Three strikes and you're out.
- Thread starter dhalltoyo
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
So how is this?
Have we defined homosexuality?
I think not.
If I remember right, there can't be homosexuality in anything but Humans because we are Homo sapiens the last time I looked and Bottle Nose Dolphins are well Bottle Nose Dolphins (as one of many examples).
We don't have men with hormone imbalance attempting to put in place the weaker men as a show of strength, do we?
I would think this would happen at them sporting events like Soccer and Cricket, and even Baseball (you know with them steroids being used all the time).
The division between Man and Animal is too clear and to throw this into the mix just means that there is an attempt to define what it is, which is really impossible as much as applying the some of the other justifications that are used.
arkjarhead
Veteran Expediter
TallCal,
I'm the one that said something about you commenting on jogging 5 miles a day. The reason I said it was because Iceroadtrucker was bragging on being 45 and able to run 5 miles. I said well TallCal is older than that and I think he jogs 5 miles daily. I freaking compliment you and you get all bent out of shape and act like a kid about it. If you can't take a compliment no wonder you have such a hard time with criticism. Next time if I have something good to say about you I'll keep it to myself.
I'm the one that said something about you commenting on jogging 5 miles a day. The reason I said it was because Iceroadtrucker was bragging on being 45 and able to run 5 miles. I said well TallCal is older than that and I think he jogs 5 miles daily. I freaking compliment you and you get all bent out of shape and act like a kid about it. If you can't take a compliment no wonder you have such a hard time with criticism. Next time if I have something good to say about you I'll keep it to myself.
arkjarhead
Veteran Expediter
Here is the post where I mentioned your running.
IRT,
If I'm not mistaken TallCal said he was in his 60s and he runs everyday, and is in pretty good shape. How does that make you feel he is 20 years older than you and could probobly out run you. I'm sure he is use to running on hilly terrian where you are use to flat ground.
Here's your response to the compliment.
Regarding my health,which someone brought up,I'm a strapping 6ft 7, 225 and I do run 5 miles along the Bay everynight,along with all my gay and lesbian and straight neighbors.
And another response to the compliment
Dave,this entire thread is way over my head. I've been accused of sooo many things of late,bragging about my lovely wife,metioning I jog
Why get bent out of shape over a compliment? I'd hate to say something like you seem to be very intelligent. You might come out of a darn bag on me if I did something like that. Seems like the proper response would be something like "yeah I jog, and thanks for the compliment", but why do that when you can twist it a little and make it out like someone is dowing you.
IRT,
If I'm not mistaken TallCal said he was in his 60s and he runs everyday, and is in pretty good shape. How does that make you feel he is 20 years older than you and could probobly out run you. I'm sure he is use to running on hilly terrian where you are use to flat ground.
Here's your response to the compliment.
Regarding my health,which someone brought up,I'm a strapping 6ft 7, 225 and I do run 5 miles along the Bay everynight,along with all my gay and lesbian and straight neighbors.
And another response to the compliment
Dave,this entire thread is way over my head. I've been accused of sooo many things of late,bragging about my lovely wife,metioning I jog
Why get bent out of shape over a compliment? I'd hate to say something like you seem to be very intelligent. You might come out of a darn bag on me if I did something like that. Seems like the proper response would be something like "yeah I jog, and thanks for the compliment", but why do that when you can twist it a little and make it out like someone is dowing you.
Last edited:
Don't have any for Hillary, but I've got a few good ones for Obama. Can't post 'em, tho, cause then I'd be a racist instead of someone who just enjoys a good laugh.
I do think it's funny (odd, telling, interesting) that it's not even the least little bit racist to compare Bush to a Monkey, but when you mention that Obama looks just like Curious George, man, oh, man.
And you know about this one, right?
JBlog Central - The Jewish Blog Network | Publisher of Curious George Considers Legal Action Against Obama T-Shirt
I do like this one, for many reasons:
I do think it's funny (odd, telling, interesting) that it's not even the least little bit racist to compare Bush to a Monkey, but when you mention that Obama looks just like Curious George, man, oh, man.
And you know about this one, right?
JBlog Central - The Jewish Blog Network | Publisher of Curious George Considers Legal Action Against Obama T-Shirt
I do like this one, for many reasons:
There's an email going round that asks "Whatever happened to the kid on the Mad Magazine cover?" and it shows Alfred E Neumann morphing into GWB, teehee
PS How come I never see these kinds of things on McCain? He's pretty scary, if you ask me - and his wife looks like she dresses in black leather, and carries a whip, when the cameras aren't around.....
Nobody ever accused you of not being able to hijack a thread, eh, Turtle?
PS How come I never see these kinds of things on McCain? He's pretty scary, if you ask me - and his wife looks like she dresses in black leather, and carries a whip, when the cameras aren't around.....
Nobody ever accused you of not being able to hijack a thread, eh, Turtle?
There's an email going round that asks "Whatever happened to the kid on the Mad Magazine cover?" and it shows Alfred E Neumann morphing into GWB, teehee
PS How come I never see these kinds of things on McCain? He's pretty scary, if you ask me - and his wife looks like she dresses in black leather, and carries a whip, when the cameras aren't around.....
