God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-sex Unions

Jul 16, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Time

There is something by now familiar, even reassuring, about what happens in my church every third summer.

Comments (Page 39)

Showing posts 761 - 780 of1,053
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#810
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts are clearly bi-sexuals, but Paul is explicitly referring to both Lesbians and Gays:
"Because of this (worshipping things instead of God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."
No, they aren't clearly bi-sexual. They are heterosexuals engaging in pagan ritual sex with prostitutes. There is no indication of an enduring pattern of emotional and physical attraction. A sex act does not determine a sexual orientation.

Additionally, it is clear this passage isn't describing committed adult relationships built on love and mutual respect. They were having orgies in the temple, not forming families.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#811
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Saul's etiology is debunked by simple reason ...
Your Gnostic "reasoning" is simply wrong.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
No, they aren't clearly bi-sexual. They are heterosexuals engaging in ...
... homosexual acts.

So called straight men who act gay are clearly bi-sexuals, not confused heteros.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Gnostic "reasoning" is simply wrong.
<quoted text>
... homosexual acts.
So called straight men who act gay are clearly bi-sexuals, not confused heteros.
NOTHING that I've ever posted on these threads even suggests Gnosticism, unless deductive logic and empirical observation are gnostic.

Saul say that rejecting God in favor of things causes what you think means homosexuality.

Most people on the planet have rejected God in favor of things (I mean just LOOK at the place).

Therefore most people on the planet are what you think means homosexual.

Don't you detect a problematic syllogism that can't stand up to the observed fact that most people on the planet, while rejecting God in favor things, STILL aren't what you think means homosexual.

Isn't there some defect in Saul's gay-making machine there somewhere?

It certainly isn't the only defect in Saul's various machineries, but we can get to those another time. Perhaps on a thread dedicated solely to his heresies, hmm?

“For this reason...”

Since: Feb 10

Marriage = Man + Woman 4 Life

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#813
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they aren't clearly bi-sexual. They are heterosexuals engaging in pagan ritual sex with prostitutes. There is no indication of an enduring pattern of emotional and physical attraction. A sex act does not determine a sexual orientation.
Additionally, it is clear this passage isn't describing committed adult relationships built on love and mutual respect. They were having orgies in the temple, not forming families.
On my reading the bible herein didn't make a distinction express or implied as to how they identified themselves only that they were desiring (lust) and having sex with those of the same sex.

So no point speculating if the bible is referring to gays or straights or whatever, it is referring to the act.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#814
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WotMeWorry wrote:
<quoted text>
On my reading the bible herein didn't make a distinction express or implied as to how they identified themselves only that they were desiring (lust) and having sex with those of the same sex.
So no point speculating if the bible is referring to gays or straights or whatever, it is referring to the act.
Even if you choose to ignore the definition of sexual orientation, and choose to ignore the context of pagan ritual orgies of the time, it should be clear he was not addressing forming adult relationships based on mutual love and respect.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#816
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
NOTHING that I've ever posted on these threads even suggests Gnosticism ...
... because your posts drip of Gnosticism?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#818
Nov 17, 2012
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if you choose to ignore the definition of sexual orientation ...
... but you're the one who has repeatedly demonstrated confusion about that definition.

“For this reason...”

Since: Feb 10

Marriage = Man + Woman 4 Life

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#819
Nov 17, 2012
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if you choose to ignore the definition of sexual orientation, and choose to ignore the context of pagan ritual orgies of the time, it should be clear he was not addressing forming adult relationships based on mutual love and respect.
True. He was addressing same sex acts, referring to such lusts as unnatural and as a consequence of turning from God.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#820
Nov 17, 2012
 
WotMeWorry wrote:
<quoted text>
True. He was addressing same sex acts, referring to such lusts as unnatural and as a consequence of turning from God.
shouldn't you be getting ready for your rapture morazz

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#821
Nov 17, 2012
 
WotMeWorry wrote:
<quoted text>
True. He was addressing same sex acts, referring to such lusts as unnatural and as a consequence of turning from God.
by the way no one cares about your 2000 year old comic book .. the fact that your ignorant and need a sky fairy sounds like a personal problem loser

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#823
Nov 17, 2012
 
WotMeWorry wrote:
<quoted text>
True. He was addressing same sex acts, referring to such lusts as unnatural and as a consequence of turning from God.
Don't tell your partner you don't see any difference between lust with prostitutes, and a committed relationship based on mutual love nad respect.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#824
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
... but you're the one who has repeatedly demonstrated confusion about that definition.
I provided the definition for you.

