever you just dismissed a topic that to this day is still vastly researched within the scientific community.

lolwut?

The human genome has been mapped.  There does not exist a sexual orientation gene.  Where is the debate?  I simply stated a scientific fact.

Where did I state that heterosexuality wasn't biological? I merely asked you to define it. I expected you of all people to respond according to what I wrote Ohio  Tongue You failed me  Cheesy

I was referring to your statement when K said parents are male and female and your response to that was that that argument pointed to environment not biology.  So I did respond to what you wrote, but since I came in long after you had addressed me and the discussion had shifted by the time I got here, I decided to respond to the current discussion rather than a stale one.  You asked if there is no gene for homosexuality, then how is heterosexuality biological.  I just explained how it was.  There are many genes for male and female.  Clearly heterosexuality is in our genes.

Quote
I didn't argue what was written in the bible Ohio. I merely stated that there are probably (and I've taken a gander) a number of statements in the bible which most people would consider ludicrous and not follow in this day and age. Therefore, people have decided that some of God's word is not relevant, but how can you pick and choose? How can you choose to believe what has been said about homosexuality, but not what is said about grapes for example?

Hate to break it to you, but I believe all of the bible, in it's proper context, is still relevant today.  So I would agree with you that people who pick and choose from the bible what to follow and what not to follow are hypocrites.  So your point is lost on me.

Quote
And in terms of interpretation, you, being a lawyer, can't honestly state that there is no interpretation required. We are supposed to take all statements in the bible at face value? I'm curious to hear your answer on this one.

Ah, but I didn't say no interpretation required, but rather it isn't open to private interpretation.  That means there is only one right way to read it and all others are wrong.  It is a matter of comprehension, not interpretation.  The bible says what it means and means what it says.  I don't know why you are so curious to hear that answer.  It is so basic.  I believe every word of the bible is truth.  It is the word of God, and as such is without error.

So while you may try to use the argument that many people who claim to believe the bible but don't really in order to make a point, it will get nowhere with me.  I am not one of those people.

I bolded the two statements for you so that you could read and hopefully comprehend your two contradicting statements.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #212 on: December 01, 2010, 08:37:05 am »

LOL you are clueless man.  I stated male and female is genetic.  Do you deny that?  I sure hope not, it is called an x and y chromosome.  Since my argument that heterosexuality is the natural way, then there is no contradiction.  You make me laugh at your inability to reason this out.  I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic.  Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic.  I state that it is not, but that those things that show heterosexuality as natural/biological CAN be found in our genes.  Then now you are all confused thinking there is a contradiction when there is not.  I still contend that there is no gene for sexual orientation.  I also contend that heterosexuality is natural and biological.  I also contend that our makeup of male and female IS genetic.  There is no contradiction there.  Sorry you can't read.


And then to address you point on Leviticus 20.  I will give you a pass since you yourself stated you know very little about the bible.  But the book of leviticus is a book of law given by God, to the nation of Israel.  It is the establishment of national law.  Nowhere is leviticus 20 purporting that God is to carry out those punishments.  Those are laws given to the government of the nation to carry out.  Much like America's death penalty.  Those laws are for our system to carry out accordingly.  Not any individual, and not God.  God stated many times in the bible that vengeance belongs to him and that he is longsuffering with sin until the day of judgment.  None of the declarations of death penalty in the hebrew law were ever to be carried out by God in this life.  They were for establishing law and order within the nation of Israel.  God's judgment comes later.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #213 on: December 01, 2010, 08:53:31 am »

LOL you are clueless man.  I stated male and female is genetic.  Do you deny that?  I sure hope not, it is called an x and y chromosome.  Since my argument that heterosexuality is the natural way, then there is no contradiction.  You make me laugh at your inability to reason this out.  I make the statement that there is no sexual orientation gene (and there is not) therefore homosexuality is not genetic.  Then you question whether or not heterosexuality is genetic.  I state that it is not, but that those things that show heterosexuality as natural/biological CAN be found in our genes.  Then now you are all confused thinking there is a contradiction when there is not.  I still contend that there is no gene for sexual orientation.  I also contend that heterosexuality is natural and biological.  I also contend that our makeup of male and female IS genetic.  There is no contradiction there.  Sorry you can't read.


