Xtians, Homosexuality and Lobsters

...Funny how it all works... How we pick and choose.

ttt for rooster :-)

Eh, been done before and picked apart already.

Amen Helwig...I give it a 2.

Good old Kai.
You know, I almost got sucked in (no pun intended) and started refuting point by point. But the fact is, this whole premise is based on either a complete lack of understanding the bible or a blatant attempt to confuse those who don't understand or study it. Poor Jarvis is not very good at explaining his position and Satan disguised as a god doesn't do a very good job of convincing me that it's ok.

But hey, Kai if you want to lie next to another man and you feel absolutey no moral compunction about making out with him, having oral and anal sex with him...that's between you and the god you aren't sure exists. You know what, as long as you want me to "butt out" (no pun intended) I will. If you ever want some serious counseling or want to have a serious discussion about it, we can.

However, try to teach my children that it's moral, or try to pass laws to have the state endores it, and then it's not ok.

You vote for the people who best represent your views and I'll vote for the people who best represent mine. You teach your circle of influences, and I'll teach mine. You pray to your god, I will pray to Jesus. In the end, we shall see...

The best part is the implication that the people who are pro homosexuality are also so religious that they feel they can articulate God's will on matters.

How do Christians defend their position on picking certan biblical passages to obey and not others?

Bludhall, does God make people murderers, adulterers, liars, cheaters, promiscuous etc.?

And a man can overcome his sexual urges, I do it everyday. I have been married for 10 years. I travel for a living. I was born to have sex with every good looking girl I see. However, I deny my sexual urges for higher values like fidelity, loyalty, love, commitment etc.

Paradimer, context drives "picking and choosing". A study of the OT would show that there were 3 aspects to Jewish law. There was Civil Law (laws governing their society-like our constitution), there was ritualistic laws (laws governing primarily their worship, the temple, priesthood etc.) and MORAL LAWS (eternal laws of "right and wrong" ). Law forbidding the eating of pork, the wearing of certain clothes, the type of animals for oblations etc. are considered prophetic "types" of Messiah and were fufilled at His appearance. Moral laws like killing, adultery, lying, sex outside of marriage (man and woman) idolotry, etc. were considered sins in the OT and sins by the NT writers. This is not "picking and choosing" but rather understanding the role of the ritualistic laws and their fufilment as well as understanding the absolute and eternal moral laws.

it has been picked apart? oh I must have forgotten.

just ask rooster...he can do it, he is smart

you mean by shamelessly repeating already debunked arguments, yeah he can do that alright. ;-)

That's what I am saying... Who are we to determine what is Ritualistic law and what is moral law, our own moral compass?

Yeah, that's worked so well for the rest of humanity.

Rooster- Divisions in Jewish Law exist, but the general way they are discriminated is laws concerning the relationship between man and man, and laws concerning the relationship between man and G-d. And all laws (all 613) will be held in the Messianic era, including Temple sacrifice, etc. There will never be a time they do not apply.

MS

lol, he just need some conversion therapy. It really works!

"I can't wait to die so I can ask God why he (or she) would make people uncontrollably homesexual and then make it a horrible sin.

I mean if you think that a gay man made the choice to be gay and he could choose not to be then you could easily make the choice to not be hetero anymore right?"

Here is what is wrong with that:

1. It assumes God(nice one with the "she") makes someone uncontrollably homosexual. Then makes it a horrible sin. In reality, man chooses to do things that go directly against how things were designed. People get urges to do all kinds of different things. To say that every sexual urge you get is from God and you must act on it is just childish.

2. This is a better one because on the surface people see it and think its a good analogy. But it's not. It makes the mistake of claiming that both behaviors are just the flipside equal of each other but they are not. One is normal, the other abnormal. Not in numbers or popularity, but it natural design. Look up the definitions of deviant, and wrong and you will find it fits in with them as well. It would not be a matter of switching from one side to the other, but of correcting an error. Asking if someone could change into homosexual is like asking if someone who spent years working for charity would suddenly start stealing. Lastly, your argument equates people with animals. You get an urge and you must act on it, to not is to deny "who you are" Well if you see that the urges you have are bad then you would be right to not act on them.

very good helwig!

Kai, I would suggest taking a class on Torah to differentiate between the various laws. It's not that difficult to group them between cultural/civil laws, religious rite laws and moral laws.

here is what is wrong with that Helwig:

Natural design (Gods intention) doesn´t exist in the way you think. There is no Scientific whatsoever to support that position.

and if it doesn´t, your whole argument and debunking crumbles.

Why do I bother, the debunking of your arguments were in that text already.

I guess you didn´t read it, but just assumed it had "been picked apart already".

Fudo, the stomach wasn't designed to injest poison. The body was not designed to go months w/out water. Hair is not designed to light on fire. I mean, c'mon, you can go on and on. Their is specificity to the design and function of the human body, it's appendages, organs etc. I don't understand how you could make that stmt and consider it medically, anatomically or scientifically appropriate.

That´s ok.

the text already replied to that, scroll down to the part when God makes J.S Mill appear and read that part.

FudoMyoo: That's the best way to counter any argument, don't read the article. Now that could be a fault of mine since I formatted the story oddly.

Rooster: No, that's the conventions of society, again the very thing it speaks of in the article, who are we to determine what part of the true word of g-d is to be discarded and what is to stay? No amount of debate will change the fact that if you are a true believer, that is the word of g-d and his laws for us to live by.

So, anyone here like lobster?