You too, should not tell your partner you don't understand the difference between lust with a prostitute, and a committed relationship built on mutual love and respect.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#825
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided the definition for you.
You too, should not tell your partner you don't understand the difference between lust with a prostitute, and a committed relationship built on mutual love and respect.
The person with whom you are attempting to reason is unwilling to see your point of view.

He does understand what you are saying. But, he is not wiling to cede the point you are making.

Nevertheless, you are correct.

Rev. Ken

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#826
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they aren't clearly bi-sexual. They are heterosexuals engaging in pagan ritual sex with prostitutes. There is no indication of an enduring pattern of emotional and physical attraction. A sex act does not determine a sexual orientation.
Additionally, it is clear this passage isn't describing committed adult relationships built on love and mutual respect. They were having orgies in the temple, not forming families.
But repeated sex acts do define a "favoured" sexual orientation.
By your logic, you would have to assume each male or female that was a heterosexual, was having a single "bi" experience and never again, leaving them to be a heterosexual.
So Paul would have been speaking of "first timers" and "repeat partakers" and the "repeat partakers" by their actions, would define themselves as bisexuals since they were enjoying repeated sex with females and males.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#827
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided the definition for you.
You too, should not tell your partner you don't understand the difference between lust with a prostitute, and a committed relationship built on mutual love and respect.
The relationship differences you speak of, the Bible clearly defines from Genesis to Revelations as a married/union heterosexual relationship. Same sex relationships are never mentioned.
Paul told followers/listeners to keep it in their pants. If they were weak then they should marry. And Paul preached sexual sin on all accounts, adultery, sexual sin and prostitution regardless of "who" you choose to have sex with.

“For this reason...”

Since: Feb 10

Marriage = Man + Woman 4 Life

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#828
Nov 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't tell your partner you don't see any difference between lust with prostitutes, and a committed relationship based on mutual love nad respect.
Scripture does not expressly limit the condemnation of same sex relations to that of prostitution nor does it expressly uphold same sex relations nor recognise same sex marriage etc. etc.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#829
Nov 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
by the way no one cares about your 2000 year old comic book ...
... no one you know cares because anyone who does doesn't care to know you.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#830
Nov 18, 2012
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
But repeated sex acts do define a "favoured" sexual orientation.
By your logic, you would have to assume each male or female that was a heterosexual, was having a single "bi" experience and never again, leaving them to be a heterosexual.
So Paul would have been speaking of "first timers" and "repeat partakers" and the "repeat partakers" by their actions, would define themselves as bisexuals since they were enjoying repeated sex with females and males.
I'm trying to make sense of this one.

People tend to develop sexual relationships with people they have the ability to be attracted to. It's simply natural.

Straight people can ONLY be attracted - sexually, spiritually, emotionally - to the opposite gender, and usually develop healthy sexual relationships with other straight people.

Gay people can ONLY be attracted in those ways to the same gender, and tend to form sexual relationships with other gay people.

Bi-sexual people have the ability to be attracted to either gender, and their relationships reflect that. This sometimes confuses others, and the labels they apply to themselves often cause even more confusion.

However, for a multitude of reasons, including access, religious reasons, and others, people can also cross the line into sexual behaviors that are not necessarily natural for THEM, and for reasons that may not be healthy for them.

God doesn't seem to like this, based on what the Bible tells us.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#831
Nov 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The relationship differences you speak of, the Bible clearly defines from Genesis to Revelations as a married/union heterosexual relationship. Same sex relationships are never mentioned.
Paul told followers/listeners to keep it in their pants. If they were weak then they should marry. And Paul preached sexual sin on all accounts, adultery, sexual sin and prostitution regardless of "who" you choose to have sex with.
Of course, Genesis also defined all the marriages of Adam and Eve's kids as incestuous, but we don't do that today.

I always find Paul's support of marriage only for the weak to be humorous. If the man had had his way, the human race would have died out in one generation, with the strong refusing to have sex.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#832
Nov 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The person with whom you are attempting to reason is unwilling to see your point of view.
He does understand what you are saying. But, he is not wiling to cede the point you are making.
Nevertheless, you are correct.
Rev. Ken
"Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument. Samuel Johnson

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 761 - 780 of1,053
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••