How about a new Council of Nicea?

[numinus]

That is YOUR interpretation. The quotes from the Bible are there for anyone to read. It may be that you get naked with your male friends and swear undying love, and knit your souls together, and lie on the ground kissing. You may even state that your love for them surpasses the love of women, buy if you do those things you will have the Bible-beaters down on you like white on rice.

It is one thing to claim innuendos in the bible and an ENTIRELY different thing to claim those innuendos represent moral standards.

While the former merely suggests a lack of education, the latter suggests a complete lack of common-sense.

After all, if david is the paragon of morality, we would all be sending our friends to faraway errands for the sole purpose of seducing their wives.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Most Christians were in denial about slavery and the subjugation of women too. Nobody even thought about those subjects until someone with an "agenda" pointed out how wrong the Christians had been. Your religious history is littered with the broken bodies of those who "care so little" despite the commandments of Jesus.

EVERYONE was in denial about slavery and the subjugation of women.

Fortunately for us and future generations, the PHILOSOPHICAL IMPETUS against slavery and the subjugation of women was already present in church teachings as early as 400 ad. You only need to see the logical connection.

Duh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

EVERYONE was in denial about slavery and the subjugation of women.

Fortunately for us and future generations, the PHILOSOPHICAL IMPETUS against slavery and the subjugation of women was already present in church teachings as early as 400 ad. You only need to see the logical connection.

Duh?

Not everybody was in denial, many people had argued against slavery right from the start. Perhaps the philosophical impetus was there in the church, but it took a long time to surface. Is there a philosophical impetus in the church to stop persecuting homosexuals? I would guess that there is considering the numbers of "welcoming" congregations that are springing up. Too bad the Cathlic are ass-end charley as usual. The Catholic church is so huge that its own inertia keeps it a few hundred years behing the present all the time.

You have asked me many times about the "gay gene" and have demanded that I prove there is one and specify which one it is before you'll stop condemning them. Well, the "Christian gene" has been discovered by gay scientists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is one thing to claim innuendos in the bible and an ENTIRELY different thing to claim those innuendos represent moral standards.

While the former merely suggests a lack of education, the latter suggests a complete lack of common-sense.

After all, if david is the paragon of morality, we would all be sending our friends to faraway errands for the sole purpose of seducing their wives.

Duh?

I quote the Bible exactly as it is worded, if you don't like that, then you should talk to whomever wrote the damn thing. Here we are with YOUR holy book and you're saying that it's not supposed to be a guide to proper behavior? Okay, dingrat, I'm willing to accept that it's not.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

But you are the one arguing for a LOVE that inevitably brings people in close proximity to feces, not me.
But I gave you the CORRECT interpretation of 'love others as yourself', an interpretation that unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us) DOES NOT require being anywhere near feces.
A person who thoroughly enjoys his state of ignorance, like a pig besotted with its own $hit, would most likely see $hit in everything -- including the bible.
It really is just a figment of your imagination brought about by -- guess what? -- all those years of obsessing with homo a$$ and existential contemplation of dung beetles.Duh?

As the dingrat on the other site you posted an arrogant piece about education and how you don't talk about stuff you haven't studied. I note that you didn't know anything about dung beetles but you talked about them and it was only after I corrected you that you looked them up to discover that I was correct.

As far as your obsession with anal sex: Have you ever had anal sex? If not, why are you posting about it? More--far more--heterosexuals engage in anal sex than all the gay people in the world. Have you ever had a blowjob with a prostate massage? If not, you are missing a truly memorable experience.

Research has shown that the more intelligent and educated people are the fewer sexual taboos they have. Educated people tend to be far more experimental in their sex lives than your average numb six-packer. Of course, religious taboos tend to cut into people's sexual adventures with their lovers by heaping guilt and opprobrium on them.

The fact that your Bible scholarship is lacking and you don't know about the references to dung and it's uses by God is quite humorous actually. Big time scholar like you, loud-mouth, hair-in-the-ears, Bible-beatin' bigot and you don't even know what's in your own holy book. Well, it's not my position to educate my "betters" as you have announced that you are, so I won't.

As you have reduced all the gay people (men and women) down to one reference: feces, so too could I reduce all Christians down to one term: ritual cannibals. But I'm not quite as narrow as you, so I'll not do that. I do find it interesting that you suffer so severly from selective indignation, only gay anal sex between men is condemned by you with your chant of "feces, feces, feces" when in fact anal intercourse is and has been practiced and enjoyed by large numbers of people and animals all down through history--but of course you wouldn't know that even though you have superior education and are one of my self-proclaimed "betters". Duh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

But I gave you the CORRECT interpretation of 'love others as yourself', an interpretation that unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us) DOES NOT require being anywhere near feces.