Nobody ever accused you of not being able to hijack a thread, eh, Turtle?
Ummm....may have to open a EO X rated photo forum?
And Freightchaser.....not sure either when someone makes that decision? Maybe at the same time someone determines if they want to be gay?
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
If you are saying that society would cease to exist because homosexuals cannot reproduce you are slightly confused - all it takes (at least in this day and age) for reproduction to occur within the species of man is two biologically functional donors of separate sexes - technology can do the rest.
I would however agree that is not natural, or as nature intended.
Perhaps .... but then the understandings that one has about such things as are contained within the Bible and other books of wisdom are an entirely individual matter. What your understanding is - and what mine is - may be entirely different. The point at which an individual believes that they alone have a lock on any and all understandings above all others, is the point where that individual may well become of little use to a society - because it is at that point where they become utterly incapable of seeing something from another's point of view. And once that occurs they are by definition, far more of a danger to a civil society than any possible benefit.
BTW, which version specifically are you referring to ?
King James ? ..... or the New King James ? .... or how about the 21st Century King James ?
Maybe the Holman Christian Standard Bible ? Or perhaps Young's Literal Translation ? The Wycliffe New Testament ?
What about the New International Version ? Or say, the Darby Translation ?
Are we talking Bible based on a Greek translation ?
How do you account for the fact that the Hebrew names of the books in Torah (first five books of the Bible) are based on the first word contained in the specific book whereas the names for the Septuagint (the Greek translation of Torah) are based on rabbinic names describing the content of the book ?
Wouldn't that be a a difference or change as but one example ?
Seriously David - which version of the Bible are you using - that you consider to be immutable, unchangeable, and absolute ?
Why are there so many differences?
You have led a very sheltered life then.
Yeah .... I'd really love to hear an expansive answer to your question on that theme ......
However, on the other side of the issue, I will agree that often those heavily grounded in only the physical sciences seem to have a very strange abhorrence for things of a spiritual nature ...... often believing that man is just a piece of meat ..... amazing how blind one might become when you focus in only one area .....
To some, the idea that a being, or beings, could exist apart, as something entirely separate and distinct from a physical body is utterly abhorrent and truly terrifying .... really scares the bejeebers out of 'em ........ ghosts, and things that go "boomp" in the night and all, ya know .......
Indeed.
Yes .... and that's where one generally runs into the problem ..... small men .... of equally small, closed minds .... seeking to condemn or deny that for which they have no real explanation ..... nor any true understanding ...
Worse yet are those that would use force or implied threat thereof, to compel belief or faith ..... rather than allowing an individual to come to either on the basis of the self-determined pursuit of wisdom and knowledge, or revelation, and seeking to truly know God.
Quite far from what the definition of "to minister" would seem to imply, me thinks ....
Or, even if it is "the truth" (or some portion thereof), that one actually has a full and complete understanding ..... (... for what man can know the mind of God ?)
One could perhaps teach a parrot to recite the Bible .... however I think most would readily agree that there would be little real understanding on the part of the parrot.
Well now .... yes ...... that is interesting point there OVM
.... hmmmm ..... lessee if we can run a little logic in this area:God creates man and woman and gives them the capability of procreation, with the apparent purpose to continue the survival of the species .....
They then have children (which also have the capability to procreate) ....... then God creates no further members of the species ...... thereby condemning all of mankind from that point forward to be the product of incest (which is a sin) ?
Dunno ... but it doesn't seem very likely to me ..... maybe there is more to know ........ perhaps the good Rev can enlighten us .... ?
...... aloud ?
You know David, perhaps it isn't so much your reading of the Bible .... or the telling of someone that you are a Christian ........ but merely the manner in which you do so ?
Perhaps it isn't the Bible or being a Christian that is the real problem ........
Well .... I'm quite sure that with the brand of "love" that appeared in your original post that started this thread, you'll have 'em lining right up to convert there Rev ..... yuppers ....
Lessee .... you essentially just described these folks as ...... how ?
"unrighteous, fornicators, wicked, covetous, malicious; full of envy, murderers, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful ....."
and let's not forget the real corker:
"that they which commit such things are worthy of death"
Quite frankly, I see very little love in your posting ..... what do see is a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, condemnatory pronouncements in a very public manner about what is largely the private (sexual) behavior among consenting adults .... surely bordering upon utter hatred.
Seems to me that I recall some scripture that might be worthy of your consideration:
"Judge ye not .... lest ye be judged ....."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ......"
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Yeah .... a student of "the verse" your might be (one truly wonders) .... a student of human relations and social graces you surely are not ..... I'll bet you are a real hoot in mixed company at a party ....
You know ..... sometimes one can learn all the words ..... but they still can't "sing the tune ....."
You mean like how it was for consensual age ........ back in the days of the Old and New Testament .... before we became "enlightened" ........ and raised it ? Wasn't polygamy also a common thing back then ?
