On Deuteronomy 22

[Opti]

Jul 24, 2012 15:07:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't think they have found the "arrogance" gene yet.

By the time you've hit puberty, if you're attracted to the same sex, then you're attracted to the same sex. The cause is irrelevant (excepting the actions you yourself have deliberately taken to exacerbate the problem).

Alcoholism is a strongly heritable trait. An alcoholic is still an alcoholic.

Victims of pedophiles grow up to be pedophiles themselves with alarming frequency. No nature involved. No genetic predisposition of any kind, as far as I know. A pedophile is still a pedophile.

And now a third answer: I'm outnumbered, so I wish to leave. I like answer #3 the best.

I'm trying to answer questions (such as right now), and new issues keep popping up faster than I can answer existing ones.

Really, I prefer spiritual discussions on a one-to-one basis, not a one-on-fourteen basis where my audience is hostile (ideologically hostile) and my hands are cramping for sake of typing.

(There! That's it! If I don't refresh the page, I'll have "caught up" with this reply! A-a-a-a-a-and I'm OUT! ;D)

Virgil, are you aware that some studies show kids that have been sexually assaulted by a same sex offender are more likely to become homosexual than those who have not had this experience?
(The studies are probably on men, and no I don't have link. Sorry.)

Idealogically hostile isn't that bad though. We are nice kind posters. ;D

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 14:59:14 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

wow. way to derail a thread.

It is a chicken, an attempt to make fun of someone "chickening out", its never funny when you have to spell it out. jeeeze.

[weltschmerz]

Sodomy and female-on-female sex, which are the specific acts condemned by scripture, are immoral. They are called a perversion. People's warm, fuzzy feelings do not change this fact. "Love", nor eros, nor erotic feelings, nor feelings of commitment, nor good deeds, nor happy feelings change this fact one iota. It doesn't matter if the individuals are oncologists who jointly discover the cure for cancer.
-----------------
Vitgil, Virgil, Virgil......I see a lot of verbal calisthenics from you to justify the unjustifiable. As far as being condemned by scripture; you shave your beard, do you not? You wear clothing of mixed fibers, do you not? Of course you do. However, there's no end of cherry-picking against those awful, immoral homosexuals. It always boils down to the gays.

[weltschmerz]

Let me guess. That was in the olden days, right? It doesn't count any more.....

[happyhippy]

Virgil, are you aware that some studies show kids that have been sexually assaulted by a same sex offender are more likely to become homosexual than those who have not had this experience?

I am not debating this post,I am merely curious to the study.

If this is the case,then are we to say that being sexually assaulted by a gay person is different being assaulted by a straight person? Obviously sexual offenses are detestable,but the experiences should both be wrongly influential to the victims. I say thinking aloud.

[Opti]

Jul 24, 2012 16:38:22 GMT -5 happyhippy said:

Virgil, are you aware that some studies show kids that have been sexually assaulted by a same sex offender are more likely to become homosexual than those who have not had this experience?

I am not debating this post,I am merely curious to the study.

If this is the case,then are we to say that being sexually assaulted by a gay person is different being assaulted by a straight person? Obviously sexual offenses are detestable,but the experiences should both be wrongly influential to the victims. I say thinking aloud.

You probably have heard that one of the manifestations of being sexually abused when younger can be the person becomes sexually active and promiscous at a young age. If it is a same sex abuser, the abusee may become imprinted to become homosexual. I really have no idea on how one studies this except in retrospect, but I do know someone who was abused very young who believes this is what happened to them. Have no idea how you would prove or disprove the opposite so now I'm sad I even brought it up.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 17:40:17 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Sodomy and female-on-female sex, which are the specific acts condemned by scripture, are immoral.

