 
Support Wrong Planet!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 7952
Location: Finland
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Aspie_Chav wrote: | You guys are going off track NT style.
To answer your question you need to ask.
* What are the survival advantages for the individual or the collective for being gay.
* What are the survival advantages of persecuting gay pay people.
I don't want to hear that there is non.
 |
Then don't listen. Homosexual activity is common throughout the animal kingdom and whether you accept it or not humans are part of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 5917
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sand wrote: | | Aspie_Chav wrote: | You guys are going off track NT style.
To answer your question you need to ask.
* What are the survival advantages for the individual or the collective for being gay.
* What are the survival advantages of persecuting gay pay people.
I don't want to hear that there is non.
|
Then don't listen. Homosexual activity is common throughout the animal kingdom and whether you accept it or not humans are part of that. |
Arrrgggh! Smart as paint ye arrrre! Humans are the smartest, baddest apes in The Monkey House. We are not Gods and we are not Angels. We are Apes version 5.0.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 31
Posts: 8767
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:39 am Post subject: Re: Homosexuality: What is God's real view? |
|
|
Very interesting, IdahoAspie. I appreciate those who take the time to respond thoughtfully in this thread. You could be right about Paul having the evil and the disease-spreading types of homosexuality in mind, but I would have to research the history of the time, not to mention Paul's original texts, further.
Thank you for your comment and insight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 5917
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello? God is a delusion. Delusions do not have points of view. What is Santa Clause's point of view on being queer? What is Apollo's point of view. Etc. etc. etc.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 31
Posts: 8767
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aka010101 wrote: |
Love is probably the only true redeeming quality of the human race, if you have a real, genuine connection between two people, than NO ONE, ANYWHERE should EVER be able to say it is wrong.
|
I agree, when we're talking about consenting adults. Jesus didn't say, "Butt into people's private relationships, and give them constant lectures." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 31
Posts: 8767
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DentArthurDent wrote: | | Before I get too involved in this can someone please clarify if Christians are supposed to follow the old testament. I am under the impression that Jesus threw it out and replaced it with the New testament, or at least made the New the first point of reference ? |
Last night, I happened to think of a much better way to explain this than I had been using. It's really very simple:
The Law in the Old Testament was put there so that mankind could work his own salvation. It was impossibly demanding to perfectly keep all 613 Levitcal laws, which is why God instituted blood sacrifices to atone for the laws they broke. Then, and as prophesied, Jesus came and died for our sins, with the expressed purpose of giving us salvation, free. So then, why should we, after the salvatory death of Jesus, continue the ridiculously steep climb of working out our own salvation, when Jesus died for us so that we could have it free? Jesus' whole purpose was to remove from our shoulders the crushing burden of trying to keeping all the law. Plus, since the Second Temple was destroyed (70 AD) a few decades after Jesus' death, there has no longer been any place for the Jews to make further atonement sacrifices for the laws they slipped up on. And that's true to this day. So, there has been, even until now, only one option for eternal salvation since 70 AD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 31
Posts: 8767
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | Hello? God is a delusion. Delusions do not have points of view. What is Santa Clause's point of view on being queer? What is Apollo's point of view. Etc. etc. etc.
ruveyn |
Oops, you've failed to meet the required pre-requiste I mentioned in the OP for responding in this thread, which is: Assume, if only for the sake of argument in this thread, that God exists. Because otherwise, how can you provide any answer to the OP question? You can't. If you assume in this thread that God doesn't exist, then your replies to the question of God's opinion are obviously null and void.
Please follow the rules, and you won't look stupid.  Responses in this thread which are based on the premise that God doesn't exist are pure derailments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DeaconBlues
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide - call me...
Joined: Apr 22, 2007
Posts: 2492
Location: Earth, mostly
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aspie Chav, what's under discussion here is hypothetical Divine attitude toward homosexuality and homosexuals, particularly the God of Christianity (a mellowed-out version of the Abrahamic Godhead, with a Son). Evolutionary advantage or the lack thereof doesn't enter into it, else you might as well discuss the evolutionary purpose of the concept of forgiveness.
_________________
You laugh because I'm different.
I laugh because the voices in my head just said something funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
b9
whatever..
Joined: Aug 15, 2008
Posts: 2471
Location: australia
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
if i had a petri dish in which there were 6 billion bacteria, and the culture was progressing rapidly in size not withstanding that 20% of those bacteria mate ineffectively, i would not give a damn.
so says god in my impression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 5917
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Oops, you've failed to meet the required pre-requiste I mentioned in the OP for responding in this thread, which is: Assume, if only for the sake of argument in this thread, that God exists. Because otherwise, how can you provide any answer to the OP question? You can't. If you assume in this thread that God doesn't exist, then your replies to the question of God's opinion are obviously null and void.
Please follow the rules, and you won't look stupid. Responses in this thread which are based on the premise that God doesn't exist are pure derailments. |
Ex falsi quodlibet. From a false assumption, anything follows logically. Thus any answer given to your counterfactual hypothetical is both a good answer and and bad answer. In short the hypothetical and the question are nonsense.