Not that I agree with the motivations or intentions to pass such a law, but if one were to look to Nature (something some, of a religious nature, might consider to be "of God"), one can easily see the ages at which sexuality maturity occurs in man as a species. One might deduce that it is at that point where individual members of the species are ready to procreate and get on with their lives. And it therefore might follow that having a consensual age other that age would be an artificial and arbitrary alteration over what is the actual natural (or for some, God-given) order of things.
Of course, for such a state of affairs to be practical (where young adults could come together, find love, and begin to raise a family in the natural course of things) one would have to actually provide a safe, loving family environment .... as was done of old.
How many folks here today lived, after they were fully grown, with their parents ? Today it is looked on as "abnormal" or "unnatural" to do so ........ when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Maybe they had it right back in the day .... and we, with all our advances, "enlightenment", and "knowledge" have really managed to muck it up ?
On the matter of sexual preference and homosexuality, consider this:
The fact of being either a male or female is a largely physical trait. That is largely the functional, or working, definition.
It might then follow that if man is a spiritual being (meaning something that inherently is not merely a physical thing) that such a spiritual being is inherently neither male or female .... but has the potential to be either.
If that were to be the case, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that there then might be issues of confusion arising from time to time. I would think, just from my limited layman's understanding, that a proper "Christian" response to someone who was confused might be sympathy, or at worst, pity .... rather than condemnation.
FWIW, I do believe that homosexual conduct is a choice - there's very little doubt about that. One chooses to engage in the behavior or not. I will however agree that there can be a predisposition to having an attraction to one sex or the other ... and perhaps why that is yet remains a mystery to man.
As far as homosexuality being proven to have a genetic basis "by scientific data" or studies, show me just one - or for that matter, any and all of them - and I will happily show you "scientists" who have a far, far different understanding of "science" and "proof" than their brethren in the exact physical sciences. All such studies likely can be easily shown to be as "not proven" (at least not by any method a true scientist would accept) but perhaps merely an example of "coincidence". Coincidence is not proof - it is merely coincidence.
And because one merely claims to be something (example: a supposed "scientist" practicing "science") doesn't necessarily make it so ..... and by the way that isn't limited to just scientists.
"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Sorry .... but you are using flawed logic:
If you are existing as one thing or another (ie. a man or a woman), then a choice is only required when you choose to be something you actually are physiologically not (a man attempting to "be a woman" - or a woman attempting or trying to "be a man")
From a biological perspective, it is fairly evident that man, is a sexual species (ie. not asexual) - and the fundamental purpose of sex is, afterall, reproduction - the pleasure associated with it (a very nice touch btw) is just thrown in there to make sure the species as a whole continues to survive into the future - therefore heterosexuality is the natural state of things (ie. as intended by nature) Homosexuality is not. Them's just the facts of it.
Last edited:
Very nice and LOOOOOng there rlent.
As you illustrated the different versions and translations of the Bible or whatever a specific religion labels it...
Take the Mormons translation...when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount He made reference to having to go on a journey for awhile to "tend to his other flock" This is the opening for the belief of the Mormons to justify their existence...The "flock" in North America. So that said leads me to my own belief..." Me and My God"...God will be my judge and I believe I'll be judged on my own merits and HIS standards and HIS only...Not Jewish, Not Catholic, Not, well you get the idea....I don't think the all forgiving Lord will banish me for cheating the tax man or looking at a nice form butt....Remember it's NOT your translation or how many verses you quote form YOUR Bible...I will be judged by Him and Him alone...and I chose my own path to Him.
As you illustrated the different versions and translations of the Bible or whatever a specific religion labels it...
Take the Mormons translation...when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount He made reference to having to go on a journey for awhile to "tend to his other flock" This is the opening for the belief of the Mormons to justify their existence...The "flock" in North America. So that said leads me to my own belief..." Me and My God"...God will be my judge and I believe I'll be judged on my own merits and HIS standards and HIS only...Not Jewish, Not Catholic, Not, well you get the idea....I don't think the all forgiving Lord will banish me for cheating the tax man or looking at a nice form butt....Remember it's NOT your translation or how many verses you quote form YOUR Bible...I will be judged by Him and Him alone...and I chose my own path to Him.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well Ken ..... I figured with the long holiday weekend coming some might need a little entertainment
Yup ... I absolutely do get it
Well I certainly hope not .... otherwise I'm in lots of trouble ..... at least about the butt part ....
Perhaps it just could be that there are as many paths to God as there are individuals ...... and none is identical to another.
Last edited:
Another point: as the Reverend cited "the incompatibility of human anatomy" (with an anatomical description that was unneeded, and in extremely poor taste, besides), I'd like to remind him that what the human body was designed for does NOT include spending a majority of our time in a seated position, behind a steering wheel, either. Nor was it designed for the repetitive motions involved in doubleclutching & shifting through 6-12 gears, ( as my knee is currently reminding me). But the Reverend doesn't let that prevent him from doing it, and doing it a LOT, too.
Hypocrisy and bigotry make me sick, and cloaking them with religion only devalues the faith of those who find real comfort in their religion, IMO.
Hypocrisy and bigotry make me sick, and cloaking them with religion only devalues the faith of those who find real comfort in their religion, IMO.