For wjoever takes over for Zim
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
That was a good post, KCE, it explained a lot. Thanks.
No problem, it's always difficult online to truly understand where people are coming from, and thus, where things are leading. I'm hardly religious, but I am hardly a bitter athiest, either.
Quote:
FWIW, nothing that the Pope says would affect your father being kind & selfless. Worrying about 'looking like a dink' is as immaterial as 'worrying about what other people do that bothers you more than what you are doing for other people'.
The problem is that it's the pope, therefore my father is required to silently disobey a senseless proclomation that inspires no one with the glory of God.
Quote:
For your father & family, the church itself might be the cross you're intended to bear, who knows? ;)
You need to go to confession for that one.
Quote:
WRT the nature thing: I suppose thats the risk of long, involved posts.
One risk among many, as I should have been washing the dishes.
Quote:
I hadn't realized it was in response to another poster. When I got off-line, I reconsidered it. I wondered whether or not that factoid really had a place in the argument, you know?
I wasn't suggesting that you had anything to do with that argument, I should have clarified.
Quote:
Here's my thinking: Yes, the animal world probably does have evidence of gay sex
Could you run that by me again, I was startled by the neighbor dogs sodomizing each other.
Quote:
[I've read about it, thanks. I only wonder if the evidence hasn't been exaggerated for the cause]
The science says no at this point, so there's really no way around it.
Quote:
but we're talking about church law, which is a human construction and quite apart from nature.
Even if we accept that nature has a voice within church law, we have a further issue to be mindful of: Using nature as a source of revelation is a pagan concept. I've already shown that Scripture speaks clearly on the topic. To accept a revelation overturning that from the natural world would be Apostasy.
Exactly, and further, the fact is that civilization is created by the suppression of some natural tendencies.
I would submit that the natural tendency toward intolerance can be shown to have set back the causes of civiliation(Auschwitz, Rwanda, Nanqing, et al), but it's much harder tomeasure whether ****sexuality ever has, since most arguments in support of that are based on hyperbole and bad biology(reproduction is the only use of life, et al). In otherwords, there's a definite lack of serious science regarding the costs of tolerance toward gays, since those most interested in there being such a cost would never buy a book with gay in the title.
Sorry, trolling with that last one. Someone should ban me.
Oh goodness, here we go again..
Y'all had to start quoting sources from the bible....
"All of which is completely immaterial anyway, since A) Leviticus is instructions specifically for the tribe of Levi, and inapplicable to other Hebrew tribes, let alone Gentiles, and B) Old Testament Mosaic law no longer applies to Christians, as per Acts."
Wrong. Well, partially anyway. While TaNaCh (the bible) doesn't apply to gentiles and christians, Leviticus is NOT only for the tribe of Levi. It's mostly for Levi. Leviticus also has the laws of Kosher, the Shemita year (one year out of seven where all land is left fallow) and Yovel (the 50th year of the Shemita cycle), as well as important laws of purity and impurity, both relating to the temple and the family - All of which apply equall to all Jews.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: it is abomination," and "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..." Also Leviticus, IIRC, states that men wearing women's clothing are in a state of sin, or some such.
Actually those two verses translate literally from hebrew like this:
18:22 "You shall not lie with a man as you would with a woman - it is an abomination."
20:13 "And the man who has relations with a man as he would a woman, they have committed an abomination, they shall die, their sin is upn themselves."
Leviticus doesn't say anything about crossdressing, that's addressed in Deuteronomy and is a big no-no.
Deuteronomy 22:5 "Male garb shall not be on a woman and a man shall not wear a feminine garment, for all who do so is an abomination to G-d."
As for my unsolicited opinion, I'm completely against gay sex, gay marriage, etc.
possibly offensive perhaps funny:
what if the internet where around during the civil war?
Quote:
Ok, please understand the following is based on me being a self proclaimed Afrophobe (made up word...we could use the N word in front of ___phobe as well or simply say "N*g** hater"), and proud of it.
I believe afrophobia is a natural thing for white males. Now, that being said, Afrophobia is part of the Southern doctrin, and has been so for as far back as I can see. It's natural, and sometimes, Southerners like to proclaime it as loudly as black like to proclaim thier "blackness" to others.
Now, all THAT being said, and keeping in mind I am a self proclaimed Afrophobe, and proud of it, I think if the Southern Government wants to be loud about thier Afrophobia to thier own constituents, it's all good. The black community actively promotes thier life style, and belifes too, many of which are anti Southern anyway (and don't tell me they don't).
Now, all *THAT* being said, I could care less what someones racial preference is, so long as it doesn't include me, and so long as they don't actively promote thier life style to *ME*. I find the loud, black message to be offending, and I really believe most white males do as well, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT!. I have seen guys be cordial, and freindly to black men, and not discrminate in anyway, but then express to be all grossed out to thier white peers as soon as they are gone. I've seen it too many times to think it is something out of the ordinary.
Now, if the Govenor wants to openly denounce black to his constituents, who by the very nature of being Southern, share his doctrin, then who cares? He's just reinforcing the community ties of belife within his own following. It's part of tightening the commuinty he's the leader of by reviewing, and reaffirming the groups belifes. These Belifes ARE shared by the majority of people on this planet, let alone his own group as well.
Besides, Blacks are just as open about thier views (Black Pride equal right etc...), and may be more so. Each group has thier views, and speaks of them with in thier own groups. In this case, the Southerners just happen to be a group thats like a Million + strong, where as the Blacks are like at best 12% of the population, and I believe that number is inflated anyway.
The two groups should just ignor eachother, and do thier own thing, in thier own space, and leave it be.