As far as I can tell you are the only human in history who wasn't able to read the commandment: "Love others as yourself" and understand its meaning. You brought in all kinds of weird sexual activities and tried to tie them in to Jesus' commandment in some fashion. Then you tried--and failed--to attribute your weird sex ideas to me. I did notice though that you failed to make the same silly use of the word "love" in the first of the two commandments by Jesus. Why? "Love" is the same word, but I suspect that being a Bible-beater you were too frightened to imply your weird sex ideas in reference to God--that being too blasphemous even for you.

Love is not sex, dingrat, and everybody knows that except you apparently.

 

[Dr.Who]

But you are the one arguing for a LOVE that inevitably brings people in close proximity to feces, not me.



But I gave you the CORRECT interpretation of 'love others as yourself', an interpretation that unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us) DOES NOT require being anywhere near feces.



A person who thoroughly enjoys his state of ignorance, like a pig besotted with its own $hit, would most likely see $hit in everything -- including the bible.

It really is just a figment of your imagination brought about by -- guess what? -- all those years of obsessing with homo a$$ and existential contemplation of dung beetles.

Duh?

I think it is time to leave the comments about feces alone. It is not a productive line of reasoning.

 

[Dr.Who]

EVERYONE was in denial about slavery and the subjugation of women.

Fortunately for us and future generations, the PHILOSOPHICAL IMPETUS against slavery and the subjugation of women was already present in church teachings as early as 400 ad. You only need to see the logical connection.

Duh?

It was in the first book of the bible - Genesis. And much of the accounts one hears about slavery and the subjugation of women is as mythical as the notion that all Europeans thought the earth was flat.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not everybody was in denial, many people had argued against slavery right from the start. Perhaps the philosophical impetus was there in the church, but it took a long time to surface. Is there a philosophical impetus in the church to stop persecuting homosexuals? I would guess that there is considering the numbers of "welcoming" congregations that are springing up. Too bad the Cathlic are ass-end charley as usual. The Catholic church is so huge that its own inertia keeps it a few hundred years behing the present all the time.

Nice to see you not just blindly opposing the church. I guess your desire to oppose Numinus is stronger.

You are right that the impetus to oppose slavery and the subjugation of women has been in the church from very early. You are also right that the impetus to embrace the gay person is also there now. You are wrong that it is not in the Catholic church - the Jesuits are probably one of the largest supporters of gays in the Christian community and they are Catholic.

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=66
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02cHomo&Clergy.JesuitsDefend.html
http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2002/1002mk2.htm

 

[Dr.Who]

I quote the Bible exactly as it is worded, if you don't like that, then you should talk to whomever wrote the damn thing. Here we are with YOUR holy book and you're saying that it's not supposed to be a guide to proper behavior? Okay, dingrat, I'm willing to accept that it's not.

I call bull.

You pull some words from one chapter and then pair them with words from another chapter to fabricate a new meaning on the original story.

And everyone except you can agree that when Moses commits murder that part was not a guide to moral behavior. That was a description of immoral behavior.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nice to see you not just blindly opposing the church. I guess your desire to oppose Numinus is stronger.

You are right that the impetus to oppose slavery and the subjugation of women has been in the church from very early. You are also right that the impetus to embrace the gay person is also there now. You are wrong that it is not in the Catholic church - the Jesuits are probably one of the largest supporters of gays in the Christian community and they are Catholic.

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=66

In this article they say that they wish to support gays but remain true to the Catholic AND JESUIT traditions. One cannot by definition treat gay and transpeople as equals and remain true to the tradition that condemns them.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02cHomo&Clergy.JesuitsDefend.html

Here's the final paragraph in this article: "I was shocked reading this editorial, and I am not a man easily shocked by such matters. I knew that these same arguments had been made publicly by homosexual movements like Dignity and New Ways Ministry. But until I read this editorial, I had never seen these arguments defended by a serious organ of the ecclesiastical establishment. So here we are. Morally speaking, the whole progressivist establishment, if it agrees with this opinion taken in America, would not be so much different from the putrid “Anglican Church” that is preparing to accept homosexual priests. The editorial is a real sign of the times."
This suggests that the position of the Jesuits is not only new, but unheard of in the wider church and disapproved of if it's true. I especially note the "putrid" reference about the Anglican Church. I would also like to point out that the author is advocating an investigation to find out who the homosexual Bishops are--something that will not bring anything good into their lives, I'll wager.