If my grandmother had balls, would she be my grandfather?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 31
Posts: 8767
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| b9 wrote: | if i had a petri dish in which there were 6 billion bacteria, and the culture was progressing rapidly in size not withstanding that 20% of those bacteria mate ineffectively, i would not give a damn.
so says god in my impression. |
If only theology were that simple! 
Your statement makes some human sense, for whatever that's worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 31
Posts: 8767
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
Oops, you've failed to meet the required pre-requiste I mentioned in the OP for responding in this thread, which is: Assume, if only for the sake of argument in this thread, that God exists. Because otherwise, how can you provide any answer to the OP question? You can't. If you assume in this thread that God doesn't exist, then your replies to the question of God's opinion are obviously null and void.
Please follow the rules, and you won't look stupid. Responses in this thread which are based on the premise that God doesn't exist are pure derailments. |
Ex falsi quodlibet. From a false assumption, anything follows logically. Thus any answer given to your counterfactual hypothetical is both a good answer and and bad answer. In short the hypothetical and the question are nonsense.
If my grandmother had balls, would she be my grandfather?
ruveyn |
Maybe your grandmother did have balls, but that is hardly relevant!
I don't know the Latin for it, but stop writing posts of pure protest. If you can't contribute to a thread, don't make posts in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
b9
whatever..
Joined: Aug 15, 2008
Posts: 2471
Location: australia
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | b9 wrote: | if i had a petri dish in which there were 6 billion bacteria, and the culture was progressing rapidly in size not withstanding that 20% of those bacteria mate ineffectively, i would not give a damn.
so says god in my impression. |
If only theology were that simple!
|
simple things are impossibly complex to a silly mind.
| Ragtime wrote: |
Your statement makes some human sense, for whatever that's worth. |
it is worthy for me to think in my mind in my opinion.
there is no definition of worth other than the image of worth in the mind of the definer.
pearls are not desired by swines.
swines that live among pearls will get their snouts blocked by them quickly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fuzzy
Ack! Thbbbt!
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 4187
Location: Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
Oops, you've failed to meet the required pre-requiste I mentioned in the OP for responding in this thread, which is: Assume, if only for the sake of argument in this thread, that God exists. Because otherwise, how can you provide any answer to the OP question? You can't. If you assume in this thread that God doesn't exist, then your replies to the question of God's opinion are obviously null and void.
Please follow the rules, and you won't look stupid. Responses in this thread which are based on the premise that God doesn't exist are pure derailments. |
Ex falsi quodlibet. From a false assumption, anything follows logically. Thus any answer given to your counterfactual hypothetical is both a good answer and and bad answer. In short the hypothetical and the question are nonsense.
If my grandmother had balls, would she be my grandfather?
ruveyn |
She could be a hermaphrodite but she'll still make you good cookies.
Look, I dont always agree with Ragtimes posts, but in this case, hes thought up an excellent one. Its novel, and the ground premise is controlled. For you to throw out your post just smacks of a drive by shooting. You are not contributing. If this were a chat room about apple pies, you just walked in talking about race cars. Non-sequiturs are fun, but are a nuisance in an ideological debate.
Within the realm of discussion as posited by the original poster, certain concepts are to be accepted as plausible. Disagreement with that premise suggests non-positional acquiescence and makes people wonder why you laid down your font in such a scurrilous manner. To be blunt: if you have no interest in accepting the premise, you shouldnt bother posting.
Ragtime, great post. Your focus on the social effects of biblically prohibited actions rather than an injunction against the actions themselves promulgates the fusion of rationality with spirituality. Not everyone has room in their heads(and hearts) for both, but it makes a person reasonable and well rounded.
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
"careful observation of reality is a holy book unto itself" - techstepgenr8tion |
|
| Back to top |
|
MrMisanthrope
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 23, 2009
Age: 42
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
+1 Fuzzy.
It's kind of like discussing Kosher/Keshrut "Laws".
"back in the day", when food sanitation was even sketchier than it is now, there were very good reasons to not eat potentially hazardous/infectious foods.
These reasons, understood by the primitive "medicine men"/priests, were totally incomprehensible to the rest of the tribe, so a fiction needed to be created to support their experience-based medicinal theories.
Pork "causes" trichinosos. So, Pork is verboten.
Cooking/marinading meat in milk can, if the temperatures are wrong, cause another type of food poisoning (from various bacterial sources)... therefore, keep Meat & Milk seperate.
Improperly bleeding a meat animak can leave blood in the meat causing early spoilage... "all meat animals must be ritually bled"
Etc.
It makes total sense that similar restrictions be developed for male (penetrative "as with a woman") homosexuality. Anal tears/fisures can easily lead to all sorts of complications... particularly in an essentially hygene-free culture.
After that? Well... spin is spin.
_________________
Malum Prohibitum, Malum Habenae Regum Est.
I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.
True Liberty Expressed as Fiction: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