And then to address you point on Leviticus 20.  I will give you a pass since you yourself stated you know very little about the bible.  But the book of leviticus is a book of law given by God, to the nation of Israel.  It is the establishment of national law.  Nowhere is leviticus 20 purporting that God is to carry out those punishments.  Those are laws given to the government of the nation to carry out.  Much like America's death penalty.  Those laws are for our system to carry out accordingly.  Not any individual, and not God.  God stated many times in the bible that vengeance belongs to him and that he is longsuffering with sin until the day of judgment.  None of the declarations of death penalty in the hebrew law were ever to be carried out by God in this life.  They were for establishing law and order within the nation of Israel.  God's judgment comes later.

Sorry, but you are the clueless one. Do we have to go back to the discussions you had with DDD about reading and understanding what you read. Your statement clearly infers that heterosexuality is genetic. Just because you are too stubborn to admit your contradiction does not mean that I can't read or comprehend. On the contrary, I read exactly what you inferred (that heterosexuality is genetic) and now you are trying to cover up your contradiction by claiming I can't read. Sorry, go ahead and use that argument on DDD, but it is not accurate in this case. You can't call people stupid to cover up your mistakes Ohio.

How does the statement "Clearly heterosexuality is in our genes" imply that heterosexuality is biological and not genetic? IN OUR GENES definitely implies you believe it is genetic. But you clearly stated that sexual orientation, which heterosexuality is, is biological.

Which is it Ohio? Genetic or Biological? You stated that they are two different things, so just pick one. Then maybe you can get back some credibility.

Don't attack me just because you made a mistake. It's your typical tactic. Attack the other person's ability to comprehend to cover up the fact that you made a mistake. You can put all the LOLs in that you want, but that doesn't erase your contradiction.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #214 on: December 01, 2010, 09:05:34 am »

UGH you are absolutely stupid.  Seriously.  How much more clearly can I spell it out?

I said there is no sexual orientation gene.  I have yet to say there was.

I said heterosexuality is biological.  I followed this statement by the argument that it is biological because male and female biologically are designed to procreate together.

Then I state that male and female is genetic.

Then I made the statement that you clearly are ignorant about that "clearly heterosexuality is in our genes."

This statement is in no way a contradiction to my previous statements.  It is merely deductive reasoning in drawing a conclusion based on the facts.  There is no sexual orientation gene.  That doesn't mean that other things related to sex aren't genetic (i.e. male and female).  And since those things are the basis for my point that heterosexuality is biological, and those things are genetic, therefore the argument stands based on sound logic, that heterosexuality is in our genes. 

Do I need to be more clear?  There is obviously no contradiction there. You are simply an idiot.

Let me give you another unrelated example to see if you can wrap your mind around it.  There is no gene for gamgling (I hope you can agree so far).  So I could easily state gambling is not genetic.  However, there ARE genes that control brain development with regards to impulse control and addictive behavior.  Those things are invariably tied to gambling.  So while gambling is not genetic, for someone whose genes relating to risk factors for gambling are present, it could be said that "gambling is in their genes."

There is not contradiction there, just sound logic in connecting two statements because they rely on the same underlying evidence.

This cannot be more clear.  If you do not understand it from this post, you never will. 
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #215 on: December 01, 2010, 09:16:46 am »

Again, same tactic. Same result.

Quote
Then I made the statement that you clearly are ignorant about that "clearly heterosexuality is in our genes."

You are the idiot. You don't even understand your own statement. Talk about being a moron.

If your statement had read, clearly heterosexuality is biological then it wouldn't be a contradiction. You wanted the reader to believe that because being a man and woman were genetic that heterosexuality was genetic even though you stated that there is no sexual orientation gene. Thus, trying to get the reader to come to the conclusion that heterosexuality is more genetic than homosexuality, even though there is no sexual orientation gene.

How is it IN OUR GENES IF YOU AREN'T IMPLYING THAT IT IS GENETIC??? Doesn't work. Can't say that it is in our genes if you also state that it is not genetic. Total contradiction. Wake up and read your own statements.

And your gambling example doesn't work. It's not in the genes, period, end of story. So, don't make an incorrect statement.

Here's an example for you:

Man approaches to greet a new neighbor who is just moving into the house next door and asks what he does for a living.

Neighbor 1: I am a professor at the University, I teach deductive reasoning.

Man: Deductive reasoning? What is that?

Neighbor 1: Let me give you an example. I see you have a dog house out back. By that I deduce that you have a dog.

Man: That's right.

Neighbor 1: The fact that you have a dog, leads me to deduce that you have a family.

Man: Right again.

Neighbor 1: Since you have a family I deduce that you have a wife.