http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2002/1002mk2.htm

Here's a paragraph from this article: "But here in Massachusetts we're growing accustomed to headlines about priests who undermine families, and priests who are actively involved with the homosexual movement. What's more scandalous, really, is the fact that these priests are not subject to immediate public reprimand and discipline. Just a few months ago, Cardinal Law refused to allow a priest to speak in Boston parishes, because he was affiliated with Priests for Life, and the cardinal deemed that group too confrontational. But these priests -- who are in flat-out public opposition to the Church on a crucial moral question -- face no such censorship. The only priests who testified on this measure testified against it. There's a clear show of the abdication of responsibility by our Catholic leadership."
I don't know about you, but that seems to suggest that the ones supporting the gay and lesbian community are apostate in the eyes of the church. Personally, I applaud them, but I suspect that the Pope is gonna come down on them like a ton of bricks one of these days.

How has the Pope responded to their support that contravenes his statements? I like the fact that some Christians are bucking thousands of years of tradition and I appreciate their efforts. Time will tell if they get thrown out or whether they are the cutting edge of a long-overdue changed in the "ecclesiastical establishment."

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I call bull.

You pull some words from one chapter and then pair them with words from another chapter to fabricate a new meaning on the original story.

And everyone except you can agree that when Moses commits murder that part was not a guide to moral behavior. That was a description of immoral behavior.

If you can't be bothered to quote me when you call me a liar then I am not interested in discussing with you. I have NEVER deliberately misquoted the Bible, nor have I taken quotes from different parts, combined them and tried to pass them off as integral statements.

As far as Moses killing people, I don't think I've ever written anything on that subject, so why don't you do what I do and give quotes?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It was in the first book of the bible - Genesis. And much of the accounts one hears about slavery and the subjugation of women is as mythical as the notion that all Europeans thought the earth was flat.

Isn't it nice for you to be able to talk about what's in the Bible but you don't give quotes? Handy for you.

I call bull on your comments about slavery and the subjugation of women. You call me a liar and don't give quotes, but you make wild statements and rarely give sources. What are we to think about you when you say one thing and do another?

 

[Dr.Who]

If you can't be bothered to quote me when you call me a liar then I am not interested in discussing with you. I have NEVER deliberately misquoted the Bible, nor have I taken quotes from different parts, combined them and tried to pass them off as integral statements.

As far as Moses killing people, I don't think I've ever written anything on that subject, so why don't you do what I do and give quotes?

It was only a few posts back there was no need to quote you. this is what you said this time. (at other times you did provide the source)

" The quotes from the Bible are there for anyone to read. It may be that you get naked with your male friends and swear undying love, and knit your souls together, and lie on the ground kissing. You may even state that your love for them surpasses the love of women, buy if you do those things you will have the Bible-beaters down on you like white on rice."

We can all see that this time you did not quote the bible. But each of those elements come from parts of the bible that are well known and we all know where they come from. You deliberatley mixed these parts from different stories and made it seem like they were from one story. The getting naked (to change clothes) was not in the same story as some of the other parts that you listed.

And this time I did quote you. If this thread was not going back so far that I have forgotten half of what we were discussing I could probably find where you did the same thing and did quote the bible.

Btw, i did not call you a liar. I said you deliberately fabricated the story. I believe you did it deliberately because you have an agenda and I believe you fabricated it because you created a single new story where there was before two or more. But I think that in your mind it makes sense and you believe it to be true. You are not lying.

 

[Dr.Who]

Isn't it nice for you to be able to talk about what's in the Bible but you don't give quotes? Handy for you.

I call bull on your comments about slavery and the subjugation of women. You call me a liar and don't give quotes, but you make wild statements and rarely give sources. What are we to think about you when you say one thing and do another?

It is time to stop jumping on people for not providing quotes when you just finished doing the exact same thing. If you want quotes you can ask politely. we are having a discussion not writing a term paper.

The first book of the bible illustrates the equality if women when she is described as being created from the side of Adam and not from, say, his feet. The word used for side is "azer" which means a complete half of him rather than just a rib. No quote is needed as even the most illiterate are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve just as no quote is needed when one says the sky is blue.