|
Post by jagggar on Oct 22, 2006 12:44:31 GMT -5
As long as we're all doing personal attacks: You BOTH look like iditos. Now, can we get back to the topic? Didnt say you didnt understand what love is, just said that homosexuality is a twisted view of 'love'. Love is undenying compassion and care for someone which surpasses all other feelings. Its not just who your glad to have sex with. So could you explain to me why I cannot have undenying compassion and care for another female?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 22, 2006 15:33:48 GMT -5
Depending on the love. There is unconditional family love. I lvoe my sisters, but I dont want to sleep with them. Then theres today's slang love, or like. You love rap but that doesnt mean you want to have sex with rappers. Homosexuality has already been analyzed by psychologoists, many have which come to such conclusions as:
Besides gays’ preoccupation with sex, traditionalist psychiatrists have catalogued a higher incidence of personality characteristics suggesting psychological disturbance and an inability to interact successfully with others. Dr. Edmond Bergler, (1) who treated over a thousand homosexuals, concluded that gays tended to: provoke attacks against themselves and then count these "attacks" as injustices they had suffered
* display defensive malice toward others, * exhibit a flippant attitude in order to cover underlying depression and guilt, * display extreme narcissism and superciliousness, * refuse to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their "suffering," and * "be generally unreliable, also of a more or less psychopathic nature.
Dr. Irving Bieber, (2) who performed one of the largest and most intensive psychiatric studies of homosexuals, characterized gays as "angry, bitter people with low feelings of responsibility." And Dr. Charles Socarides has emphasized the similarity of the obsessive-compulsive nature of homosexual sex acts to a drug "fix." (3)
I dont know if anybody has figured this out yet, but science and the bible are more closely related than you think.
|
|
|
Post by jagggar on Oct 22, 2006 23:45:43 GMT -5
But I'm quite sure there are just as many "Liberal Psychologists" who have come to quite contrary conclusions. That homosexuality is perfectly normal in some people and totally something that people are born with, not chosen.
And actually, do homosexuals have the preoccupation with sex? Or do heteros have a preoccupation with homosexual sex? Your opening post, for example, included the "but the parts don't match" arguement. If the problem with homosexuality has to do with love, not intercourse, why do the parts matter so much?
This is one of my problems with outright condemnation of homosexuality. It's not clear why it's wrong. Old-school, back in the OT, yes, I understand that, but I can tell you I eat a fair amount of pig and wear poly-cotton blends. If it's a male/female issue, why is it an issue? "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." -Galatians 3:28
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Oct 30, 2006 10:17:07 GMT -5
Galatians is a church which Paul wrote this letter to, if your going to use scripture in your defense, always, not sometimes, post your context.
Galatians 3:26-28
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
As you can see, this is a comment to the church itself. Sons of God can even be taken as a statement to christians in general. In christ means christian, and based on what the bible says already about who is 'christian' not what I say( or what some group link your gonna post says) its easy to see what Paul meant. We as true christians need not worry about seperating each other by legalism, but should look at Jesus as ou uniter. Legalism you say? of course. Didnt you read the chapter? let me quote the first 5 verses to remind you.
Galatians 3:1-5
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
Note he says, obsevring the law. Simply put, its the jewish law! They believe that by observing the law(or following the law) that makes them holy and upright before God! So paul says, look at Jesus! Duh! Quit thinking that law will save you and think about Jesus!
Now you ask why is it wrong? Well Im trying to turn tables over here. I have a biblical interpretation (interpret it as you like, its pretty clear) and I have a contradiction on your part. Everyone one on this board believes evolution is fact, So I ask why in the world would any evolutionist think that someone could be attracted to a member of the opposite sex when we arent 'evolved' that way? Do you see the contradiction? Of course not. Youd rather not see it.
This is what the bible says, note jagggar, that I use context.
Romans 1:18-32
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.(the due penalty? Aids? This is my own interpretation, so rea it apart from the Bible)
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I underlined the passage, read the context if you like.
|
|
|
Post by jagggar on Nov 6, 2006 12:26:49 GMT -5
Yea, I know I haven't replied to Volt's last reply. I don't exactly have a reply at the moment.
However, the Gay Marriage topic somehow triggered a random idea. One of the questions in the OP was about how homosexuality could be compatable with evolution.
Obviously, you can't reproduce without the two different parts. But what if less reproduction was the goal nature is using homosexuality to reach?
Humans, like dolphins, have sex for fun. Other creatures will automatically stop mating when there aren't enough resources to go around. We won't. We just keep doing it and doing it and doing it. If X% of the population is gay, then they aren't reproducing which lowers the reproduction rate by Y%.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Nov 7, 2006 22:41:16 GMT -5
if we were all physical that might be the case. The natural laws show that this idea is too elaborate. Take an ant hill, theres too many ants and too little room. Do they stop breeding? Stop laying eggs? No. They build a bigger ant hill or the ants leave. Subconscious changing of sexes because we need to stop reproducing is kind of silly, since one of the key characteristics of life is the ability to reproduce. You either leave or build a bigger house.
I know you wont reply to my post, thats ok. I dont know where you got the idea for that verse, something tells me that you pulled it off another site somewhere. Before posting anything biblical please post context and elaborate on your speculation.
|
|
|
Post by jagggar on Nov 8, 2006 15:03:52 GMT -5
Using ants seems kind of like a stretch to me. They've got only one reproducing female at a time, don't they? And if they're contained in a small ant farm, will they continue to reproduce?
There are mammals who stop reproducing if their group has enough trouble finding food to support the current population, but if there's an abundance of food, there will be little ones next season. I can't recall what animals do this since Nature's been about crocs recently, but I think it was about deer and similar animals that I normally hear this.
Of course, we kind of run into problems using animals as our examples because some polygamist guy could drop in and say "Hey, look at lions! They've got it down."
I'm not saying that people subconsciously change sexes. I'm saying people are sexually attracted to the same sex. They're not the same thing.
If that's on a website somewhere, I haven't seen it.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Nov 9, 2006 13:48:48 GMT -5
My point is jagggar that if you had read that verse for yourself you would have come across the context, which points out thats its not about sexuality at all but really about christians in general.
Post your sources where animals become attracted the the same sex in order to keep from reproducing. In essence thats what your saying.
|
|