Man: Correct.

Neighbor 1: And since you have a wife, I can deduce that you are heterosexual.

Man: Yup.

Neighbor 1: That is deductive reasoning.

Man: Cool.

.....Later that same day...

Man: Hey I was talking to that new neighbor next door.

Neighbor 2: Is he a nice guy?

Man: Yes, and he has an interesting job.

Neighbor 2: Oh, yeah? What does he do?

Man: He is a professor of deductive reasoning at the University.

Neighbor 2: Deductive reasoning? What's that?

Man: Let me give you an example. Do you have a dog house?

Neighbor 2: No.

Man: homo
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 09:38:44 am by Termin8or » Report Spam   Logged

jd111
WU Master
*****

Karma: 112
Offline Offline

Clan: OG, Dead Rabbits
PSN: the_jd111
Posts: 8781



View Profile
« Reply #216 on: December 01, 2010, 09:27:13 am »







no homo

Report Spam   Logged

PSN: The_jd111
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #217 on: December 01, 2010, 09:28:22 am »

Now that's something to LOL about  Afro
Report Spam   Logged

jd111
WU Master
*****

Karma: 112
Offline Offline

Clan: OG, Dead Rabbits
PSN: the_jd111
Posts: 8781



View Profile
« Reply #218 on: December 01, 2010, 09:30:34 am »

 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

PSN: The_jd111
the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #219 on: December 01, 2010, 10:32:48 am »

Lmao, I liked that joke, term. Cheesy

So anyways, I've been busy this morning and just got around to replying from this blasted 4" phone screen. I hope you appreciate it because it sucks typing walls of text from the phone. Kiss

Quote
God knows all, so the sin shouldn't have to be proven.
proven to the majistrates. Obviously there would be an accuser, therefore there would be a need for either evidence or testimonials from people to prove that the accused actually committed the sin.


Quote
And I will say that a lot of these sins ARE proven as people have openly stated they are homosexual or people have been caught in the act, etc., yet they still live. It doesn't state in the bible that man is the one to put them to death (at least not in Leviticus 20...not that I saw).
as Ohio stated, this was Levitical law. It was a lwas given to the people (in THAT time), therefore the people were to carry out the punishments. We are also told to follow the laws of the Land in the Bible, so currently, the Levitical law doesn't apply to our society and is not allowed to be practiced.


Quote
According to Genesis, God cleared out everyone before, so he could certainly be the one to put these people to death and not rely on man. I actually interpret these passages as God being the one to enact the death. He knows who is sinning, so it makes sense that he be the one to deliver death, especially since he is the ultimate judge.
He ultimately knows the true motives of his actions. I believe that in causing the flood, he saved many many people. (The world was said to have been that wicked) The flood and many other stories and scriptures are also symbolic and should be looked at in that manner. The reason too many people don't understand scripture is because they can't connect the symbolic nature to the literal word. In the story of the flood, it was symbolic of baptism and a cleansing of the earth to wash away the wicked. 


Quote
Plus, we all know that if we were to put people to death for these biblical crimes then we would end up in prison as they contradict our man-made laws. If you had proof that someone was breaking these rules, would you put them to death as the bible has instructed?

No I wouldn't, and I explained why not above.


Quote
If you believe God is to kill them then why doesn't God do it?I'm not going to dispute the fact that God could eventually make them pay for their sins, but why wait?


Ill tell you why. He loves each and every one of his children and wants us to return to him. Why do you think that repentance is preached and taught so much?  He wants us to have a change of heart and turn away from sin. When your children break rules do you kill them or do you repremand them in hopes that they'll understand the rules and not break them again?

Quote
I've never really read the bible, so I'm going through it now. I'm sure there will be other sections that state things about stoning or whatever and I will eventually get there to give more examples.
See, you've already set yourself up for failure. If you're just skimming through in in hopes to find things to refute against then you'll never learn anything about it. If you really want to learn about it then you should try and humble yourself and read with an open mind with real intent and sincerity. If you do that then at least your questions will be questions of inquery rather than questions of provocation and strife.


Quote
Some other passages in Leviticus talk about not picking all the grapes in a vineyard and leaving a certain number for the poor. I'm assuming none of you own a vineyard, so you aren't in the position to violate that one, but do you drink wine or eat grapes? If so, then I'm guessing that you are supporting the breaking of this rule. I know I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure whoever owns those vineyards isn't following that rule.