Condemned by scripture? Therefore condemned by God?
I don't get it. Believing, as I do, that we are all a part of the God energy, wouldn't condemning those who are homosexual be like condemning one's own foot?

lonewolf, I like the way you think.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 24, 2012 16:25:07 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Sodomy and female-on-female sex, which are the specific acts condemned by scripture, are immoral. They are called a perversion. People's warm, fuzzy feelings do not change this fact. "Love", nor eros, nor erotic feelings, nor feelings of commitment, nor good deeds, nor happy feelings change this fact one iota. It doesn't matter if the individuals are oncologists who jointly discover the cure for cancer.
-----------------
Vitgil, Virgil, Virgil......I see a lot of verbal calisthenics from you to justify the unjustifiable. As far as being condemned by scripture; you shave your beard, do you not? You wear clothing of mixed fibers, do you not? Of course you do. However, there's no end of cherry-picking against those awful, immoral homosexuals. It always boils down to the gays.

Ms. Weltz.

We've gone into those particular issues in detail on other threads—twice. You evidently felt it too burdensome to remember the debate, much less what I said.

I don't mind discussing scripture, but forgive me if I have more profitable ways to spend my time than debating an individual who can't be bothered to read or remember what I say.

[swamp]

I thought you took your ball and went home?

[Virgil Showlion]

I did. But I wanted the world to know that Weltz is a debate-forgetter.

Weltz -o=)    J'accuse!

Now I'm taking my ball again (to dinner).

[Opti]

A debate forgetter. Is that a PB sin of epic proportions?

[Opti]

Jul 24, 2012 18:35:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I did. But I wanted the world to know that Weltz is a debate-forgetter.

Weltz -o=)    J'accuse!

Now I'm taking my ball again (to dinner).

Take them both.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 24, 2012 18:35:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I did. But I wanted the world to know that Weltz is a debate-forgetter.

Weltz -o=)    J'accuse!

Now I'm taking my ball again (to dinner).

De quoi tu m'accuses? Despite the propensity of garrulous logorrhea, you failed to explain it to me. Still sounds like une cueilette des cerises to me.

[trevorw2539]

Jul 24, 2012 16:25:07 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Sodomy and female-on-female sex, which are the specific acts condemned by scripture, are immoral. They are called a perversion. People's warm, fuzzy feelings do not change this fact. "Love", nor eros, nor erotic feelings, nor feelings of commitment, nor good deeds, nor happy feelings change this fact one iota. It doesn't matter if the individuals are oncologists who jointly discover the cure for cancer.
-----------------
Vitgil, Virgil, Virgil......I see a lot of verbal calisthenics from you to justify the unjustifiable. As far as being condemned by scripture; you shave your beard, do you not? You wear clothing of mixed fibers, do you not? Of course you do. However, there's no end of cherry-picking against those awful, immoral homosexuals. It always boils down to the gays.

Perhaps many of the OT regulations have practical reasons for not doing, or doing, things.

Shatnez. Check the properties of linen and sheeps/lambs wool (the two which should not be mixed). Perhaps not compatible as clothing in OT times without modern practises. They could be worn as separate garments, and even in one item, the priests 'belt' according to the Talmud, but disputed by others.
Much of the OT regulations were just that. Practicalities. Much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain regulations and practices that had been handed down from earlier civilisations. Many 'health regulations' were from their understanding of the way things worked.
Our understanding of leprosy and eczema enables us to diagnose correctly without the Biblical formula, and get it correct. And so it is with many things.
Animals which root the ground, pigs etc, pick up various 'infections' which we can cure, or cook the meat properly to kill worms etc. They couldn't
I could go on but the sermon is over.

To call someone chicken when they have given you their interpretation and spiritual feelings deeply held, is rather unfair.

That is their belief, yours is different.

I learnt long ago from a wise man that you can tell your side and listen to others, but there comes a time when all that can be said has been said, and to bow out without coming to blows is the sensible thing to do.
If only nations and peoples could do that.

[weltschmerz]

To call someone chicken when they have given you their interpretation and spiritual feelings deeply held, is rather unfair.
------------
Excuse me? Where did I call anyone chicken?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jul 24, 2012 10:19:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We shall find out whose view is the truth in time. If the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the author of the Koran, I owe you a Coke.