Again, Levitical law. Also, I don't drink. Wink

Quote
Anyone have a tattoo? That's not permitted either. No markings on the skin. The bible doesn't state what the punishment is, but it's not allowed.These are just a few examples of things I found.
I am against tatoos. Our bodies are gifts and temples for the spirit to live in and dwell with us as we are physically alive. Marking them (to me) is just stupid and serves no point what so ever.
Report Spam   Logged
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #220 on: December 01, 2010, 11:14:52 am »

I appreciate the time it took you to write this. I'll make a few comments.

Firstly, I will state that I haven't read the bible cover to cover, but that doesn't mean I've had no exposure to religion, the bible, etc. So, I have the right frame of mind when reading the bible. The reason I brought up Leviticus in the first place is that Ohio stated he believed and followed every word of the bible. So, I just wanted to point out that there are pieces of the bible that didn't seem to be followed in modern day.

Now, you two both state that Leviticus is for Israel only. I ask why? Why only Israel? Why not the rest of God's followers? Different rules? Isn't that discrimination? I would think we all live by a standard set of rules in order to be judged by him in a fair manner.

You stated that the laws were from that time, where is the updated bible describing the laws that should be followed today? You are saying that we are to follow the laws of the land even if they contradict what is written in the bible? That's very confusing. How do you know when the laws of the land go too far? How do you know which ones to follow if there are a number of contradictions? For example, if the laws of the land state that kechua marriage is legal then shouldn't priests, pastors, ministers, etc have to perform kechua marriages? If they don't then they are going against the laws of the land.

Yes, I have heard about the baptismal symbolism  Afro

You and Ohio disagreed on who should carry out the punishments in Leviticus. To me, it's not clear as to who should carry out those punishments; however, I don't understand how God can put someone to death if there is heaven and hell....symbolically speaking you could say that death means eternal punishment, but why didn't he just say that? Why didn't he say eternal damnation. Isn't that phrase used elsewhere in the bible? If so, then that would lead me to believe he meant death in our lifetime. I'm deducing here  Wink So, that means the people should be the judge and not God as we haven't seen God kill these people. You are saying that we aren't killing these people because times have changed and we can ignore those laws now. Or those only applied to Israel. And if those apply to Israel then I assume they are still valid laws...I haven't checked the laws of Israel, but I'm guessing they don't follow them as they are written.

That brings me back to my initial questions....How do we know what laws we can ignore?
Report Spam   Logged

the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #221 on: December 01, 2010, 11:26:17 am »

Give me some time to get to a PC, term. I don't like quoting from my phone and I'd like to give a valid response on my part. Just know that I understand your concern and questioning, as I too sometimes have to ask myself and God, why, and for what motives? I also believe, and have been taught, that God hasn't revealed all that is and can be, but he's given us sufficient knowledge and information to get back to him, so as I told DDD, I work with what I've been given.
Report Spam   Logged
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #222 on: December 01, 2010, 01:02:20 pm »

Well, Term, first, I do not know what K believes.  However levitical law was the national law given to the nation of Israel.  And your question concerning why don't we also follow levitical law can be answered by reading the book of Hebrews.  You see, in the Old Testament (another word for testament is Covenant), God chose a special people to be His nation.  He gave them laws and entered into covenant with them.  All of the levitical law was designed to be how God dealt with mankind and His people prior to sending Christ.  Hebrews says the Old Testament law was a "picture of things to come."  It was foreshadowing of Christ.  The people of the old testament were bound to keep the law.  However scripture says the law's only purpose was to condemn mankind and make them accountable to God.  Christ's purpose was to fulfill the law.  He came, lived subject to the same levitical law, and kept it perfectly.  He fulfilled the law in himself.  We are no longer under the levitical law itself because Christ has come and fulfilled it.  We are now under the New Testament of grace. 

That being said, God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  His standards never change.  So while we are not bound to keep the law in all its pictures, rituals, ceremonies, and such, we are still under the spirit of the law.  God's precepts of right and wrong never changed. 

I know the transition from old covenant and new covenant is a very deep subject that would take books to really expound upon, I hope that is at least a brief synopsys of how it works to answer your questions about why we no longer follow the hebrew law.  It is not that we pick and choose what applies today, it is that we follow what the bible says to follow.  And the new testament makes it clear that the levitical law is fulfilled in Christ and done away with.