I think you're going to owe me a couple coke's here Virg. You know what, just make it a share in KO after the split.. ;D

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham

Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם (help·info), Modern: Avraham, Tiberian: ʼAḇrāhām, Ashkenazi Avrohom or Avruhom, Arabic: إبراهيم‎ Ibrāhīm), whose birth name was Abram, is the eponym of the Abrahamic religions, among which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. According to both the Hebrew Bible[1] and the Qur'an, through his sons Ishmael and Isaac, Abraham is the forefather of many tribes, namely the Ishmaelites, Israelites, Midianites and Edomites.[1] Abraham was a descendant of Noah's son, Shem.[2][3] Christians believe that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham through Isaac, and Muslims believe that Muhammad was a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael.[4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an

Muslims regard the Quran as the main miracle of Muhammad, the proof of his prophethood[13] and the culmination of a series of divine messages that started with the messages revealed to Adam, regarded in Islam as the first prophet,[14] and continued with the Suhuf Ibrahim (Scrolls of Abraham),[15] the Tawrat (Torah or Pentateuch) of Moses,[16][17] the Zabur (Tehillim or Book of Psalms) of David,[18][19] and the Injil (Gospel) of Jesus.[20][21][22]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injil

The Injil (Arabic: إنجيل‎ ʾInǧīl ) is the Arabic name for what Muslims believe to be the original Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is one of the four Islamic Holy Books the Qur'an records as revealed by God (see Allah), the others being the Zabur (possibly the Psalms), the Tawrat (the Torah, or Tanakh), and the Qur'an.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

In Islam, Jesus (Isa; Arabic: عيسى‎ ʿĪsā) is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Masih (Messiah) who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel.[1] The belief in Jesus (and all other messengers of God) is required in Islam, and a requirement of being a Muslim.

So, I guess that would mean that the one true God kicks ass?!?

[trevorw2539]

Jul 25, 2012 0:03:48 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

To call someone chicken when they have given you their interpretation and spiritual feelings deeply held, is rather unfair.
------------
Excuse me? Where did I call anyone chicken?

Apologies. That comment was made to the person who posted the chicken. My only excuse for the error is that it is 4am here and I am only awake thanks to a medical condition that has refused me sleep tonight.

Again, my apologies to you.

[trevorw2539]

Jul 24, 2012 10:29:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Bring back animal sacrifice!

The Jewish state evidently will, close to the end of the age. A great deal has to happen before then.

Speaking as to Christians, animal sacrifices were symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. They portended the shedding of his blood for the remission of man's sins, and to justify mankind before God. The amount of detail involved in each ritual and what each symbolizes is, in a word, astounding. A topic for another time, however.

If you're talking the Day of Atonement rituals, I agree.



Ahamburger. For all your quotes from Wiki you still have not proved that God wrote either the Bible or the Quran. Both beliefs are by faith.
Perhaps you could send the drinks to me.

[busymom]

Trevor, you've hit it! FAITH. That's what Christianity is about. You either believe, or you don't.



I don't have any Cokes in the fridge, but I do have Pepsi & Diet Pepsi....

[swamp]

Jul 25, 2012 7:17:15 GMT -5 busymom said:

Trevor, you've hit it! FAITH. That's what Christianity religion is about. You either believe, or you don't.



I don't have any Cokes in the fridge, but I do have Pepsi & Diet Pepsi....

fixed

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2012 8:06:08 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 25, 2012 7:17:15 GMT -5 busymom said:

Trevor, you've hit it! FAITH. That's what Christianity religion everything is about. You either believe, or you don't.



I don't have any Cokes in the fridge, but I do have Pepsi & Diet Pepsi....

fixed

Fixed once more.

Evidence to support this or that belief is qualified in accordance with preconceived notions.

[Virgil Showlion]

If you're talking the Day of Atonement rituals, I agree.

Indeed those. But also the specific elements of the five offerings, the preparation, God's portion and the priest's portion. Nothing is without purpose.

I used to have a link to a wonderful whitepaper on the subject. Like a fool I forgot to back up my bookmarks before a (voluntary) system meltdown some years ago. I haven't been able to find it again. It was hosted on geocities, so it's quite likely the original link doesn't exist anymore.

I think you're going to owe me a couple coke's here Virg. You know what, just make it a share in KO after the split.

Yes, Ham. I know that's what they claim.

But despite what anyone says, Christians and Muslims can't both be possessors of the truth, and I've seen the fruits of Islamic doctrine on the issues where it departs from the Old Testament and Christ's teachings. I admit that reading the Koran from cover to cover is still on my to-do list.

Some of my more learned and worldly colleagues have studied it in detail, and they've commented that Islam is no different from Christianity in one principle regard: 99% of people who claim to be Muslims don't adhere to the tenets and doctrines of Koran, and many 'versions' of Islam (consider Sufi Islam, for example) are so disparate from it that one wonders why they bother to call themselves "Muslim". It would appear the "believe whatever you want; it's all good" malaise of western Christianity is not confined to western Christianity.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2012 10:07:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

But despite what anyone says, Christians and Muslims can't both be possessors of the truth,

Why not?

Is it not possible that God gave people multiple versions of his religion, knowing that different peoples would not all gravitate towards the same version. So he gave people options on which version to go with, but ultimately they all lead to him?

[Opti]

Jul 25, 2012 10:18:31 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 25, 2012 10:07:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

But despite what anyone says, Christians and Muslims can't both be possessors of the truth,

Why not?

Is it not possible that God gave people multiple versions of his religion, knowing that different peoples would not all gravitate towards the same version. So he gave people options on which version to go with, but ultimately they all lead to him?

I think it depends if you believe there is only one Truth and of course it is the one you believe. Or if you believe there are many paths to the One God as I believe. The simple act of believing changes what is observed. Our scientists can finally prove that.

[Opti]

Jul 25, 2012 10:05:44 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Jul 25, 2012 8:06:08 GMT -5 swamp said:

fixed

Fixed once more.

Evidence to support this or that belief is qualified in accordance with preconceived notions.

Exactly. Your belief system influences what you are able or capable of noticing, believing.

[Jaguar]

Jul 25, 2012 10:25:16 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 25, 2012 10:18:31 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Why not?

Is it not possible that God gave people multiple versions of his religion, knowing that different peoples would not all gravitate towards the same version. So he gave people options on which version to go with, but ultimately they all lead to him?

I think it depends if you believe there is only one Truth and of course it is the one you believe. Or if you believe there are many paths to the One God as I believe. The simple act of believing changes what is observed. Our scientists can finally prove that.

~~

[cranberry49]

Jul 24, 2012 14:21:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I agree with that post 100%, Virgil. I beleive the spirit of God's message is to love. And in that spirit I beleive there is nothing wrong with two people of the same sex who love eachother.

There is indeed "something wrong" with it. As for the individuals themselves, God has given us His Law, and He reserves judgment. He knows their hearts. He knows the society they grew up in. If there is nobody to tell them "this is wrong" and a thousand souls saying "go for it", He'll take that into account. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that homosexuals cannot or will not be forgiven if they come to repentance.

Sodomy and female-on-female sex, which are the specific acts condemned by scripture, are immoral. They are called a perversion. People's warm, fuzzy feelings do not change this fact. "Love", nor eros, nor erotic feelings, nor feelings of commitment, nor good deeds, nor happy feelings change this fact one iota. It doesn't matter if the individuals are oncologists who jointly discover the cure for cancer. Good works do not "cover" grave misdeeds a la "Curious George". As Isaiah 64:6 reads:

But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind have taken us away.

And God forbid—literally—that I lie to you to make you feel better.

This is a view the western world, drunk with the delusion of humanity's moral grandeur, utterly despises. But anyone here the least bit familiar with scripture knows well that at the end of the age, all but a few men will despise God—who He is, what He stands for; the laws He's placed in effect for our benefit. It's the very essence of our human nature.

I'll also add, for any Christians reading:

Christ not only served as our perfect sacrifice but as our perfect example. By all means, read which things he, the apostles and the first century Church considered important. What did they say? What did they do? How did they resolve issues of Law? What issues were there? What did Christ himself, Emanuel (meaning "God among us"), and his apostles say on the matters of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, licentiousness?

The New Testament isn't there "for the fun of it".

Unbelievers can throw the Bible in the trash pile without a second thought. And so fine. They have no spirit in them to believe. But for those calling themselves Christian, I beseech you to read what says and what Christ himself affirms in scripture.

I 100% agree with you, virgil! I also commend you for such thoughtful, and well-written, posts!

May I add also that there is a scripture in the bible that goes well with your thoughts?.

Proverbs 14:12 says "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

This goes to show that just because one thinks something is right, it does not make it so.

[Jaguar]

Jul 25, 2012 10:29:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 25, 2012 10:05:44 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Fixed once more.

Evidence to support this or that belief is qualified in accordance with preconceived notions.

Exactly. Your belief system influences what you are able or capable of noticing, believing.

~~

[trevorw2539]

Jul 25, 2012 10:18:31 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 25, 2012 10:07:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

But despite what anyone says, Christians and Muslims can't both be possessors of the truth,

Why not?

Is it not possible that God gave people multiple versions of his religion, knowing that different peoples would not all gravitate towards the same version. So he gave people options on which version to go with, but ultimately they all lead to him?

That really wouldn't make sense. Islam, one of the worlds youngest religions, claims that the world was made as an Islamic world from the beginning, by God. They claim, in retrospect, that everyone in it is really Islamic. Those who do not accept that are unbelievers. All religions are therefore subject to 'the Book'. While the Torah and the Bible are acceptable to be read, they are inferior to the Quran. The Torah, the Bible have been taken and adapted to Mohammed's teachings. Is this not confusing.

Surely if God had done as you suggest the 3 faiths would have some facts in common. They would not seek to take over others' beliefs for their own.

To Christians, Jesus was/is the Son of God. To the Jew, if he existed, a teacher. To Islam, a prophet. The one common factor among religions is that there is a God/s/creator. I don't include what I call 'philosophies' - Buddhism etc.

Shall I go on.

Actually I have some sympathy with the idea that people of old always sought to understand the idea of God, and in their own way 'worshipped' him. It often needed a catalyst to bring people together. In the main religions we have catalysts in the Jewish Moses, Christian Jesus, and Islamic Mohammed.

I personally reject Islam as one that has based it teachings on a corruption of Biblical teachings. But that is just me.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 25, 2012 0:32:29 GMT -5 @hootieman said:

I have a question. Why is someone who has stated that they do not believe in sin, having an argument about religion?

Was this addressed to me? If so, I'm not having an argument about religion; I'm having an argument about hypocrisy, and how the church singles out gays. There was an article in the paper recently, about a lesbian whose pastor refused to give her communion. How much do you want to bet that the particular church in question gives communion to liars, adulterers, thieves, tax cheats, child molesters and fornicators? Are these things not considered verboten in the bible? My own church refuses to marry gays, but will happily marry couples who live together in "sin". Good God, even murderers in jail can get legally married in most states, and last time I checked, murder is a sin. It's one of the Big Ten. Churches will cluck reproachfully and condemn gays, while embracing those who shatter commandments like plates at a Greek wedding. It's always the gays that get the short end of the stick, and their only crime is loving someone.
I'm not debating sin, because you're right. I don't believe in the concept of sin. I'm pointing out the unbelievable hypocrisy, and how some will twist and turn themselves inside out to justify this behaviour.
"It's in Leviticus, dontcha know?"