And finally, you are still wrong on saying I contradicted myself.  Thanks for the joke about deductive reasoning, but it was pointless.  You still have missed the point.  I still contend that there is no sexual orientation gene, either for hetero or homosexuality.  If you think my belief (and scientifically supported) that male and female and procreation are genetic, and that they also form the basis for heterosexuality, is somehow contradictory to my prior statement, so be it.  You have a right to be wrong.  Those things do not contradict one another.  Had I previously said there is no sexual orientation gene, and then followed it with saying "sexual orientation is in our genes" then that would be a contradiction.  But I didn't say that.  I said heterosexuality is in our genes.  There is a difference.  Because heterosexuality is only "in our genes" in the sense that male and female is genetic, as is the instinct to procreate.  If you have such a problem with those two statements coexisting, then answer these two questions.

1)  Is there a gene on the human genome for sexual orientation?
2)  Is sex (male and female) determined by specific genes on the human genome?

Hopefully you'll be honest and your answer to #1 will be no and your answer to #2 will be yes.

So we are in agreement on the basis for my two statements regarding gentics.

The only difference is that I believe that the whole notion of male and female and procreation necessitate heterosexuality.  With such a belief, it is basic logic that therefore heterosexuality is genetic in the sense that male and female is genetic, and heterosexuality naturally flows from that genetic makeup. 

Based upon that, you can hopefully see that with my beliefs, there is no contradiction whatsoever in my statements.  The only way there are is if you do not believe the existance of male and female necessitates heterosexuality.  If you don't believe that, that is your prerogative, but don't come here calling me out as a hypocrite or saying I lost credibility for contradicting myself when I did not.  My statements, given my personal beliefs, gel perfectly with one another.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #223 on: December 01, 2010, 01:57:05 pm »

um, not true.

they mapped the entire human gene.  you might be referring to the sequencing of the gene.  They completed 95% of the genetic sequence to 99.99% accuracy in 2003, but the mapping and identification of the genes was completed in 1994, early on in the project.

Obviously, genetic and biological are two very different terms.  There is NO gene for sexual orientation, so you can't call homosexuality genetic.  The human genome project has sparked many other research projects into biological effects of the genes, but that doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is not genetic, only leaves open the door for biological factors (which no one has still yet to make any connection to homosexuality).

Let me ask you this:

1) Did you state that there is no sexual orientation gene?
2) Did you state that homosexuality was biological and not genetic?
3) Did you state that heterosexuality was biological and not genetic?
4) Did you state that because procreation requires a man and a woman (gender is based on genetics), one could deduce that heterosexuality is essentially genetic?

I assume you will answer "yes" to all of these questions.

Just because being a man and woman is genetic and we need a man and a woman to procreate does not mean that heterosexuality is genetic. You could basically state the same thing with two men (gender being genetic) who are drawn to one another in a sexual way (homosexuality). It's obviously in their genes to be drawn to one another considering being a man is genetic and they have urges for one another....Procreation is a whole other topic and does not change the fact that there is no sexual orientation gene. That's why your statements are contradictory. Sure, you didn't use the exact words "sexual orientation is genetic", but you stated it was in the genes, but only heterosexuality, not homosexuality because that suits your purpose. Just because it suits your purpose doesn't make it correct.

You're statements are contradictory. I've shown you that. If you want to be wrong and ignore the facts then that's your prerogative.
Report Spam   Logged

the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #224 on: December 01, 2010, 02:44:50 pm »

Man it'll be a while before I get to the PC, so I'll take a whack at it from the phone again. Tongue

Quote
Firstly, I will state that I haven't read the bible cover to cover, but that doesn't mean I've had no exposure to religion, the bible, etc. So, I have the right frame of mind when reading the bible.
That's good then, because there are people who read it for the sole purpose to find contradictions and use rebuttles. Someday I'd like to learn more about muslims, but not for the purpose of argument, but to see what makes them different in their beliefs, and try to understand Islamic beliefs.
 

Quote
The reason I brought up Leviticus in the first place is that Ohio stated he believed and followed every word of the bible. So, I just wanted to point out that there are pieces of the bible that didn't seem to be followed in modern day.Now, you two both state that Leviticus is for Israel only. I ask why? Why only Israel? Why not the rest of God's followers? Different rules? Isn't that discrimination? I would think we all live by a standard set of rules in order to be judged by him in a fair manner.
Ohio elaborated tis already, and ill just say that it WAS for Isreal, and only Isreal because they were his chosedn covenant people. He couldn't uphold the same standards to people that hadn't even heard of him. Judgement on people without knowledge of God will be different than judgment on those who chose to follow his standard.



Quote
You stated that the laws were from that time, where is the updated bible describing the laws that should be followed today?
Ohio also touched on this and ill add some as well.

The old testament law was for the covenant people before Christ. For example, they had to sacrifice animals to show their repentance. That was the law. When Christ was crucified, he atoned for our sin and payed the ransom of it by experiencing physical death. He became the sacrificial lamb (which was symbolic of the sacrificial animals in Old testament) in doing this the sacrificial  law changed and he gave us two "new" commandments (which aren't really new, but just a summary of all of the previous commandments):  love God, and love your neighbor. (Don't know the exact scripture off the top of my head)

Jesus said that He didn't come to give us a new law, but to fulfill the old. Consider the original ten commandments, do they not outline exactly what Jesus says there? Now our temporal punishment is subject to where we live and the laws established there, (as well as a loss of God's holy spirit and presence of it). Our eternal punishment comes when we stand before God to be judged. 


Quote
You are saying that we are to follow the laws of the land even if they contradict what is written in the bible? That's very confusing. How do you know when the laws of the land go too far? How do you know which ones to follow if there are a number of contradictions?
well, we are told not to kill, yet we serve in the armed forces and kill to protect out counrty. Am I a hypocrite in doing so?  Luckily the law of the land doesn't tell me to steal, cheat, lie, etc. Otherwise I would leave.


Quote
For example, if the laws of the land state that kechua marriage is legal then shouldn't priests, pastors, ministers, etc have to perform kechua marriages? If they don't then they are going against the laws of the land.
Not sure how it is in Canada, but here we have seperation of church and state, so a pastor, minister, etc...is at liberty to chose what ceremonies they will and will not perform.

Later on I'll give you an example of our liberty to obey or dissobey the law.


Quote
You and Ohio disagreed on who should carry out the punishments in Leviticus. To me, it's not clear as to who should carry out those punishments; however, I don't understand how God can put someone to death if there is heaven and hell....symbolically speaking you could say that death means eternal punishment, but why didn't he just say that? Why didn't he say eternal damnation. Isn't that phrase used elsewhere in the bible? If so, then that would lead me to believe he meant death in our lifetime. I'm deducing here  Wink
You're opening many doors now. Ill try and answer as best as I can. Keep in mind that I'm just stating things to the best of my current knowledge. I've only scratched the surface of scripture as I started 7 years ago, so I don't know everything there is to know.

As far as death goes, it can be literal, and that's why the people were told to stone the sinner. He sustained people to positions of authority and they were expected to carry the law out. If they chose not to then they will be judged for that.

Death is also symbolic. Spiritual death is something that occures as a result of sin. When Adam sinned the consequence was death. Well, physical death DID result, just not at that moment. Also, he experienced spiritual death, where  God's presence left him and he and Eve were kicked out of the garden of eden and left to fend for themselves. We are told though that when we repent then we are entitled to his spiritual presence again- this is one example of the spiritual death that can occure while we are alive. The other spiritual death is the "eternal damnation" one where when we die, had we chose not to repent and turned our back on God then we will not have his presence for all time and eternity (heaven). This is the worse possible death and was a scaring  tactic used for the people of Isreal I believe.

Also, as far as him not explaining everything to us, all I can say is that there's no point of giving a test if you're just going to give the answers to every question before hand. We are here to be tried and tested to see if we sincerely want to follow him, so he only needs to give us the information we need to pass that test.



Quote
So, that means the people should be the judge and not God as we haven't seen God kill these people.
in OT Isreal yes, the people were to judge in richeousness.


Quote
You are saying that we aren't killing these people because times have changed and we can ignore those laws now. Or those only applied to Israel.
Yep. We are living in nations that aren't lead by him anymore, therefore we need to abide by the laws of the land. If there was a nation lead by him then I'd gladly move there, but that's not so; therefore I go to His church where I believe he is in control and guiding it.


Quote
And if those apply to Israel then I assume they are still valid laws...I haven't checked the laws of Israel, but I'm guessing they don't follow them as they are written.That brings me back to my initial questions....How do we know what laws we can ignore?
That particular law (in Leviticus 20) applied to OT Israel. I'm not Jewish so I don't know the rules in current Israel.  And to your question of what laws to ignore; we are all free to ignore any and all law that we chose to. Again, God doesn't force us to do anything we don't want to. 

Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 29   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
© 2008-2014 We Unite Gaming, Wii Unite Gaming, Wii Unite
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy