These Emperors have no clothes

[shegeek72]

These Emperors Have No Clothes;
Roman Catholic Bishops Issue New Pastoral Guidelines

By Rev. Nancy L. Wilson
Moderator
Metropolitan Community Churches

There comes a point when one must finally say about the Roman Catholic
hierarchy's moral authority on issues of human sexuality: "These
emperors have no clothes."

The latest pronouncement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on
"ministry to persons with homosexual inclinations" is completely
without credibility, especially in the US, where the Bishops have
utterly failed as moral and spiritual leaders to deal with the decades
of documented sexual abuse of children entrusted to the care of the
Roman Catholic Church through its priests. The cover-up and complicity,
the pastoral failure to take seriously the suffering of the victims and
their families, the scapegoating of homosexual priests, and efforts to
save institutional face at all costs have wounded and alienated US
Catholics as nothing before in history.

Now, in the face of this lapse of moral responsibility, the US Catholic
Bishops have chosen to pontificate on matter of sexual practice and
morality crucial to heterosexuals and homosexuals in ways that can only
be described as reflecting "willful ignorance" (quoting Sam Sinnett,
President of Dignity USA).

The latest word from the US Bishops make it very clear that we truly
stand in need of a new moral paradigm when it comes to human sexuality.
The 21st century demands a major revisiting of the purpose, moral
boundaries and values that promote healthy, just and loving human
sexual and familial relationships, especially by Christians. A 19th
century hymn writer, James Russell Lowell wrote, "New occasions teach
new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth; they must upward still and
onward, who would keep abreast of truth."

In public campaigns around the world, the predominantly LGBT
Metropolitan Community Churches have been asking this question: "Would
Jesus discriminate?" - a question that's been met by grassroots people
of faith with an intuitive and resounding "no."

It's far too easy to make proclamations that are rooted in outdated
societal mores, rather than in God's love and grace. Over centuries and
millennia, human sexual mores and practices change, but the core values
of love and justice, mercy and grace, of respect and honor, do not. It
is these core values that need to be lifted up and reinterpreted in out
times.

For example, when the Bishops say that artificial contraception
introduces a "false note" into heterosexual marriage, they
disrespect and dishonor millions of Catholic families who use
contraception with a clear conscience. In a world in which
over-population - not homosexuality - is a major contributor to
poverty and undermines women's dignity and health, the Bishops,
themselves, are speaking falsely. With a vastly declining celibate
priesthood that has been even further diminished and disgraced by
pedophilia, the Bishops should focus their moral fervor on an
institution other than marriage.

At a time when civil authorities in Catholic Spain and Mexico City are
recognizing the rights of LGBT families and couples, the Vatican and
the US Catholic Bishops are still living in the Middle Ages. Gay
marriage is not contributing to the devaluation of marriage; in fact,
it does quite the opposite.

The reality is this: These emperors of the Church have no clothes. And
about the last thing we need in today's world is a religious
institution with a "moral clothing optional" policy.

So here's a sincere recommendation: The US Bishops could go a long
way in restoring respect for their moral voice if they would refrain
from making pronouncements on human sexuality for a decade or so. They
might well spend that time adding a 21st Century knowledge base to
their presumed life-affirming theology.

It is a time for a new Reformation. If the Church is truly the
"People of God," as Vatican II proclaimed, it is time for the
people to make their voices heard and for God's Church to once again
be a place of trust and good news for all people.

*Permission granted to reprint, redistribute, or reproduce.*

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72
These Emperors Have No Clothes;
Roman Catholic Bishops Issue New Pastoral Guidelines
By Rev. Nancy L. Wilson
Moderator
Metropolitan Community Churches
There comes a point when one must finally say about the Roman Catholic
hierarchy's moral authority on issues of human sexuality: "These
emperors have no clothes."
The latest pronouncement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on
"ministry to persons with homosexual inclinations" is completely
without credibility, especially in the US, where the Bishops have
utterly failed as moral and spiritual leaders

It doesn't matter. As todays Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah based
upon the modern Jewish stereotypical objection that very few Jews,
down through history, believed it to be the reality. But the point is,
Truth
is never determined by the majority. It doesn't matter what RC priests
do or don't do. What the "church" majority view is or isn't. The ONLY
touchstone of Truth is what does God declare in His Word? And there,
apart from a revisionist interpretation, homosexuality is condemned
unequivocally.

The presumption of this whole article which you have quoted, is not
to denounce immorality in the Church, the Body of Christ, but to
garner support for the sodomite community. You live a lie if you
think sodomy has any acceptance in the Kingdom of God. Though
these priests do wicked things, I would guessimate that by far,
the majority of them would confess what they have done as being
outside of Biblical morality. You, on the other hand, "although
knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things
are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty
approval to those who practice them." Rom 1:32

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It doesn't matter. As todays Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah based
upon the modern Jewish stereotypical objection that very few Jews,
down through history, believed it to be the reality. But the point is,
Truth
is never determined by the majority. It doesn't matter what RC priests
do or don't do. What the "church" majority view is or isn't. The ONLY
touchstone of Truth is what does God declare in His Word? And there,
apart from a revisionist interpretation, homosexuality is condemned
unequivocally.

Perhaps, if you literally interpret the Bible. Have you entertained
that the homosexuality in the Bible does not apply to the committed,
loving, monogomous relationships of today? Not everything in the Bible
has come true: the apostles thought Jesus would return in their
lifetimes. That, in itself, is proof that the Bible is not infallible.
Could the homosexuality in the Bible refer to promiscuousness? And
could the prohibition in Leviticus be there to help procreation in the
nomadic, agrarian society?

Taking the Bible literally does not allow critical thinking, context,
editing and censoring to factor into one's thinking.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The presumption of this whole article which you have quoted, is not
to denounce immorality in the Church, the Body of Christ, but to
garner support for the sodomite community.

Some heterosexuals have anal sex - are they committing an "abomination"
also?
--
"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is
not a crime." - Ernest Hemingway

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It doesn't matter. As todays Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah
based upon the modern Jewish stereotypical objection that very few
Jews, down through history, believed it to be the reality. But the
point is, Truth is never determined by the majority. It doesn't
matter what RC priests do or don't do. What the "church" majority
view is or isn't. The ONLY touchstone of Truth is what does God
declare in His Word? And there, apart from a revisionist
interpretation, homosexuality is condemned unequivocally.

Perhaps, if you literally interpret the Bible.

And not only then.

Post by shegeek72
Have you entertained that the homosexuality in the Bible does not
apply to the committed, loving, monogomous relationships of today?

And why should he do that? It is so ridiculous, it does NOT deserve to
be 'entertained'.
You will find that that contention is not so widely
believed. Certainly not widely enough for your matter-of-fact
assertion.

Post by shegeek72
the apostles thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes.

And this is outright false.

Post by shegeek72
That, in itself, is proof that the Bible is not infallible.

No, it would only be proof that the apostles were fallible.

Post by shegeek72
Could the homosexuality in the Bible refer to promiscuousness?

Certainly not.

Post by shegeek72
And could the prohibition in Leviticus be there to help procreation
in the nomadic, agrarian society?

Certainly not.

Post by shegeek72
Taking the Bible literally does not allow critical thinking, context,
editing and censoring to factor into one's thinking.

But even when you _do_ take these things into account -- if you do it
correctly -- you will find that homosexual behavior is forbidden and
harshly condemned.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The presumption of this whole article which you have quoted, is not
to denounce immorality in the Church, the Body of Christ, but to
garner support for the sodomite community.

Some heterosexuals have anal sex - are they committing an
"abomination" also?

Why, yes. Are you surprised?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It doesn't matter. As todays Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah based
upon the modern Jewish stereotypical objection that very few Jews,
down through history, believed it to be the reality. But the point is,
Truth
is never determined by the majority. It doesn't matter what RC priests
do or don't do. What the "church" majority view is or isn't. The ONLY
touchstone of Truth is what does God declare in His Word? And there,
apart from a revisionist interpretation, homosexuality is condemned
unequivocally.

Perhaps, if you literally interpret the Bible.

Scripture is always interpreted literally by scripture itself. Christ
interpeted it literally.

Post by shegeek72
Have you entertained
that the homosexuality in the Bible does not apply to the committed,
loving, monogomous relationships of today?

Oh, this is an old argument used by Scroggs. Yes, I have read
the apologists of the pro-sodomite school. They are, as I have already
noted, revisionist. They seek to revise what the NT definitions were
not only at the time in pagan useage, but also in the Scriptures
themselves.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't wash with the facts. Have you
entertained reading conservative apologist? At least you should
search what has already been detailed at length here on SRC.
Search titles including, " arsenokoitai". We also posted at
length on the OT, Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha teachings and
word useages. Also, "Homosexuality in the NT" and
"Homosexuality in the OT." There is also this on Rom 1:24-32

http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/3503.html

Post by shegeek72
Not everything in the Bible
has come true: the apostles thought Jesus would return in their
lifetimes.

You are mistaken. They taught imminency which is different.
Certainly I would agree that they thought that it would be in that
generation. But a little study would reveal that the disciples
had a misconception of the Kingdom as did most Jews who
had all but forgot the suffering aspect of the Messiah and only
emphasized the reigning aspect. But it is not required that
they understood exhaustively to write what they did inerrantly.

Post by shegeek72
That, in itself, is proof that the Bible is not infallible.

Only your understanding of the actuality is fallible. Again, the
Kingdom is a mystery. That the Church was to become adopted
in the covenant promise of the kingdom and that there would be
a parenthetical "Church Age" does not dismiss what was written.

Post by shegeek72
From a distance, two mountain peaks may be believed to be

on mountain range when in fact, there is a valley between them.

Your argument has not validity to it.

Post by shegeek72
Could the homosexuality in the Bible refer to promiscuousness? And
could the prohibition in Leviticus be there to help procreation in the
nomadic, agrarian society?

You're grasping at straws as do most who try and twist the Biblical
teachings. This has all be discussed and discounted in previous posts.

I do not want to and the moderator will not allow a rehashing of all
this.
Suffice it to say, however, there is ample historical files on SRC
which
roundly defeat your wishy revisionism.

Post by shegeek72
Taking the Bible literally does not allow critical thinking, context,
editing and censoring to factor into one's thinking.

You don't know what the "literal" hermeneutic actually teaches, do you?
You presume an extreme literalism where there is none. "Literalism" is
also known as the historic/grammatical method of interpretation. This
allows
for metaphors and other numerous figures of speach [I refer you to
Bullinger's 1000+ page reference work, "Figures of Speech Used in the
Bible." I'd also suggest you read Ramm's "Protestant Biblical
Interpretation." Therein is a summary of all the hermeneutical
schools, there history, their weaknesses and their strengths. Of
course, the final conclusion of the work is that the literal
methodology
is the only adequate one for correct interpretation as evidenced by
history and the scriptures use of scripture.

You are quite naive to think that the historic/grammatic model
does not allow for "critical thinking and context." In point of fact,
IT DEMANDS IT.

BTW, what are you proposing as a counter methodology?

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The presumption of this whole article which you have quoted, is not
to denounce immorality in the Church, the Body of Christ, but to
garner support for the sodomite community.

Some heterosexuals have anal sex - are they committing an "abomination"
also?

This is a Boswellian tactic. You've read John Boswell's,
"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality?"

Did work for him. Won't work for you either. Stick to the topic.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72
Could the homosexuality in the Bible refer to promiscuousness? And
could the prohibition in Leviticus be there to help procreation in the
nomadic, agrarian society?

I believe I have mentioned to you that one way of verifying a thesis
is to give it time to see if it can actually be lived out honestly and
consistently. This is not saying that an athiest can't be an athiest
all his live long life. What it is saying that does/can the athiest
live
consistently which the presuppositions involved?

Yes, I know we are not discussing athiesm. But the mechanics
are the same. To be an athiest is fundamentally to live as if there
is no, capital "G", God. This means there are no absolute moral
standards. It means that there is no transcendent meaning and
purpose in life. It means that "good" is and can only be, relative
to the moment. It means that DeSade was not wrong in his
conclusions and actions. He was absolutely right. As soon
as the athiest cries "foul", however, he betrays his supposition.

So it is with homosexuality. Can it consistently adhere to it's
presuppositions? Well the answer to that question is easy to
illustrate.

Let's sail off to an island in the South Pacific. A beautiful
tropical island. It has some life forms, but none that are
threatening to man. No one lives on it yet it is able to easily
sustain life. Now place a husband and wife (male and female)
on that island and quarentine it for 100 yrs. When you
revisit that island what do you expect to find? Right, children
and grandchildren.

Now, take that same island and lets place two lesbians
or two homosexual men, "married" or not, doesn't really matter,
and let us leave them there by themselves for 100 yrs. Now
what can we expect to find when we return? Does the
homosexual dynamic fit the natural universe in its ability
to progenerate itself?

The "Prime Directive," to steal a Star Trek idiom, of
man in the garden, was to sally forth and multiply. Adam
and Steve would never have made it out of the garden. So
right out of the gate (garden gate that is), homosexuality
betrays the "prime directive". We call it the "human
race" for a reason. It procreates. It is a race as opposed
to the angelic realm which came into exisistance all at
once and do not procreate when remaining in their
"proper domain."

Homosexuality, like "evil vs good", requires procreating
heterosexuality to sustain it. Evil, like homosexuality,
cannot exist apart from good already existing. Evil
cannot stand alone or be self-sustaining. Evil, by a
necessity, cannot even fully reveal itself. Evil men
come together for a time but always, being naturally
selfish, disband after some self-serving communical
goal has be sought after. There is no such thing as
"absolute evil." Evil is always reliant upon "good".

Homosexuality is the same. It is ultimately selfish.
It ultimately is unable to sustain itself and therefore,
even from a naturalist point of view, does not stand
the test of mechanical universe. Whether literally or
allegorically (Yuk!!!!), the Genesis record of the
garden denies homosexuality. Homosexuality and
evil are not by chance experientially related.

I suggest you find and read "The Christian Doctrine
of Sin" by Julius Muller, 2 vols, first published in
1839. I think you have a totally modern view of
sin, pluralism and tolerance. That is not God view.
Adam and Eve were promptly kicked out for not
conforming with God's view. Cain's offering was
rejected because it did not conform to God's
demands. Israel was freed from Egypt's slavery
but later most of them died in the wilderness
because they did not subject themselves to God's
promises. This the history of mankind. The only
escape is through Christ's offer. However, one
must first repent of sin before one can turn to
accept His offer. "Repent" means to be in agreement
with God, not living in perfect conformity to that
standard. Salvation is not by works. But if you
deny God's revelation, then it is evident, as with
Israel in the wilderness, you do not really believe.

Repent or die in your sin.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72
Could the homosexuality in the Bible refer to promiscuousness? And
could the prohibition in Leviticus be there to help procreation in the
nomadic, agrarian society?

I believe I have mentioned to you that one way of verifying a thesis
is to give it time to see if it can actually be lived out honestly and
consistently. This is not saying that an athiest can't be an athiest
all his live long life. What it is saying that does/can the athiest
live
consistently which the presuppositions involved?
Yes, I know we are not discussing athiesm. But the mechanics

B - People who are into the literalness of the bible will always harangue
others about the supposed sins that they personally don't do......

interesting that.

I.M.O
Bren

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, take that same island and lets place two lesbians
or two homosexual men, "married" or not, doesn't really matter,
and let us leave them there by themselves for 100 yrs. Now
what can we expect to find when we return? Does the
homosexual dynamic fit the natural universe in its ability
to progenerate itself?

I've read this ridiculous analogy before and it shows the lengths some
will go to justify their weak arguments. First of all, the senario
doesn't apply to today, nor at any time in history (except, perhaps, to
the story of Adam & Eve, that also can be interpreted different ways).

Secondly, gays and lesbians only comprise 3-4 percent of the population
as a whole, therefore the non-procreation argument does not apply, as
there has always been, and probably always will be, the other 96% of
the population to continue the species.

Then there's the world's population that's rapidly increasing and is
creating problems, with pollution, deforestation, etc. You should be
happy there is a percentage of the population that's gay as they
contribute much less to over-population.

And thirdly, gays and lesbians now have the ability to have children
through in-vitro fertilization, further weakening the procreation
argument.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "Prime Directive," to steal a Star Trek idiom, of
man in the garden, was to sally forth and multiply.

<snip>

Regardless of another one of your weak analogies, some interpret the
story of Adam & Eve differently; not to mean the fall of man, but the
falling away of the realization that we are all God-like.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is the same. It is ultimately selfish.

Not at all. It's a variation on human sexuality. If homosexuality is
selfish, then so is heterosexuality.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality and evil are not by chance experientially related.

Calling homosexuality "evil" is evil in itself. Anyone who associates
with gays and lesbians on a regular basis knows these are people no
different from anyone else, except in the gender of their partners,
many who are in loving, longterm, monogamous relationships and just
want to live without Christian-created interference and prejudice.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I suggest you find and read "The Christian Doctrine
of Sin" by Julius Muller,

<snip>

Merely someone's opinion, just as_any_writings are on the Bible.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Repent or die in your sin.

Yeah, right. Tell me when Elvis gets here. :P

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Sorry, but that argument doesn't wash with the facts. Have you
entertained reading conservative apologist? At least you should
search what has already been detailed at length here on SRC.
Search titles including, " arsenokoitai". We also posted at
length on the OT, Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha teachings and
word useages. Also, "Homosexuality in the NT" and
"Homosexuality in the OT."

In contrast see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc7.htm

The definition is what I believe to be the most correct: a male
prostitute or boy sex slave. I first heard this from my mother, a
life-long Christian, who I consider to be one of the most knowledgable
lay people on the Bible that I know of. After further study I've come
to the conclusion she was right.

As for Stedman's article, it is opinion, and his credibility is in
question with this statement:

"The truly awful thing about the rise of homosexuality today is that
homosexuals are allowed to believe the lie that this is a biological
condition which they cannot help, but to which they should adjust."

The vast majority of degreed health professionals are of the opinion
that homosexuality is_not_a disorder, nor unnatural, and is caused by
environmental, genetic and hormonal factors. Therefore, it
usually_is_biological.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are mistaken. They taught imminency which is different.
Certainly I would agree that they thought that it would be in that
generation. But a little study would reveal that the disciples
had a misconception of the Kingdom as did most Jews who
had all but forgot the suffering aspect of the Messiah and only
emphasized the reigning aspect. But it is not required that
they understood exhaustively to write what they did inerrantly.

This is an example of 'trying to get out of painting one's self into a
corner' and verges on semantics.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Only your understanding of the actuality is fallible. Again, the
Kingdom is a mystery.

<snip>

This_is_semantics.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You're grasping at straws as do most who try and twist the Biblical
teachings. This has all be discussed and discounted in previous posts.

All previous posts have been opinions, nothing more (including your's
and mine).

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You don't know what the "literal" hermeneutic actually teaches, do you?
You presume an extreme literalism where there is none. "Literalism" is
also known as the historic/grammatical method of interpretation. This
allows

<snip>

Even more semantics...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is a Boswellian tactic. You've read John Boswell's,
"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality?"

No, and I doubt I will. Why don't you answer the question?

Finally, I'd like to quote a section from the preface of one of my
KJV's:

"Many difficulties and obscurities [in the Bible], of course, remain.
Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or
doubtful, we have given an alternate rendering in a footnote. If in the
the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite
uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or
because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language,
that fact is indicated by a note. It should not be assumed, however,
that the Committee was entirely sure or unanimous concerning every
rendering not so indicated."

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now, take that same island and lets place two lesbians
or two homosexual men, "married" or not, doesn't really matter,
and let us leave them there by themselves for 100 yrs. Now
what can we expect to find when we return? Does the
homosexual dynamic fit the natural universe in its ability
to progenerate itself?

I've read this ridiculous analogy before and it shows the lengths some
will go to justify their weak arguments.

You've never studied the history of philosophy, have you? One
man draws a circle in the sand and declares, "Truth!" But after
a while it becomes selfevident that "It aint gonna fly." Then
another man comes along and draws a circle in the sand and
he too declares "Truth." And so it goes. The proof text is
whether or not it complies with what is. Homosexuality does
not comply with the physical universe let alone the moral
universe.

Post by shegeek72
First of all, the senario
doesn't apply to today, nor at any time in history (except, perhaps, to
the story of Adam & Eve, that also can be interpreted different ways).

You are operating off of a false presupposition. You presuppose that
Truth is relative. Your argument denies the freedom/form dynamic. It
also denies capital "T" Truth. Capital "T" Truth does not metamorph
with the changing sociological climate. True Truth is eternal and
immutable.

Post by shegeek72
Secondly, gays and lesbians only comprise 3-4 percent of the population
as a whole, therefore the non-procreation argument does not apply, as
there has always been, and probably always will be, the other 96% of
the population to continue the species.

That was not the point. The point was, that left to itself, it CANNOT
sustain itself, therefore it is an abomination. "Go forth and
multiply"
was a command, not a suggestion. Homosexuality has been
condemned at every turn in Scripture. It has remained constant as
the model has remained constant. Male and Female.

Post by shegeek72
Then there's the world's population that's rapidly increasing and is
creating problems, with pollution, deforestation, etc. You should be
happy there is a percentage of the population that's gay as they
contribute much less to over-population.

To take your logic to fruition we could commend a rapist for
tidying up afterwards too. Wow, one of the weakest arguments
I have ever heard.

Post by shegeek72
And thirdly, gays and lesbians now have the ability to have children
through in-vitro fertilization, further weakening the procreation
argument.

No, they cannot. They still require an opposite sex donor. To
women cannot produce a child, in-vitro fertilization or not. Again,
the logic of your argument is, is, is, is silly!

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "Prime Directive," to steal a Star Trek idiom, of
man in the garden, was to sally forth and multiply.

<snip>
Regardless of another one of your weak analogies, some interpret the
story of Adam & Eve differently; not to mean the fall of man, but the
falling away of the realization that we are all God-like.

Pearls before the swine.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is the same. It is ultimately selfish.

Not at all. It's a variation on human sexuality. If homosexuality is
selfish, then so is heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is ALWAYS self-oriented. ONLY heterosexuality
has even the posibility of be God-glorifying. Again, you seem
incapable
of following the logic of the point that was made.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality and evil are not by chance experientially related.

Calling homosexuality "evil" is evil in itself. Anyone who associates
with gays and lesbians on a regular basis knows these are people no
different from anyone else,

You make the same error as some RCs do when I "protest" the
doctrine's of the RCC. They take it personally. We're not talking
about "personalities" here. We are talking about principles. The
principle that homosexuality is an abomination to the Creator of
the Universe takes no notice as to whether or not the offender is
a nice person. How often have we heard a neighbor on the news
state, "But he always seemed to be such a nice guy" when a
child porno sting nets and offender. The Law does not take such
things into account.

Post by shegeek72
except in the gender of their partners,
many who are in loving, longterm, monogamous relationships and just
want to live without Christian-created interference and prejudice.

It aint "Christian created" dear. It comes from the Throne of God as
revealed to us in both His written Word and in history. The fact that
the 5 cities were destroyed by "fire and brimstone" is witness enough
to the fact that homosexuality is not acceptable to God.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Repent or die in your sin.

Yeah, right. Tell me when Elvis gets here. :P
--

"_therefore_they_are_without_excuse!"

Again, you display the Pauline condemnation of Rom 1:32.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72
In contrast see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc7.htm
The definition is what I believe to be the most correct: a male
prostitute or boy sex slave. I first heard this from my mother, a
life-long Christian, who I consider to be one of the most knowledgable
lay people on the Bible that I know of. After further study I've come
to the conclusion she was right.

YOU DIDN"T BOTHER TO PERFORM THE SEARCH. You
didn't read what has already been posted. This has all been
refuted. Why do you think that Boswell and Scrogg's have
not mounted a scholarly rebuttal to those who have proven
their revisionism wrong? Because they can't! And neither
can you. Documented history destroys this line of argument.

Post by shegeek72
As for Stedman's article, it is opinion, and his credibility is in
"The truly awful thing about the rise of homosexuality today is that
homosexuals are allowed to believe the lie that this is a biological
condition which they cannot help, but to which they should adjust."
The vast majority of degreed health professionals are of the opinion
that homosexuality is_not_a disorder, nor unnatural, and is caused by
environmental, genetic and hormonal factors. Therefore, it
usually_is_biological.

Boy, where have you been? I can't find the MIT article on my HD
at the moment nor the website address to the AMJ article, both of
which completely debunked this. Again, we've been over all this
before here in SRC. You need to get up todate. Next you'll be
telling us that "guilt" is an illussion. That too is old thinking as
psychology course now teach it as a reality to be considered in
analysis.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are mistaken. They taught imminency which is different.
Certainly I would agree that they thought that it would be in that
generation. But a little study would reveal that the disciples
had a misconception of the Kingdom as did most Jews who
had all but forgot the suffering aspect of the Messiah and only
emphasized the reigning aspect. But it is not required that
they understood exhaustively to write what they did inerrantly.

This is an example of 'trying to get out of painting one's self into a
corner' and verges on semantics.

No it is not. What it is an example of is your naivette concerning
the doctrine. From its infancy, the Church has taught imminency.

Titus 2:12-13 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires
and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking
for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God
and Savior, Christ Jesus;

The believer keeps pure not because of some "law" but because
of a healthy fear that Christ might soon return. In that you are
experientially unfamiliar with this dynamic only attests to your
inward condition. Its not about "semantics," its about the
verifiable historical record.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is a Boswellian tactic. You've read John Boswell's,
"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality?"

No, and I doubt I will. Why don't you answer the question?

Because it is ludicruous.

Post by shegeek72
Finally, I'd like to quote a section from the preface of one of my
"Many difficulties and obscurities [in the Bible], of course, remain.
--

Now just before this, you rebuffed me with "just opinions" and yet
here you provide me with a proof which is equally that. But why
not let Scripture speak for itself?

2 Pet. 3:15-16 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation;
just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given
him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of
these things, in which are SOME things hard to understand, which the
*untaught* and *unstable* distort, as they do also the rest of the
Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The point is, most things are clear and didactic. Homosexuality,
"trans"genderism are concisely and clearly, not obscurely, defined
and condemned in Scripture. You because you have an agenda
to defend, you are forced to "distort" the Scriptures because if you
were to let them speak for themselves, you would have to admit
the lie. "And every mouth will be stopped."

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality does
not comply with the physical universe

What physics book did you find that in?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
let alone the moral universe.

In your opinion. Morality is subjective.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You presuppose that Truth is relative.

It is.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Your argument denies the freedom/form dynamic.

Actually, your argument denies the "freedom/form dynamic," as it's
based on religious beliefs, not on logic or science.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That was not the point. The point was, that left to itself, it CANNOT
sustain itself, therefore it is an abomination. "Go forth and
multiply"

We've seen the results of "go forth and multiply": over-population. It
may have been applicable when societies were nomadic and agrarian, but
not today. If anything, we need to go forth and "not multiply."

Post by l***@hotmail.com
was a command, not a suggestion. Homosexuality has been
condemned at every turn in Scripture.

Not the longterm, loving, monogamous relationships of today. I already
pointed out that the homosexuality in the Bible most likely refers to
male prostitution and/or boy sex slaves.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
To take your logic to fruition we could commend a rapist for
tidying up afterwards too. Wow, one of the weakest arguments
I have ever heard.

Wow, one of the weakest analogies I've ever heard. There is little
comparsion between rape and homosexuality. Rape involves forced sex;
homosexuality is consesual, usually loving, sex.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, they cannot. They still require an opposite sex donor. To
women cannot produce a child, in-vitro fertilization or not. Again,
the logic of your argument is, is, is, is silly!

You need to do something about that stutter. :P

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is ALWAYS self-oriented.

Baloney. Homosexuality is usually sex between two loving people.
Masturbation is self-oriented - I assume you're against that also.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It aint "Christian created" dear.

It most certainly is! Christians and Muslims are the most outspoken
opponents of gays and lesbians. And I've already explained how the
misguided belief that homosexuality is somehow wrong, a "sin,"
"abomination," etc can, and does, lead to discrimination, violence and
murder of gays and lesbians.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The fact that
the 5 cities were destroyed by "fire and brimstone" is witness enough
to the fact that homosexuality is not acceptable to God.

Nope. Homosexuality wasn't the reason for the smiting my God. And when
was the last time you saw a city destroyed by smiting? San Francisco
would be a smoking crater by now. ;)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"_therefore_they_are_without_excuse!"

And your excuse is? :P

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
YOU DIDN"T BOTHER TO PERFORM THE SEARCH.

I did a cursory search and found what I believe to be the correct
interpretation. Perhaps I'll do a more thorough search when I have time
(I'm writing two books). However, I cannot believe that the
interpretation of homosexuality in the Bible refers to the loving,
monogamous relationships of today.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You didn't read what has already been posted.

Once again, everything posted here is OPINION.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Boy, where have you been? I can't find the MIT article on my HD
at the moment nor the website address to the AMJ article, both of
which completely debunked this.

Then I suggest you find them, as (I've stated here before) both the Am.
Psychology Assoc. and Am. Psychiatry Assoc. say homosexuality is_not_a
disorder and are_not_choices. Sorry, but it's your thinking that's out
of date.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72
"Many difficulties and obscurities [in the Bible], of course, remain.
--

Now just before this, you rebuffed me with "just opinions" and yet
here you provide me with a proof which is equally that. But why
not let Scripture speak for itself?

Perhaps you need to re-read the entire paragraph (and not snip) to see
the fallacy of your thinking. My point has always been there are parts
of the Bible that are ambiguous and open to various interpretations.
Either the Bible is literal or it isn't - one cannot have it both ways!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The point is, most things are clear and didactic. Homosexuality,
"trans"genderism are concisely and clearly, not obscurely, defined
and condemned in Scripture.

First of all, transgenderism isn't addressed_anywhere_in the Bible.
Some have made weak attempts by using sections on marriage, but they
are_not_analogous. If you can quote where transsexuality is
specifically addressed in the Bible I'd like to see it!

As for homosexuality, I stand by my contention that it doesn't refer to
the longterm, committed relationships of today, or even to casual sex.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You because you have an agenda
to defend, you are forced to "distort" the Scriptures because if you
were to let them speak for themselves, you would have to admit
the lie.

As I've said here before, my only agenda is disseminating accurate
information and support about transsexuality. The only lie is the life
I lived before transition. Indeed, it's your ilk that has an agenda by
opposing a biological condition that has shown time and time again to
be corrected by hormones, therapy and surgery.

How many transgender people do you know or have talked to? I bet none!
How much research have you done on transsexuality? I bet none! How many
seminars on TS have you attended? Again, I'd wager none.

"And every mouth will be stopped."

Doesn't look like it's working. :P

[Jani]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:iYPah.12837$***@trnddc03...

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Let's sail off to an island in the South Pacific. A beautiful
tropical island. It has some life forms, but none that are
threatening to man. No one lives on it yet it is able to easily
sustain life. Now place a husband and wife (male and female)
on that island and quarentine it for 100 yrs. When you
revisit that island what do you expect to find? Right, children
and grandchildren.
Now, take that same island and lets place two lesbians
or two homosexual men, "married" or not, doesn't really matter,
and let us leave them there by themselves for 100 yrs. Now
what can we expect to find when we return? Does the
homosexual dynamic fit the natural universe in its ability
to progenerate itself?

Whilst I understand the point you're making, the scenarios don't work in
literal terms. Leaving a single couple to multiply might result in several
generations of offspring, but the gene pool is so restricted that the
'community' is unlikely to survive. So a single heterosexual couple doesn't
"fit the natural universe in its ability to progenerate itself", either. In
fact, any homosexual individuals in the community are, by not perpetrating
recessive traits, probably more advantageous to the community at any given
point than heterosexual ones.

Jani

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality does
not comply with the physical universe

What physics book did you find that in?

I didn't narrow it to physics, I said the "physical universe."
What animal ever made it to the next generation based
on a single sex? Homosexuality does not comply to the
standard of the physical universe where male and female
genes are required for procreation. Homosexuality in
humans must drop out of its little self-serving world inorder
to reproduce.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
let alone the moral universe.

In your opinion. Morality is subjective.

THey are the 10 Commandments, not the 10
suggestions. Morality is not subjective because the
source of morality does not reside in a finite being. It
resides in the very being of God and is therefore not
"subjective."

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You presuppose that Truth is relative.

It is.

You do not live as if it is. Here is yet another area
in which you cannot live consistently with your stated
reality. If you bought a cup of coffee for .50 and gave
the server a dollar and he only gave you .25 back in
change, you'd have a hissy fit. If you jumped out of
your car to return a video at the video store and some
one jumped and drove off, again you would hardly think
that "Law" was relative. There are a 1000 ways this
plays itself out in everyday life. Do you not see this?

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Your argument denies the freedom/form dynamic.

Actually, your argument denies the "freedom/form dynamic," as it's
based on religious beliefs, not on logic or science.

"Science" and "logic." And yet above you talk about
subjective truth. People like to think that scientific truths
are all "absolute." In fact, there are some that are but
there are many which are not. You mix X parts of acid
and X parts of caustic and you will get a calculated
reaction. However, logic is not necessarily so exact and
what often is played off as scientific "truth" is subjective
truth.

Freedom/form dynamic requires an absolute standard
from which to regulate it otherwise, as history clearly
illustrates, it wanders off into tyranny or anarchy. The
US has experiences the greatest freedom because it
was rooted in the best form -the Christian religion. Even
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (in his earlier years)
were both deists at best and yet they made the *required*
text book of all schools the Bible. There are numerous
articles on how fundamental Biblical forms were accounted
the basis for both the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The signers of the
Dof I were predominately pastors! Bet you didn't know
that.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
That was not the point. The point was, that left to itself, it CANNOT
sustain itself, therefore it is an abomination. "Go forth and
multiply"

We've seen the results of "go forth and multiply": over-population. It
may have been applicable when societies were nomadic and agrarian, but
not today. If anything, we need to go forth and "not multiply."

You can't stick to the point, can you? Is it any wonder? No, because
you don't have an answer to dilemma. Homosexuality does not
and cannot procreate, therefore it stands contrary to the universes
paradigm of male/female procreation. It's a square winged airplane
yet you insist it can fly.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
was a command, not a suggestion. Homosexuality has been
condemned at every turn in Scripture.

Not the longterm, loving, monogamous relationships of today. I already
pointed out that the homosexuality in the Bible most likely refers to
male prostitution and/or boy sex slaves.

Again, you show that you did not read what has already been posted
showing that these presumptions don't hold water linquistically. I've
already pointed "ARSENOKOITAI" out to you. Did you search the
records? You've picked these arguments from somewhere but they
originated in the published works of Bailey, Boswell and Scroggs. And
I have posted point by point the error of their analysis. You're
living
on a baseless hope that these things might be true, not that have
been proven to you to be so. If you haven't read their books then
you've only gotten it second hand. And because you seem unwilling
to actually seek the truth yourself, here are a couple of references:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/5a399b07697e0919/243bf5a95f85309e?lnk=gst&q=ARSENOKOITAI&rnum=1&hl=en#243bf5a95f85309e

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/9bff14f7392834de/0a0897770623008b?lnk=gst&q=ARSENOKOITAI&rnum=2&hl=en#0a0897770623008b

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
To take your logic to fruition we could commend a rapist for
tidying up afterwards too. Wow, one of the weakest arguments
I have ever heard.

Wow, one of the weakest analogies I've ever heard. There is little
comparsion between rape and homosexuality. Rape involves forced sex;
homosexuality is consesual, usually loving, sex.

I was comparing *your* point that homosexuality was to be viewed
positively because it didn't procreate therefore "decrease the surface
population." You apparently are so quick to defend yourself that
you are not even considering what was stated and why.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is ALWAYS self-oriented.

Baloney. Homosexuality is usually sex between two loving people.
Masturbation is self-oriented - I assume you're against that also.

Nothing matters whether I am for it or against it. I am not the
Architect of the moral standards for the universe. I leave that up
to God. Don't I always comply with I know to be God's moral
standards. No body does. But that does not dismiss the
standard.

Homosexuality is self-centered because it is not performed by
the leading nor in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul, in Rom 1,
decries it as an act of retributive justice on the part of God. The
unbeliever has denied Him and has pursued to worship the
creature (self) therefore, there comes a time when He finally
just "gave them over" to themselves. Homosexuality is a
judgment. It is not only a judgment on individuals but also
on the society which alienates itself from God.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It aint "Christian created" dear.

It most certainly is! Christians and Muslims are the most outspoken
opponents of gays and lesbians. And I've already explained how the
misguided belief that homosexuality is somehow wrong, a "sin,"
"abomination," etc can, and does, lead to discrimination, violence and
murder of gays and lesbians.

Above you noted "logic" but here you are not employing it anymore
than you have anywhere else.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The fact that
the 5 cities were destroyed by "fire and brimstone" is witness enough
to the fact that homosexuality is not acceptable to God.

Nope. Homosexuality wasn't the reason for the smiting my God. And when
was the last time you saw a city destroyed by smiting? San Francisco
would be a smoking crater by now. ;)

You think to put God in a box. If I do A He will do B. But He is free
to act as He wills when He wills. The judgment against S & G was
a clear statement that God does not condone homosexuality. If you
want to play loosey goosey with that, that is your perogative.
However,
the end result is sure.
1 Cor. 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

I mean to say, that is pretty clear, no? Either you accept the
Christian
faith as given to us in the Scriptures, or you do not. These are not
subjective things.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Boy, where have you been? I can't find the MIT article on my HD
at the moment nor the website address to the AMJ article, both of
which completely debunked this.

Then I suggest you find them, as (I've stated here before) both the Am.
Psychology Assoc. and Am. Psychiatry Assoc. say homosexuality is_not_a
disorder and are_not_choices. Sorry, but it's your thinking that's out
of date.

Talk about subjectivism!! Have you ever even read an introductory
text book in psychology. There are several differen schools of
thought and none of them ever agree with the other. Hardly a
"science" in vein that people like to employ the term.

As for those two articles, I found them easily enough doing a
search in SRC. Perhaps you should learn how to do more
refined searches. And, after reading a dozen or so articles
in at least a dozen threads, I am quite empathetic with the
moderator's wish to hold these sort of discussion to a
minimum. There is little "discussion" but rather just alot
of yelling back and forth across the aisle. I've posted
some solid exegetical articles which do not yell, merely
present the facts.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72
"Many difficulties and obscurities [in the Bible], of course, remain.
--

Now just before this, you rebuffed me with "just opinions" and yet
here you provide me with a proof which is equally that. But why
not let Scripture speak for itself?

Perhaps you need to re-read the entire paragraph (and not snip) to see
the fallacy of your thinking. My point has always been there are parts
of the Bible that are ambiguous and open to various interpretations.
Either the Bible is literal or it isn't - one cannot have it both ways!

Well, in point of fact, you can and you do because you do not
correctly understand just what "literalism" teaches. The fundamental
doctrines are clear. They are not "open" to "varius interpretations."
Obviously when dealing with the nature of God and His revealation
granted to man, there are going to area's that are "hard to understand"
but that does not mean that they are confusing nor are they
arbitrary. As for our discussion, He has be resoundingly clear.
The "extenuating circumstance" line of justification is never
acccepted in scripture. There is no such thing as relativistic
or socialistic ethics in scripture.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The point is, most things are clear and didactic. Homosexuality,
"trans"genderism are concisely and clearly, not obscurely, defined
and condemned in Scripture.

First of all, transgenderism isn't addressed_anywhere_in the Bible.

This is addressed in the article link provided you. It is included
because
"there is nothing new under the sun."

Post by shegeek72
Some have made weak attempts by using sections on marriage, but they
are_not_analogous. If you can quote where transsexuality is
specifically addressed in the Bible I'd like to see it!

First off, I would have to know what your particular definition is,
wouldn't I?

Post by shegeek72
As for homosexuality, I stand by my contention that it doesn't refer to
the longterm, committed relationships of today, or even to casual sex.

I can go to the local Porche dealer and contend with them all day that
I'm a millionarie and they ought to give me one of their cars. You can
contend all you want but it is the facts of the case which are
determinative
and -again- refer you to what has already been posted.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You because you have an agenda
to defend, you are forced to "distort" the Scriptures because if you
were to let them speak for themselves, you would have to admit
the lie.

As I've said here before, my only agenda is disseminating accurate
information and support about transsexuality. The only lie is the life
I lived before transition. Indeed, it's your ilk that has an agenda by
opposing a biological condition that has shown time and time again to
be corrected by hormones, therapy and surgery.

Ah, now we come close to your definition. However, even in those
titillating "Dateline" or "20/20" "time and again" as you like to say,
reports, even they detail the fact that more times than not, surgical
transgeneration works out for the worse. But I don't even want to
go there. Again, experiences can be viewed as existential relativism.

The facts are, God created man, male and female. "Adam" is
used in the bible to denote both male and female. However, after
the fall, that useage ceases. And yes, the universe, creation,
fell right along with man. We see chickens born with three heads
and snakes the same. Siamese twins are the produce, the
result of the fall, not God's original design. Man reaps what he
sows. And the Bible uses Israel to illustrate that spiritual
adultery in one generation leads to physical adultery in the
next. Paul's paradigm in Rom 1 was not his invention.

Post by shegeek72
How many transgender people do you know or have talked to? I bet none!
How much research have you done on transsexuality? I bet none! How many
seminars on TS have you attended? Again, I'd wager none.

I have known two. One was a flaming gay before and after. The other
was real basket case in everyway imaginable. Also, I worked with
"AIDs" patients in Atlanta long before it was given that name. I've
also worked with homosexual's in Chicago who were seeking to get
out of both the lifestyle and the community. So its not like I'm
naive experientially. I'm not a homophobe. I really don't care to
get into having to detail all my life experiences to justify myself
to you. However, again, I'm not talking about these things solely
out of a text book. EVERYONE has a particular sin which they
have to wrestle with. Homosexuality, in that context, is no
different than heterosexual adultery. Sin is sin and no amount
of wiggling is going to change that.

Post by shegeek72
"And every mouth will be stopped."
Doesn't look like it's working. :P
--

It's not before me that your mouth will be stopped. It will be
when you stand before God.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani
Whilst I understand the point you're making, the scenarios don't work in
literal terms. Leaving a single couple to multiply might result in several
generations of offspring, but the gene pool is so restricted that the
'community' is unlikely to survive.

But not originally. We all came from but a single blood line,
regardless
of whether you believe in creationism or evolutionism. Both models
have but a single starting point.

Post by Jani
So a single heterosexual couple doesn't
"fit the natural universe in its ability to progenerate itself",

It does in its original design. Originally, even after the fall, men
lived
to be 900 yrs old. Adam was still alive when Lamech was around
50 or so. Lamech was Noah's father. So your objection doesn't
stand the test.

Post by Jani
either. In
fact, any homosexual individuals in the community are, by not perpetrating
recessive traits, probably more advantageous to the community at any given
point than heterosexual ones.

The point remains unanswered. Two homosexuals on an island can
not produce off spring. The point is, homosexuality does not conform
to even the physical universe, even in its fallen state, let alone in
its
original state. God's design, though fallen, still is able to
procreate
when it conforms to its original design. But homoesexuality goes
outside, "leaves its proper abode" to use biblical terminology. When
the angels did so, they were judged so harshly that they will not even
be brought before the Great White Throne in Rev 20. They have been
decreed to be cast directly into the Lake of Fire when that judgment
comes. Angels were not created to procreate. Humanity was not
created to have same-sex sexual relationships. Homosexuality will
be judged in the same vein as those angels who did not conform to
the Divine design. And that Divine design is self evident when those
to homosexuals on that island cannot procreate.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What animal ever made it to the next generation based
on a single sex?

An amoeba? (AmE=ameba)

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality does not comply to the
standard of the physical universe where male and female
genes are required for procreation.

Where does it say that the standard of the physical universe is male
and female? How do we know there aren't more than two sexes in the
universe, or universes? The universe is a pretty big place. :)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality in humans must drop out of its little self-serving world inorder
to reproduce.

As I already said, only 3-4% of the population is homosexual - there
will always be enough heteros to reproduce, as we're seeing with
over-population.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You presuppose that Truth is relative.

<snip>

Truth is realative. It can be seen in quantum physics where the
observed is affected by the observer. Another example: Jewish people
don't recognize Jesus as the messiah, therefore their truth is
different from Christian truth.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Science" and "logic." And yet above you talk about
subjective truth. People like to think that scientific truths
are all "absolute."

<snip>

Science and religion are two different things. Science is objective,
whereas religion is subjective. Sure, there are truths like the Bible
exists physically, however the "truths" in the Bible need to be teased
out by keeping context, time period, translation and culture in mind.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The signers of the Dof I were predominately pastors! Bet you didn't know
that.

So what? Christianity is also responsible for bloodshed and murder.
(btw, your condescending tone isn't appreciated.)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, you show that you did not read what has already been posted
showing that these presumptions don't hold water linquistically.

<snip>

As previously stated, there are many sections that are ambiguous and
open to interpreation. For example, the section (I believe in Job)
where it says when two, or more, people are gathered together His
presence is there didn't mean friendly conversation, but that they were
ready to rip each other's heads off!

Were the writers of the Bible aware of longterm, loving same-sex
relationships? I don't believe they were. Therefore, the parts that
refer to homosexuality most likely don't refer to those relationships.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You think to put God in a box. If I do A He will do B. But He is free
to act as He wills when He wills. The judgment against S & G was
a clear statement that God does not condone homosexuality.

No, the "judgment" was due to the inhospitality of the inhabitants. I
don't believe that God judges, that's left up to Christians. :P

An all-knowing, all-loving God wouldn't judge. We were made in His
image, therefore our true nature is god-like and god-like beings don't
judge. This can be found in other religions, as well as taught by
enlightened masters (including Jesus) throughout the centuries.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
1 Cor. 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

My KJV says, "...neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

As I quoted before (that you conveniently snipped), there are many
areas of the Bible where a word can have more than one meaning,
uncertainties, obscurity, etc.

Notice that homosexuals are included in with adulterers, robbers and
thieves. This is where the context needs to be taken into account.
Since gays are included with such unsavory people I conclude that it's
referring to homosexual prostitution.

Indeed, homosexuality has no inherent harm, whereas the other things
do. The most harm that can come to gays is from the homophobic, of
which Christianity is a big contributer.
--
The point of life is not to get anywhere - it is to notice that you
are, and have always been, already there. You are, always and forever,
in the moment of pure creation. The point of life is therefore to
create - who and what you are, and then to experience that. -
Conversations with God

[Jani]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
Whilst I understand the point you're making, the scenarios don't work in
literal terms. Leaving a single couple to multiply might result in
several
generations of offspring, but the gene pool is so restricted that the
'community' is unlikely to survive.

But not originally. We all came from but a single blood line,
regardless
of whether you believe in creationism or evolutionism. Both models
have but a single starting point.

I'll grant the possibility of a "single starting point" although it'd be
hard to identify as such, but the point I'm making is that you're trying to
argue simultaneously for a single human couple as literal origin (which
doesn't work scientifically) and a single human couple as metaphorical
origin (which doesn't work if you take Genesis as literal).

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
So a single heterosexual couple doesn't
"fit the natural universe in its ability to progenerate itself",

It does in its original design. Originally, even after the fall, men
lived
to be 900 yrs old. Adam was still alive when Lamech was around
50 or so. Lamech was Noah's father. So your objection doesn't
stand the test.

It does if you don't swap between science and myth as expedient :)

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
either. In
fact, any homosexual individuals in the community are, by not
perpetrating
recessive traits, probably more advantageous to the community at any
given
point than heterosexual ones.

The point remains unanswered. Two homosexuals on an island can
not produce off spring. The point is, homosexuality does not conform
to even the physical universe, even in its fallen state, let alone in
its
original state. God's design, though fallen, still is able to
procreate
when it conforms to its original design. But homoesexuality goes
outside, "leaves its proper abode" to use biblical terminology. When
the angels did so, they were judged so harshly that they will not even
be brought before the Great White Throne in Rev 20. They have been
decreed to be cast directly into the Lake of Fire when that judgment
comes. Angels were not created to procreate. Humanity was not
created to have same-sex sexual relationships. Homosexuality will
be judged in the same vein as those angels who did not conform to
the Divine design. And that Divine design is self evident when those
to homosexuals on that island cannot procreate.

But you could put two elderly or infertile people on the island and they
wouldn't procreate either. And even if you start off with a young fertile
couple, the community's ability to procreate is only advantageous for a
short time, because of the effects of inbreeding; after that, reproduction
perpetrates negative qualities. It simply won't work; the only difference
between the straight couple and the gay couple is that in the first case, it
takes a bit longer to not work.

Jani

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Talk about subjectivism!! Have you ever even read an introductory
text book in psychology.

I took psychology in college.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are several differen schools of
thought and none of them ever agree with the other. Hardly a
"science" in vein that people like to employ the term.

There may be differences on the fringes, but the vast majority of
degreed professionals agree that homosexuality isn't a disorder, nor a
choice and is usually either biological in nature or happened at such
an early stage in life (ditto transsexuality) as to make it
irreversible (even if one wanted to 'change' their sexual orientation).

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I can go to the local Porche dealer and contend with them all day that
I'm a millionarie and they ought to give me one of their cars. You can
contend all you want but it is the facts of the case which are
determinative
and -again- refer you to what has already been posted.

Poor analogy. Cars and one's finances are objective facts; whereas
there is much obscruity, ambiguity and interpretation based on
translations in the Bible. There's even distinct differences from one
Bible to another!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ah, now we come close to your definition. However, even in those
titillating "Dateline" or "20/20" "time and again" as you like to say,
reports, even they detail the fact that more times than not, surgical
transgeneration works out for the worse.

We must be watching different networks, as I've never seen the shows
which you refer to and I regularly follow these investigative reporting
programs for trans issues.

If you knew anything about transsexuality, and the studies that have
been done, you'd know SRS (sex reassignment surgery), especially in the
last 10 years, is highly successful and people are much happier, and
productive, post-op. Indeed, a gynecologist would be hard-pressed to
know that I wasn't a genetic female.

Are you familiar with the Standards of Care (SOC)? They are there to
weed out people who aren't really transsexual and prevent precisely
what you refer to (and the bogus TV shows). One is required to live
full-time as their chosen gender for at least a year and have been on
hormones for at least 6 months before they can be considered for
surgery. Then one must have two letters from Masters, or higher, level
psychologists/psychiatrists before surgery can be approved. Therefore,
you can see there are strict requirements to prevent one coming out of
surgery and saying, "What have I done?" There are a few that fool their
doctors, or are not really transsexual, but those comprise less than
one percent.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The facts are, God created man, male and female.

No where in the Bible does it address gender identity, nor inter-sexed
people. There are some things, that we now know much more about, that
aren't included in the Bible. However, John Mark Ministries has a
non-judmental article comparing transsexuals and eunuchs:

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15545.htm

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I have known two. One was a flaming gay before and after. The other
was real basket case in everyway imaginable.

Ah, so from knowing two people you are now an expert? It would be the
same if I claimed to be knowledgable about Christians by knowing two of
them! Whereas, I've done 20-plus years of research!

First of all, no one is a "flaming gay" before and after - for the
simple fact that no gay man wants to "cut off his penis." He identifies
as male and likes his male body. It's true that some trans women go
through a 'gay phase' before transition, but they were transsexual to
begin with. Many of us went through denial (I know I did, thinking I
was a crossdresser), before realizing we were transsexual. Though this
is happening less and less with the advent of the internet and its vast
resources and increasing trans resources across the nation and around
the world.

There is much information on transsexuality on the internet, I suggest
starting with:

Definition and Synopsis of the Etiology of Adult Transsexualism
http://www.gires.org.uk/Web_Page_Assets/Etiology.htm

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's not before me that your mouth will be stopped. It will be
when you stand before God.

When I stand before God I'm sure She will say, "Welcome sister!" :)
--
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own
ignorance. - Thomas Sowell

[shegeek72]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What animal ever made it to the next generation based
on a single sex?

An amoeba? (AmE=ameba)

Aphids can reproduce without the opposite sex.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72
Truth is realative. It can be seen in quantum physics where the
observed is affected by the observer. Another example: Jewish people
don't recognize Jesus as the messiah, therefore their truth is
different from Christian truth.

Here you confuse truth with opinion. Real reality is not
subjective. It is objective as are the Scriptures. When the Messiah
returns, they will recognize He "whom they pierced." You
line of argumentation is really questionable. As for physics,
no observer ever "affected" a electron or a protron let alone a
Top from a Bottom.

Post by shegeek72
Science and religion are two different things. Science is objective,

Correction -science is suppose to be objective when very often it is
as "religious" as "religion.

Post by shegeek72
whereas religion is subjective.

"Religion" and Christianity are not the same thing. Religion is
illustrated
by Adam and Eve trying to cover their nakedness with fig leaves.
Christianity
is where God performs the sacrifice and provides the covering. Hardly
subjective though there is a true mystical relationship within it.

Post by shegeek72
Sure, there are truths like the Bible
exists physically, however the "truths" in the Bible need to be teased
out by keeping context, time period, translation and culture in mind.

"Teased out" is exactly what you do when you continue to base
your entire life under God by an unsupported and unscriptural
presumption like there have never been long term same-sex
relationship until our own culture. How arogant and how
naive. It also displays, yet again, that you have not actually
studied either the specific players which I have several times
refered you to or the actual etymology and historical word useage.
You are basing your eternal salvation upon a rose colored glasses
hope. I encourage you to actually take the time to study the
scriptures and the words that are used.

Post by shegeek72
As previously stated, there are many sections that are ambiguous and
open to interpreation. For example, the section (I believe in Job)

Is this an indicator as to how well you know your bible? You have not
only refered the wrong book, you would have us in the wrong testament
as well. It wouldn't hurt you to do your homework and actually look
the passage up.

Post by shegeek72
where it says when two, or more, people are gathered together His
presence is there didn't mean friendly conversation, but that they were
ready to rip each other's heads off!

Matt. 18:15-20 "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in
private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he
does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the
mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he
refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to
listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a
tax-gatherer. Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on
earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My
Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together
in My name, there I am in their midst."

And now that you have the actual passage before, can you even
now interpret it correctly? "Two gathered together" means when two
elders are in agreement and pass judgment against the sinning
brother.

Post by shegeek72
Were the writers of the Bible aware of longterm, loving same-sex
relationships? I don't believe they were.

This is presumption, isn't it. You have provided no evidence to the
fact. You, in fact, have made no direct reference to any scriptural
text nor the specific words involved. Again, it seems you are
unwilling to read what has already been posted to actually learn that
what you are suggesting is without support. It is simply, revisionism.

Post by shegeek72
Therefore,

There is no "therefore" for you have presented no evidence.

Post by shegeek72
the parts that
refer to homosexuality most likely don't refer to those relationships.

"most likely" and upon this you are basing your eternal future? Do
you really have no sense, no awareness as to the horror of falling
into the hands of the living God? Do you think this is some sort of
game we are playing? Do you have no sense as to there actually
being a True Reality? You think God just winks at these triffling
thoughts?

Post by shegeek72
No, the "judgment" was due to the inhospitality of the inhabitants. I
don't believe that God judges, that's left up to Christians. :P

Again, this was address in those postings. Both the verbage
and the historical interpretation of the passage does not allow
such a self-serving conclusion. Have you even bothered to
look how the word "Sodom" is used in the bible as a historical
reference? It certainly does not even hint at "inhospitality"
being such a grevious sin that five cities were annihilated by
"fire and brimstone." Christ Himself did not allow this rend-
dition. "Rend" as in tearing apart.

Why do you bother to argue this way? You argue like someone
caught red handed and denying they ever did it, even when
there is video tape proving otherwise. You deny but you
do so without anything but opinion to support your vain hope.

I am not angry at you. I am sad. I grieves me when sinners
refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness. Homosexuality is
a biblically illustrated abomination to the Lord of Lords. He,
and no one or no thing else is the standard and the
Adjudicator. You need to ask yourself if you are even
contemplating reality. The reality is that Christ IS coming
back, but not as a lamb. He is coming back as a Lion
and with Him comes judgment. This is not fantasy. This
is not subjective pining. It is the cold, hard facts of the
matter.

Post by shegeek72
An all-knowing, all-loving God wouldn't judge.

Again, you are unable to live consistently with even a
watered down version of this synopsis of yours. You're
rooting for your favorite sports team and a bad called
is either made or not made and your screaming mad
about it. But you think justice is different with the
Archtype. A loving parent disciplines his/her children.
A truly loving parent, to protect their home, even throws
their rebelious child out of the house when repentance
not forth coming. Society does not act as you are
hoping God will act. The Scriptures of a certainity
do not support you in this claim. But you are here
admitting more than you realize. You are admitting
that there is a coming judgment.

Post by shegeek72
We were made in His
image, therefore our true nature is god-like and god-like beings don't
judge. This can be found in other religions, as well as taught by
enlightened masters (including Jesus) throughout the centuries.

"Other religions?" So what? It only matters what is real. It
only matters what God has revealed to us. It only matters what
He things. Though you have misjudged the basis for it, you
have at least admitted that God does most certainly judge
when you alluded to Sodom and Gomorrah's judgment.

But beyond all this, the greatest illustration for all eternity that
God not only does but must judge sin is the life and death of
Jesus Christ. If you don't understand even the most elemental
aspect of the Christian faith, then you dismiss yourself from
all other commentings on what scripture does or does not
teach.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
1 Cor. 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

My KJV says, "...neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
As I quoted before (that you conveniently snipped), there are many
areas of the Bible where a word can have more than one meaning,
uncertainties, obscurity, etc.

And again, you refuse to get into the specifics of the case. Here are
a couple of paragraphs from a very lengthy articles already posted.

A. Malakos

Both words are found in 1 Corinthians. Malakos means (a) soft of
things; clothes, " or (b) "persons; soft, effeminate especially of
catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused
homosexually." The Greeks used the word with a nuance, probably
similar to the way parents used the word "fairy" or "sissy," or those
of my generation used "fag" or "queer." The Greeks took this word,
which can have feminine overtones, and applied it to a man. According
to the context it can have the idea of being weak or loose morally and
being effeminate. This may relate to the Greek practice of paiderastia
("lover of boys"), which involved homosexual relations between men and
boys. Pederasty was common in the Greek educational system. It was
not uncommon for a strong sexual union to result between a young man
and an elder teacher who was his model, guide, and initiator. In
classical Greek, malakos was also used to refer to boys and men who
allowed themselves to be used homosexually. It was also applied to a
man taking the female or passive role in homosexuality.

B. Arsenokoitai

The second Greek word, arsenokoitai, appears both in 1 Corinthians 6:9
and 1 Timothy 1: IO. It is a compound of two Greek words. The first,
arsan means "male," with a strong emphases on sex. It can refer to the
sexual nature of man. The second word, koita, means "bed" in general
but it is also a .. euphemism for sexual intercourse." Arndt and
Gingrich translate arsenokoitas a "male homosexual" or a "pederast. "
Some try to dismiss the statements of these scholars.

"The authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones,
have traditionally contented themselves with corroborating the
inference of biblical translators by giving the definition as
"sodomite. " There is a double irony to this since - as is now
generally recognized - the Sodomites were not punished for
homosexuality, and since "arsenokoitai" had only a tangential relation,
if any, to homosexuality."

I think three things should be said conceming this statement. First,
one should be cautious when going against the tide of scholarly
opinion. "The authors of most lexica, including all the standard
English ones" have understood the word to refer to homosexuality.
Second, it is an assumption based on erroneous exegesis to see the
Sodomites not being punished for homosexuality. Third, even if
arsenokoitas had only a tangential relation to homosexuality, it could
have easily become a euphemism for homosexuality. This is even more
understandable when it is considered that Paul already used words like
"fornicator" (pornos), "adulterer" (moixos, "effeminate" (malakos),
along with arsenokoitas. The second half of the compound, koita, is a
coarse word. It denotes base or licentious sexual activities (Rom.
13:13). The word is rare, not only in biblical usage but also in other
literature. But a strong possible translation for both malakos and
arsenokoitas is "the morally loose (effeminate) who allow themselves to
be used homosexually" and "the person who is a practicing homosexual."

Post by shegeek72
Notice that homosexuals are included in with adulterers, robbers and
thieves. This is where the context needs to be taken into account.
Since gays are included with such unsavory people I conclude that it's
referring to homosexual prostitution.

And your conclusion would be both wrong and unsupported.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, homosexuality has no inherent harm, whereas the other things
do. The most harm that can come to gays is from the homophobic, of
which Christianity is a big contributer.

Yes, and when there is a lightening storm I tend to stay away from
things like lightening rods too! The problem that you seem unaware
of is as blind as those who smoke and don't realize that non-smokers
don't like having their clothing all stinky. It is hard for a holy man
to
be around unrepentent sinners. It is not "homophobic" as you and
other come to interpret it. It's discuss even as one shy's away from
road kill when walking. "The smell of death is all around you."

Post by shegeek72
The point of life is not to get anywhere - it is to notice that you
are, and have always been, already there. You are, always and forever,
in the moment of pure creation. The point of life is therefore to
create - who and what you are, and then to experience that. -
Conversations with God

And like Brenda, one wonders why you bother posting in such
a forum as this NG. Are you also masochistic? I have found it
an interesting life experience that sinners gravitate to those
who display true Christianity. They sense something there
that they too would like to have but like Gollum after living
beneath the mountain for 500 yrs, the Light hurts their eyes.
So close and yet so far away. How truly sad.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani
I'll grant the possibility of a "single starting point" although it'd be
hard to identify as such, but the point I'm making is that you're trying to
argue simultaneously for a single human couple as literal origin (which
doesn't work scientifically) and a single human couple as metaphorical
origin (which doesn't work if you take Genesis as literal).

Even evolution has to have, though it is never mentioned and
unsupportable a single parent couple. And billions of years of
evolution a rock finally made it up out of the soup and into a life
form which we could call "adam." However, like the fish that developes
lungs, this "adam" could not replicate unless there were also to
convientently occur at the same time, an "eve." However, just as the
fish with lungs drowns, so the "adam" does not replicate.

And yes, I maintain a scientifically supportable, literal
interpretation of the Genesis record. As I have already noted, genetic
biologist are pusseled by the "bottleneck" in the DNA history. They
can't account for it because they also do not take into account the
reality of the Genesis record.

I simply don't understand your statement that a single parentage
doesn't work "scientifically." Use what criteria? Today's blood?
What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics illustrate. It denotes
that over time, there would naturally be a less pure, a growing
deterioration of "blood line." If held strictly, the further back you
go, the more pure you get. The scriptures, and Christ Himself,
teach that there were literally a federal couple, Adam and Eve,
from which the race generated out of.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
So a single heterosexual couple doesn't
"fit the natural universe in its ability to progenerate itself",

It does in its original design. Originally, even after the fall, men
lived
to be 900 yrs old. Adam was still alive when Lamech was around
50 or so. Lamech was Noah's father. So your objection doesn't
stand the test.

It does if you don't swap between science and myth as expedient :)

Okay, you've made the proposition. Now support it. Show us the
cold hard scientific facts which absolutely disallow it. It appears
that you too are in need of watching some of the creationist vs
evolutionist debates. Might I suggest you turn your browser to
drdino.com and down load a few of them. It is interesting what
actually passes for "cold hard science" and what doesn't.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The point remains unanswered. Two homosexuals on an island can
not produce off spring. The point is, homosexuality does not conform
to even the physical universe, e

But you could put two elderly or infertile people on the island and they
wouldn't procreate either.

How about two amoebas while we're at it. Stick to the fundamentals
of the argument (your really do need to watch a couple of debates).
Put two strapping, exemplary, muscle buldging men on an island and
not only will they never procreate but the scenario never can
procreate.

Post by Jani
And even if you start off with a young fertile
couple, the community's ability to procreate is only advantageous for a
short time, because of the effects of inbreeding; after that, reproduction
perpetrates negative qualities.

But your entire line of argument is based upon today's environment and
physiology. Where did all that oil and coal come from? If you took
every green or brown leaf on earth today and replicated the flood, you
could not produce near the quantities of oil and coal that are
accounted for, let alone all that which has yet to be discovered.
Point being that prior to the world-wide flood (a divine judgment for
sin) earthe was a totally different animal. Reptiles never stop
growing. Given the right enviornment with the oxygen levels then
available, that 50 pound iguana down at the local pet shop becomes a 5
ton lumbering beast. No? Remember, we are talking about scientifically
reproduceable results. Tomatoes plants living 50 yrs, producing
thousands and thousands of fruit off of one plant that grows from a
single summer size of five feet to a towering 150 foot plant. Already
done. And what about Michael Jackson and others who pay those big
bucks for pressurized oxygen chambers? Why? Because they have been
proved to accelerate bone growth, not only stop a stroke but reverse
it and heal it better than original, etc, etc.

The point is, when one accounts for the original creation, there
is more than enough scientific validation for a single couple
parenting the entire race.

Post by Jani
It simply won't work; the only difference
between the straight couple and the gay couple is that in the first case, it
takes a bit longer to not work.

"A bit longer?" Try never. How? How can to anal sex homosexual
males regenerate? Where is the embrio sack? How is the embrio
to be nurished in the "womb?" not to mention, where did the egg
come from? And if it is two women, where did the "Y" chromosome
come from?

You talk about being scientific but it is you who runs off into
mythical suppositions.

---

[I should note that debates about the scientific merits of evolution
do not fall within the charter of this group. However the idea of
a single original pair of humans is not the same thing.
--clh]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Talk about subjectivism!! Have you ever even read an introductory
text book in psychology.

I took psychology in college.

Well then you must not have read the text books. My wife is
taking a course right now and she is finding it interesting that
there are so many different schools and how they devalue each
other.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are several differen schools of
thought and none of them ever agree with the other. Hardly a
"science" in vein that people like to employ the term.

There may be differences on the fringes, but the vast majority of
degreed professionals agree that homosexuality isn't a disorder, nor a
choice and is usually either biological in nature or happened at such
an early stage in life (ditto transsexuality) as to make it
irreversible (even if one wanted to 'change' their sexual orientation).

But these are opinions. Where is the "scientific" validation? As
I noted, there was that erronious "scientific evidence" that there was
a homosexual "gene." But that was debunked even faster than
Arkansas Man.

Post by shegeek72
Poor analogy. Cars and one's finances are objective facts; whereas
there is much obscruity, ambiguity and interpretation based on
translations in the Bible. There's even distinct differences from one
Bible to another!

Why? Because there are different methodologies of interpretation.
That does not dismiss the objectivity of the Scriptures. What it does
dismiss is all but one methodology. As for different versions of the
Bible, so what? There are thousands of manuscripts. The Dead
Sea scrolls revealed but a miniscule variation in copy. "Ambiguity"
no. Text hard to understand or not yet opened to us, yes.

SNIP

weary of the argument

Post by shegeek72
When I stand before God I'm sure She will say, "Welcome sister!" :)
--

I don't take God to be a laughing matter. Nor does He.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What animal ever made it to the next generation based
on a single sex?

An amoeba? (AmE=ameba)

Aphids can reproduce without the opposite sex.

B - Guess aphids were not brought aboard the Ark ...two by two...
;)

Bren

*************************************************
Let love guide you in all you do.

*************************************************

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What animal ever made it to the next generation based
on a single sex?

An amoeba? (AmE=ameba)

Aphids can reproduce without the opposite sex.
--

Both examples support me in that both carry both sexes. Man
does not.

[shegeek72]

As for physics, no observer ever "affected" a electron or a protron let alone a
Top from a Bottom.

Quantum physics operates on a sub-atomic level.

Correction -science is suppose to be objective when very often it is
as "religious" as "religion.

I've heard this rediculous claim before. There is no basis in fact.
It's used when someone is grabbing for straws trying to disprove
science when it conflicts with religious beliefs. Some people still
think the world is flat and the moon landings were faked.

I am not angry at you. I am sad. I grieves me when sinners
refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness.

I'm also sad for you that you're blinded by religion.

Homosexuality is a biblically illustrated abomination to the Lord of Lords.

So is shaving your beard and eating shell fish.

The Greeks took this word,
which can have feminine overtones, and applied it to a man. According
to the context it can have the idea of being weak or loose morally and
being effeminate.

You just substantiated my contention that the homosexuality in the
Bible refers to sexual immorality, not the loving, longterm
relationships of today.

This may relate to the Greek practice of paiderastia
("lover of boys"), which involved homosexual relations between men and
boys. Pederasty was common in the Greek educational system. It was
not uncommon for a strong sexual union to result between a young man
and an elder teacher who was his model, guide, and initiator. In
classical Greek, malakos was also used to refer to boys and men who
allowed themselves to be used homosexually.

Again, you substantiate my contention that it refers to boy sex slaves.

The second Greek word, arsenokoitai, appears both in 1 Corinthians 6:9
and 1 Timothy 1: IO. It is a compound of two Greek words. The first,
arsan means "male," with a strong emphases on sex. It can refer to the
sexual nature of man. The second word, koita, means "bed" in general
but it is also a .. euphemism for sexual intercourse." Arndt and
Gingrich translate arsenokoitas a "male homosexual" or a "pederast. "
Some try to dismiss the statements of these scholars.

More opinion. All you're doing is reinforcing that there are differing
opinions on how some sections of the Bible can be interpreted.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, homosexuality has no inherent harm, whereas the other things
do. The most harm that can come to gays is from the homophobic, of
which Christianity is a big contributer.

Yes, and when there is a lightening storm I tend to stay away from
things like lightening rods too! The problem that you seem unaware
of is as blind as those who smoke and don't realize that non-smokers
don't like having their clothing all stinky. It is hard for a holy man
to
be around unrepentent sinners. It is not "homophobic" as you and
other come to interpret it. It's discuss even as one shy's away from
road kill when walking. "The smell of death is all around you."

Nice try, but your jumbled "logic" didn't dispute my claim.

And like Brenda, one wonders why you bother posting in such
a forum as this NG. Are you also masochistic? I have found it
an interesting life experience that sinners gravitate to those
who display true Christianity.

Fond of assumptions, aren't you? No, I'm not masochisitc, nor am I a
"sinner" gravitating to what you perceive as "true Chistianity." I
attend a Christian church every Sunday and have twice asked God if
He/She objected to me being transsexual: each time getting a strong No;
it's what's in one's heart, character and actions that count. If we
are spiritual beings inhabiting human bodies what difference would its
form make?
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth." Albert Einstein

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't take God to be a laughing matter. Nor does He.

God is a comedian, playing to an audience that's too afraid to laugh. -
Voltaire

[Jani]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
I'll grant the possibility of a "single starting point" although it'd be
hard to identify as such, but the point I'm making is that you're trying
to
argue simultaneously for a single human couple as literal origin (which
doesn't work scientifically) and a single human couple as metaphorical
origin (which doesn't work if you take Genesis as literal).

Even evolution has to have, though it is never mentioned and
unsupportable a single parent couple. And billions of years of
evolution a rock finally made it up out of the soup and into a life
form which we could call "adam." However, like the fish that developes
lungs, this "adam" could not replicate unless there were also to
convientently occur at the same time, an "eve." However, just as the
fish with lungs drowns, so the "adam" does not replicate.

But you don't have a sudden leap from asexual to sexual reproduction, with
an organism that was previously asexual suddenly producing all "male"
individuals that then require "female" individuals for the organism to
survive past another generation. Evolution is very gradual.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And yes, I maintain a scientifically supportable, literal
interpretation of the Genesis record. As I have already noted, genetic
biologist are pusseled by the "bottleneck" in the DNA history. They
can't account for it because they also do not take into account the
reality of the Genesis record.

There are a lot of things in scientific investigations which are still
puzzling, but don't require a literal reading of Genesis to account for
them.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I simply don't understand your statement that a single parentage
doesn't work "scientifically." Use what criteria? Today's blood?
What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics illustrate. It denotes
that over time, there would naturally be a less pure, a growing
deterioration of "blood line." If held strictly, the further back you
go, the more pure you get. The scriptures, and Christ Himself,
teach that there were literally a federal couple, Adam and Eve,
from which the race generated out of.

Deterioration of the genetic health of the community, if the gene pool is
restricted to originating from a single couple, can be demonstrated. The
idea that you could reverse the process, and trace back to a literal
"perfect couple", can't. It requires substituting myth for science.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
So a single heterosexual couple doesn't
"fit the natural universe in its ability to progenerate itself",

It does in its original design. Originally, even after the fall, men
lived
to be 900 yrs old. Adam was still alive when Lamech was around
50 or so. Lamech was Noah's father. So your objection doesn't
stand the test.

It does if you don't swap between science and myth as expedient :)

Okay, you've made the proposition. Now support it. Show us the
cold hard scientific facts which absolutely disallow it.

Well, there are some ethnic communities which show a much higher incidence
of certain conditions than the mainstream population, because they don't
permit outbreeding. They didn't start from a single couple, obviously, so
the gene pool isn't so severely limited, but the pattern's the same. On the
other hand, can you show any evidence for human beings living to 900 years
old?


It appears

Post by l***@hotmail.com
that you too are in need of watching some of the creationist vs
evolutionist debates. Might I suggest you turn your browser to
drdino.com and down load a few of them. It is interesting what
actually passes for "cold hard science" and what doesn't.

I've read plenty of creationist v evolution debates, thanks, and there are
many Christians who have no problem at all with evolution.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The point remains unanswered. Two homosexuals on an island can
not produce off spring. The point is, homosexuality does not conform
to even the physical universe, e

But you could put two elderly or infertile people on the island and they
wouldn't procreate either.

How about two amoebas while we're at it. Stick to the fundamentals
of the argument (your really do need to watch a couple of debates).
Put two strapping, exemplary, muscle buldging men on an island and
not only will they never procreate but the scenario never can
procreate.

Nor can two heterosexuals who are infertile.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
And even if you start off with a young fertile
couple, the community's ability to procreate is only advantageous for a
short time, because of the effects of inbreeding; after that,
reproduction
perpetrates negative qualities.

But your entire line of argument is based upon today's environment and
physiology.

Of course. Science is based on the observation of what *is*, not on
extrapolating from myth. We know what would happen if anyone tried to start
a community based on only two people, because we know what happens in
communities where genetic diversity is subject to cultural constraints. Have
a look at societies which strongly promote cousin marriage, for example, and
at the rate of children born with abnormalities. Again, not a total
limitation of the gene pool, but one which is significant enough to show the
pattern.


Where did all that oil and coal come from? If you took

Post by l***@hotmail.com
every green or brown leaf on earth today and replicated the flood, you
could not produce near the quantities of oil and coal that are
accounted for, let alone all that which has yet to be discovered.
Point being that prior to the world-wide flood (a divine judgment for
sin) earthe was a totally different animal.

But there is no evidence for a literal "world-wide flood", either.


Reptiles never stop

Post by l***@hotmail.com
growing. Given the right enviornment with the oxygen levels then
available, that 50 pound iguana down at the local pet shop becomes a 5
ton lumbering beast. No?

I don't see what that has to do with it, but no.

Remember, we are talking about scientifically

Post by l***@hotmail.com
reproduceable results. Tomatoes plants living 50 yrs, producing
thousands and thousands of fruit off of one plant that grows from a
single summer size of five feet to a towering 150 foot plant. Already
done. And what about Michael Jackson and others who pay those big
bucks for pressurized oxygen chambers? Why? Because they have been
proved to accelerate bone growth, not only stop a stroke but reverse
it and heal it better than original, etc, etc.

Again, I don't see what point you're trying to make, here.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The point is, when one accounts for the original creation, there
is more than enough scientific validation for a single couple
parenting the entire race.

If there is, please present it - your examples of iguanas and tomato plants
don't seem to be relevant at all.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
It simply won't work; the only difference
between the straight couple and the gay couple is that in the first case,
it
takes a bit longer to not work.

"A bit longer?" Try never. How? How can to anal sex homosexual
males regenerate? Where is the embrio sack? How is the embrio
to be nurished in the "womb?" not to mention, where did the egg
come from? And if it is two women, where did the "Y" chromosome
come from?

The community will consist of the original two people, and last only for
their lifetime, if the original two people are of the same sex, or of
opposite sexes and infertile. If they *are* fertile and of oppposite sexes,
it will last until the lack of genetic diversity kills it off. Either way,
the community can't survive for very long.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You talk about being scientific but it is you who runs off into
mythical suppositions.

No, you're trying to rely on myth as having the same validity as scientific
evidence. Your hypothetical gay couple won't work as the founders of a
community, but neither does your hypothetical straight couple. The community
dies out, either way. If you argue that the couple in Genesis were created
with a genetic make-up that completely contradicts everything we know about
the way genetics works, then you're saying myth has more truth than science.
That's not a very rational way of looking at it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
---
[I should note that debates about the scientific merits of evolution
do not fall within the charter of this group. However the idea of
a single original pair of humans is not the same thing.
--clh]

I've tried to steer away from evolution v creation, per se. I did indeed see
it as a rather different topic, both in terms of how it originated in the
thread, and in the points being made.

Jani

[B.G. Kent]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't take God to be a laughing matter. Nor does He.

God is a comedian, playing to an audience that's too afraid to laugh. -
Voltaire

B - funny how some see "laughing matters" to mean without dignity or truth
or power etc. I see humour as a high vibration....the joy that God gives
us etc. I believe that humour and seriousness are all part of God and I
thank it for that.

Blessings
Bren


*************************************************
Let love guide you in all you do.

*************************************************

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What animal ever made it to the next generation based
on a single sex?

An amoeba? (AmE=ameba)

Aphids can reproduce without the opposite sex.
--

Both examples support me in that both carry both sexes. Man
does not.

B - Wow..you've obviously not heard of hermaphrodites...or the concept of
a female or male side within each being...Yin-Yang concepts.

Bren



*************************************************
Let love guide you in all you do.

*************************************************

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

As for physics, no observer ever "affected" a electron or a protron let alone a
Top from a Bottom.

Quantum physics operates on a sub-atomic level.

You are exposing your ignorance. It does not ONLY "operate on a sub-atomic
level". On the contrary: the WHOLE POINT of the quantum point of view is that
every particle in the UNIVERSE has an effect (however small) on every other
particle, so that you have to sum them all up (in monster integrals) to get the
final operator value.

And without that, even solids would not be solid. Yet you could not have even
typed this if not for your fingers meeting very solid keys on your keyboard.

So no, quantum physics does NOT only "operate on a sub-atomic level".

Your ignorance gets only worse in the rest of the post.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani
But you don't have a sudden leap from asexual to sexual reproduction, with
an organism that was previously asexual suddenly producing all "male"
individuals that then require "female" individuals for the organism to
survive past another generation. Evolution is very gradual.

Presumption on two accounts.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And yes, I maintain a scientifically supportable, literal
interpretation of the Genesis record. As I have already noted, genetic
biologist are pusseled by the "bottleneck" in the DNA history. They
can't account for it because they also do not take into account the
reality of the Genesis record.

There are a lot of things in scientific investigations which are still
puzzling, but don't require a literal reading of Genesis to account for
them.

As I have just noted in SRC-BS, the dating of this bottleneck is TOO
coincidental to be anything but. It is being dated at 2400BC, the long
held dating for the Flood (Gen 6).

Post by Jani
Deterioration of the genetic health of the community, if the gene pool is
restricted to originating from a single couple, can be demonstrated.

YES, using today's criteria. But the argument presumes in
uniformitarians,
which is itself highly presumptive.

Post by Jani
The
idea that you could reverse the process, and trace back to a literal
"perfect couple", can't. It requires substituting myth for science.

There is SO MUCH involved in this argument. So many proofs and
so many scientific illustrations. Again, there is scientific fact that
prior to 2400BC, the enviornment of earth was radically different. The
biblical record infers that there was an ice canopy surrounding earth
and that the oxygen levels and pressures were radically different
than anything we encounter today except in a hyperbolic chamber.

But even beyond this, you running us off on a tangent. The point
remains -strictly maintained, homosexuality cannot reproduce
itself. It must be artificially maintained therefore it stands counter
to that which is. It is simply unnatural even in regards to the
natural laws of the universe, let alone the biblical record.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Okay, you've made the proposition. Now support it. Show us the
cold hard scientific facts which absolutely disallow it.

Well, there are some ethnic communities which show a much higher incidence
of certain conditions than the mainstream population, because they don't
permit outbreeding. They didn't start from a single couple, obviously, so
the gene pool isn't so severely limited, but the pattern's the same. On the
other hand, can you show any evidence for human beings living to 900 years
old?

Again, you base your analysis upon uniformitarianism. It also totally
dismisses any intercession by the Divine will.

Post by Jani
I've read plenty of creationist v evolution debates, thanks, and there are
many Christians who have no problem at all with evolution.

"Read?" It is better to watch them and watch the frustration and the
befuddled looks on the faces of those who are trying so desperately
to maintain a scientific rebuttal. If it were so serious, it would
almost
be laughable to note that more than once I have seen the evolutionary
scientist start to stammer because his own evidence is shown to
refute his claims. I doubt seriously you have truly "read" a debate
unless it was some revisionist interpretation of the facts. Again:

www.drdino.com

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
How about two amoebas while we're at it. Stick to the fundamentals
of the argument (your really do need to watch a couple of debates).
Put two strapping, exemplary, muscle buldging men on an island and
not only will they never procreate but the scenario never can
procreate.

Nor can two heterosexuals who are infertile.

Again, you stray from the point of the argument. Homosexuality
CANNOT reproduce. It's like playing Russian Roullette with a
bullet in every chamber. It don't work.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But your entire line of argument is based upon today's environment and
physiology.

Of course. Science is based on the observation of what *is*, not on
extrapolating from myth.

"Science." You mean "humanistic science." If you have any friends who
work in a major museum, ask them to show you the skeletons of the ten
to fifteen foot tall humans. There are literally thousands of such
bones
witnessing to the fact that in ages gone by, not only was man
different,
but so also was the enviornment he lived in. Why are these bones NEVER
placed on display? Why is it never explained why we have wisdom
teeth and why the old human skulls have a large brow? Because there
are those who wish to hide the truth -that people use to live for
extraordinarily long times.

BTW, do you know what the names of the first ten "fathers" in the
Bible are? It is simple to find them. But I'll do the work for you
and
I'll even publish the meanings of their names:

1) Adam: "man"
2) Seth: "appointed"
3) Enos: "mortal"
4) Cainan: "sorrow"
5) Mahalaleel: "the blessed God"
6) Jered: "shall come"
7) Enoch: "preaching"
8) Methuselah: "his death shall bring"
9) Lamech: "the desparing"
10) Noah: "rest"

Now put them chronologically in a sentence and you get:

"Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow [but] the blessed God
shall come down preaching [that] His death shall bring
the despairing rest."

And I suppose you thing that happenstance is just another
mythology as well.

Post by Jani
We know what would happen if anyone tried to start
a community based on only two people,

STICK TO THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefore are non-
selfreplicating which makes them leaches. They must
leach off of societies norm and natures requirement-
heterosexual reproduction.

Post by Jani
Where did all that oil and coal come from? If you took

Post by l***@hotmail.com
every green or brown leaf on earth today and replicated the flood, you
could not produce near the quantities of oil and coal that are
accounted for, let alone all that which has yet to be discovered.
Point being that prior to the world-wide flood (a divine judgment for
sin) earthe was a totally different animal.

But there is no evidence for a literal "world-wide flood", either.

It's EVERYWHERE! And you say you've read "debates." Now
I'm starting to see where this myth idea relates to.

Post by Jani
Reptiles never stop

Post by l***@hotmail.com
growing. Given the right enviornment with the oxygen levels then
available, that 50 pound iguana down at the local pet shop becomes a 5
ton lumbering beast. No?

I don't see what that has to do with it, but no.

The presumption that dinosaurs are extinct! The presumption of
uniformitarianism. The point made by our having wisdom teeth.
The point that it was not uncommon for men to be 12-13 feet
tall. The point made that the lung capacity of these huge animals
we today call dinosaurs was extremely small and therefore
requires an extremely high and pure oxygen atmosphere. Which
in turn discounts your reasoning that Adam and Eve is a
pragmatic myth.

Post by Jani
Remember, we are talking about scientifically

Post by l***@hotmail.com
reproduceable results. Tomatoes plants living 50 yrs, producing
thousands and thousands of fruit off of one plant that grows from a
single summer size of five feet to a towering 150 foot plant. Already
done. And what about Michael Jackson and others who pay those big
bucks for pressurized oxygen chambers? Why? Because they have been
proved to accelerate bone growth, not only stop a stroke but reverse
it and heal it better than original, etc, etc.

Again, I don't see what point you're trying to make, here.

As the TV commercial for a certain cell phone goes, "Can you
hear me now?"

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The point is, when one accounts for the original creation, there
is more than enough scientific validation for a single couple
parenting the entire race.

If there is, please present it - your examples of iguanas and tomato plants
don't seem to be relevant at all.

IF you had actually READ an even limp wristed debate transcript,
you wouldn't have to have it explained to you.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
It simply won't work; the only difference
between the straight couple and the gay couple is that in the first case,
it
takes a bit longer to not work.

"A bit longer?" Try never. How? How can to anal sex homosexual
males regenerate? Where is the embrio sack? How is the embrio
to be nurished in the "womb?" not to mention, where did the egg
come from? And if it is two women, where did the "Y" chromosome
come from?

The community will consist of the original two people, and last only for
their lifetime, if the original two people are of the same sex, or of
opposite sexes and infertile. If they *are* fertile and of oppposite sexes,
it will last until the lack of genetic diversity kills it off. Either way,
the community can't survive for very long.

IF, and that's just a polite "if", what you're saying is true, then
there
is still a radical difference. Homosexuals cannot replicate. They're
the squared winged airplane with no wheels, no engines and no
fuel. Heterosexuals, applying your self imposed limitations, can at
least put us in the air (conform to physical universe) and fly us
off that island.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You talk about being scientific but it is you who runs off into
mythical suppositions.

No, you're trying to rely on myth as having the same validity as scientific
evidence. Your hypothetical gay couple won't work as the founders of a
community, but neither does your hypothetical straight couple.

Wrong. The strict nature of the point is that homosexuality is
not only abnormal, it is antithetical to cold hard facts of the
universe. It can never procreate. That is totally antithetical to
the natural world, even if cast in the light of theoretical
evolutionism.

Post by Jani
The community
dies out, either way. If you argue that the couple in Genesis were created
with a genetic make-up that completely contradicts everything we know about
the way genetics works, then you're saying myth has more truth than science.
That's not a very rational way of looking at it.

No. I'm saying that the further you go back in human history, the
purer
the blood lines and the more pure the enviornment. And both the fossil
record and the actually animal remains record, prove that earth had a
much different atmosphere than we have today. Wooly Mammoths,
some nearly 10 times the size of today largest elephants, yet with
lungs half the size. Now how can that be? Remember, we are talking
about scientific facts and conformity to natural law. Small lungs on
such large animals with such large blood systems with hearts no
larger than todays animals, in fact, usually smaller. Something was
dramatically different.

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
---
[I should note that debates about the scientific merits of evolution
do not fall within the charter of this group. However the idea of
a single original pair of humans is not the same thing.
--clh]

I've tried to steer away from evolution v creation, per se. I did indeed see
it as a rather different topic, both in terms of how it originated in the
thread, and in the points being made.

If you would but stay on topic instead of adding extenuating
circumstances. Originally you tried to bring invitrofertilzation
into the mix. Now you're trying to circumvent the argument
by adding time to the mix. The formula requires one part
Male and one part Female. You never get to this even the
elemental aspects of the formula and yet you are raising all
sorts of fuss about the results. The formula is simple.
M+F=baby. However, M+M or F+F never matches the
required formula. Again, the biblical record is that it was
Adam and Eve, not and never, Adam and Steve.

Unless you can provide a substantive reason as to why we
must discount the literal interpretation of the biblical model
of one man and one woman being the progenitors of the
human race under the auspices of God Himself, then you
need to quietly go sit in the corner, admit your mistake
and lick your wounds.

[Jani]

(third attempt at chopping this enough to get it past the snippage-bot :)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Presumption on two accounts.

[]

Can you point to any instance of a species, which reproduces asexually,
suddenly producing all males and requiring females to mate with? It doesn't
happen like that.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
YES, using today's criteria. But the argument presumes in
uniformitarians,
which is itself highly presumptive.

No, it merely presumes that the scientific observation of genetic
inheritance is correct - which it is.


[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is SO MUCH involved in this argument. So many proofs and
so many scientific illustrations. Again, there is scientific fact that
prior to 2400BC, the enviornment of earth was radically different.

Please cite some of these "scientific facts".


The

Post by l***@hotmail.com
biblical record infers that there was an ice canopy surrounding earth
and that the oxygen levels and pressures were radically different
than anything we encounter today except in a hyperbolic chamber.

But the biblical record is not science.


The point

Post by l***@hotmail.com
remains -strictly maintained, homosexuality cannot reproduce
itself. It must be artificially maintained therefore it stands counter
to that which is. It is simply unnatural even in regards to the
natural laws of the universe, let alone the biblical record.

About all you can conclusively demonstrate, as regards "natural" laws, is
that a homosexual couple have the same chance of reproducing as an infertile
heterosexual couple - namely, none. Beyond that, the natural world
encompasses sexual and asexual reproduction, parthenogenesis, and species in
which the same individual is female for part of its lifecycle and male for
the rest. And, of course, numerous examples of homosexual behaviours in
numerous species. So there's very little that can be held up as "unnatural",
in that regard.


[]

They didn't start from a single couple, obviously, so

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
the gene pool isn't so severely limited, but the pattern's the same. On
the
other hand, can you show any evidence for human beings living to 900
years
old?

Again, you base your analysis upon uniformitarianism. It also totally
dismisses any intercession by the Divine will.

No, I'm basing it on *observable, recorded, fact*.

[]


If it were so serious, it would

Post by l***@hotmail.com
almost
be laughable to note that more than once I have seen the evolutionary
scientist start to stammer because his own evidence is shown to
refute his claims. I doubt seriously you have truly "read" a debate
unless it was some revisionist interpretation of the facts.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've read anything besides creationist
propaganda. I've never seen a scientist who was knowledgeable about his
material "stammering" in the face of nothing more than myth and rhetoric.
Quite the reverse, in fact; I sometimes wonder how they (the scientists)
have the patience to continue.

[]

Homosexuality

Post by l***@hotmail.com
CANNOT reproduce. It's like playing Russian Roullette with a
bullet in every chamber. It don't work.

Neither does starting an entire, genetically healthy, population from a
single couple.



[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you have any friends who
work in a major museum, ask them to show you the skeletons of the ten
to fifteen foot tall humans. There are literally thousands of such
bones
witnessing to the fact that in ages gone by, not only was man
different,
but so also was the enviornment he lived in. Why are these bones NEVER
placed on display?

Must be a worldwide conspiracy of museum curators, I guess. Because of
course, the *whole point* of working in a museum is to hide the exhibits.
Sheesh.



Why is it never explained why we have wisdom

Post by l***@hotmail.com
teeth and why the old human skulls have a large brow? Because there
are those who wish to hide the truth -that people use to live for
extraordinarily long times.

Both have been explained, and not on the silly grounds that people used to
live for 900 years. Have you noticed, for instance, that in some cases
dentists will pre-emptively remove a couple of rear molars to allow wisdom
teeth to come through straight? People used to lose their teeth more often,
and earlier in life, so not only was there room for four extra ones, the
extras had an actual useful function. That's no longer the case, but
sometimes the best way of dealing with a "crowded jaw" is to take out teeth
which are still healthy, because the alternative is all the complications of
taking out wisdom teeth later, and still having the overcrowding in the
meantime. You don't need to haul in a myth about 900-year-old giants to
explain it.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
We know what would happen if anyone tried to start
a community based on only two people,

STICK TO THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT.

That IS the point of the argument. Or had you lost track of the fact that
you're arguing for starting a community based on only two people?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefore are non-
selfreplicating which makes them leaches. They must
leach off of societies norm and natures requirement-
heterosexual reproduction.

So the permanently chaste, the infertile, and the childfree are "leeches",
are they? Perhaps you should consider for a moment that people who don't
reproduce, for whatever reason, might well be making a far more valuable
contribution to society than those who do. I mean, there was that Jewish
bloke, couple of thousand years ago, who had a bit of an impact. Of course,
by your argument, he was just a "leech" and for all practical reproductive
purposes, might as well have been gay.


[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
But there is no evidence for a literal "world-wide flood", either.

It's EVERYWHERE!

No, it isn't. Evidence for small localised floods in various places, yes.
Worldwide, no.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The presumption that dinosaurs are extinct! The presumption of
uniformitarianism. The point made by our having wisdom teeth.
The point that it was not uncommon for men to be 12-13 feet
tall. The point made that the lung capacity of these huge animals
we today call dinosaurs was extremely small and therefore
requires an extremely high and pure oxygen atmosphere. Which
in turn discounts your reasoning that Adam and Eve is a
pragmatic myth.

There is no evidence for people having been 12-13 feet tall, and the few
"giants" actually recorded were much smaller. If you look at the
biographical accounts, they lived rather uncomfortable and usually quite
short lives, because the human frame isn't designed for that sort of weight
and stress. And the most credible hypothesis for dinosaurs having small
lungs has nothing to do with some mythical oxygen-rich environment, and
everything to do with respiratory systems which are more efficient than
mammalian ones. Hint - why do birds have little lungs, and still manage to
do all that flying without collapsing from oxygen starvation after the first
couple of wing-flaps?

(and no, you can't come back and argue that humans must have had the same
structure in the past, because again, there is *absolutely no evidence* for
it.)


[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
Again, I don't see what point you're trying to make, here.

As the TV commercial for a certain cell phone goes, "Can you
hear me now?"

Nope, you're still not making any sense.


[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
IF you had actually READ an even limp wristed debate transcript,
you wouldn't have to have it explained to you.

It's a simple enough request. Please present some scientific validation for
a single couple parenting the entire race. You say there's "more than
enough", but you haven't offered any at all so far.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
Either way,
the community can't survive for very long.

IF, and that's just a polite "if", what you're saying is true, then
there
is still a radical difference. Homosexuals cannot replicate. They're
the squared winged airplane with no wheels, no engines and no
fuel. Heterosexuals, applying your self imposed limitations, can at
least put us in the air (conform to physical universe) and fly us
off that island.

Ah, so when they "fly off the island" they'll find other communities to add
diversity to the gene pool? Yes, that works fine. So, we now have - *how*
many single couples starting off the world's population?



[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Wrong. The strict nature of the point is that homosexuality is
not only abnormal, it is antithetical to cold hard facts of the
universe. It can never procreate. That is totally antithetical to
the natural world, even if cast in the light of theoretical
evolutionism.

As I already pointed out, the natural world already contains plenty of
species which don't require two sexes to reproduce. Even in those where two
sexes *are* needed, the survival of the species isn't threatened in the
slightest by incidences of homosexuality, and in times of overpopulation,
homosexuality can be a highly positive factor in species survival. So
trotting out this "it's agin nature!" line simply doesn't wash.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No. I'm saying that the further you go back in human history, the
purer
the blood lines and the more pure the enviornment.

And where is your evidence for this assertion?


And both the fossil

Post by l***@hotmail.com
record and the actually animal remains record, prove that earth had a
much different atmosphere than we have today.

Different, but not *that* different. If you go into a specialised garden
environment where they have old ferns, it might be a bit humid and
uncomfortable but it's hardly another planet.



Wooly Mammoths,

Post by l***@hotmail.com
some nearly 10 times the size of today largest elephants, yet with
lungs half the size. Now how can that be? Remember, we are talking
about scientific facts and conformity to natural law. Small lungs on
such large animals with such large blood systems with hearts no
larger than todays animals, in fact, usually smaller. Something was
dramatically different.

Yes, they were a different *species*. And if their evolution wasn't
conducive to long-term survival, they died out. As has happened with
numerous other species, including humanoids, and is still happening now.
*That* is the "natural" order of things, not a scientifically-impossible
single couple a few thousand years ago.


[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you would but stay on topic instead of adding extenuating
circumstances. Originally you tried to bring invitrofertilzation
into the mix.

Excuse me, I've made no mention at all of IVF. I think you must be confusing
me with another poster.



Now you're trying to circumvent the argument

Post by l***@hotmail.com
by adding time to the mix.

Time is already *in* the mix, if you try to argue that a single couple can
generate, *in time*, a genetically-healthy world population.


The formula requires one part

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Male and one part Female. You never get to this even the
elemental aspects of the formula and yet you are raising all
sorts of fuss about the results. The formula is simple.
M+F=baby. However, M+M or F+F never matches the
required formula. Again, the biblical record is that it was
Adam and Eve, not and never, Adam and Steve.

And your "biblical record" does not work from a scientific perspective. If
you go back a few thousand years, you have exactly the same problems with a
limited gene pool as you have now. In fact, those limitations may well have
contributed to the earlier extinction of other humanoid species, leaving
ours as the surviving one. Ignoring the fact that all the *evidence* points
to the existence of those species well before your biblical date of Adam and
Eve simply reiterates that you are relying on myth as if it was literal
fact.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Unless you can provide a substantive reason as to why we
must discount the literal interpretation of the biblical model
of one man and one woman being the progenitors of the
human race under the auspices of God Himself, then you
need to quietly go sit in the corner, admit your mistake
and lick your wounds.

*chuckle* Don't bother trying to patronise me, I'm quite immune. Now, how
about you come up with some actual evidence to support your claim? I've
shown you why it doesn't work; you show me why you think it does.

Jani

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality does not comply to the
standard of the physical universe where male and female
genes are required for procreation.

Where does it say that the standard of the physical universe is male
and female? How do we know there aren't more than two sexes in the
universe, or universes? The universe is a pretty big place. :)

Your's is an argument from silence. The burden of proof is on you, not
me, to produce the evidence to the contrary. But you can't therefore
you are arguing merely on conjecture, not science.

Post by shegeek72
--
The point of life is not to get anywhere - it is to notice that you
are, and have always been, already there. You are, always and forever,
in the moment of pure creation.

I just watched a debate last night and this was the very same
argument given by an athiestic evolutionist. When one is left with
the bare mechanism of a materialistic worldview, he suddenly
finds himself without all the purpose and morality that God had
granted him. Many philosophers have recognized this. Some
have even taken their own lives or gone insane because of it.
The "only santity in an insane world is insanity."

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani
I'll grant the possibility of a "single starting point" although it'd be
hard to identify as such, but the point I'm making is that you're trying to
argue simultaneously for a single human couple as literal origin (which
doesn't work scientifically) and a single human couple as metaphorical
origin (which doesn't work if you take Genesis as literal).

Oh, but it does work. Added to that, it can easily illustrated. Take
a nice big book to the photocopier. Make one copy of one page. Now
make a copy of the copy. Then make a copy of that copy. Do this
1000 times. It won't take 100 copies before you realize you can't
read the original text. It has been approximately 1000 generations
since Noah's worldwide flood. Isn't it God glorifying that after all
that "copying" of the DNA code from one generation to the next,
that we are even able to have this conversation of these highly
complex machines?

Don't like that illustration because it is two simple? Fine. Got a
floppy drive in your computer? Take the orginal disks from the
software provider and a make a copy of it. Make a copy of that
copy and a copy of that copy. Back in the days when you could
place an entire operating system on one double sided floppy, I
soon found out that information was being lost in the copying from
floppy to floppy. That is why an application server was set up.

Your entire argument is backward thinking. Information is not
gained, bloodlines don't become more pure, DNA strands don't
increase in genetic code, then all loose information upon
replication. THIS is science. It is observeable and replicable.
You, on the other hand, have no scientific evidence to back
your assumption up.

And though procreation by a man and a woman does cause
a loss of genetic information, homosexuality doesn't replicate
at all so ALL genetic information is lost. That isn't evolutionism.
That's self-annihilationism.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What animal ever made it to the next generation based
on a single sex?

An amoeba? (AmE=ameba)

Aphids can reproduce without the opposite sex.
--

Both examples support me in that both carry both sexes. Man
does not.

B - Wow..you've obviously not heard of hermaphrodites...or the concept of
a female or male side within each being...Yin-Yang concepts.

Brenda, dear, do you ever stop to think before spouting off a
reply? Are you so hard pressed to defend the indefensible that
you are left to resort to such self-denying evidences?

The hermaphrodite condition does not support your case in
any imaginable. For one, a hermaphrodite does not carry
both genetically reproductively capable sperm and a genetically
reproductively capable egg. They do carry genetic information
from both male and female of the species, but that information
is an indication of a mutation which is ALWAYS a loss of
genetic information.

You still have not produced one example of where a female-
female or a male-male animal, bacteria, etc, replicates itself.
You certainly have provided absolutely no evidence for real
evolution which would of a necessity require an INCREASE
in complexity not merely a mutant shift in gene frequency.

Sorry, but the single parent paradigm is still left standing
after all this smoke you've been blowing has cleared.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani
About all you can conclusively demonstrate, as regards "natural" laws, is
that a homosexual couple have the same chance of reproducing as an infertile
heterosexual couple - namely, none.

No, that is what YOU have reduced it to. That is not the reality of
the case. Infertile heterosexuals, homosexuals, animals or insects are
all mutations. Mutations evidence a LOSS of genetic information. That
is, if you can't understand this, they are lower forms of the species.
Even your own paradigm teaches that it is the survial of the "fit."
And that there has never ever been a single recorded instance of a
"beneficial" mutation, your argument stands without substantiation, an
unscientific standing.

Post by Jani
Beyond that, the natural world
encompasses sexual and asexual reproduction, parthenogenesis, and species in
which the same individual is female for part of its lifecycle and male for
the rest.

But in the former it might bear children from a normal encounter with
a male of the same species, but the later will never produce children
in a female of the species. There are a several of Hollywood stars
which could be used to illustrate this fact. They have produced
children from one gender but have never produced it from the other.
That's because it is a mutant form of the species.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Brenda, dear, do you ever stop to think before spouting off a
reply? Are you so hard pressed to defend the indefensible that
you are left to resort to such self-denying evidences?
The hermaphrodite condition does not support your case in
any imaginable. For one, a hermaphrodite does not carry
both genetically reproductively capable sperm and a genetically
reproductively capable egg. They do carry genetic information
from both male and female of the species, but that information
is an indication of a mutation which is ALWAYS a loss of
genetic information.

B - Cupcake? So worms aren't hermaphrodites then? and here I thought they
were.

Back to the biology books for me!

:)

Bren

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Don't like that illustration because it is two simple? Fine. Got a
floppy drive in your computer? Take the orginal disks from the
software provider and a make a copy of it. Make a copy of that
copy and a copy of that copy.

Unless the media is damaged in some way, making copies of the same
files on floppies will not create degredation. There is no data loss in
copying digital information.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And though procreation by a man and a woman does cause
a loss of genetic information, homosexuality doesn't replicate
at all so ALL genetic information is lost. That isn't evolutionism.
That's self-annihilationism.

Then tell me: why is the world's population increasing and not
decreasing?

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Your's is an argument from silence. The burden of proof is on you, not
me, to produce the evidence to the contrary. But you can't therefore
you are arguing merely on conjecture, not science.

Most science starts as theory, backed by reproducible experiments and
data. If you look at the nearly unimaginable number of galaxies, stars,
solar systems in the known universe it's almost arrogant to say we have
the only planet populated by intelligent life.

But the proof of more than one sex is right here on earth: the
intersexed, or the older term, hermaphrodite. They are a combination of
male and female and exhibit varying degrees of male and female anatomy
and physiology. And they are not, as you claimed in another post,
deficient in genetic material. Indeed, they often have MORE genetic
material than males and females as their chromosomal makeup can have
configurations such as XXY. XXYY, XXX, etc.

The human race is the result of genetic mutation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I just watched a debate last night and this was the very same
argument given by an athiestic evolutionist.

I'm glad it's being spread around. The book the quote is from,
"Conversations with God," is, IMO, an updated Bible. Why should the
Bible be the only "word of God"? I think the Big Guy would continue to
'upgrade' His / Her message. 2000+ years is certainly a long enough
time for a 'sequel.'

Post by l***@hotmail.com
the bare mechanism of a materialistic worldview, he suddenly
finds himself without all the purpose and morality that God had
granted him.

God 'granted' us morality? I don't think so. Morality is judgment and
God isn't judgmental -- men are good enough at it. :P

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The "only santity in an insane world is insanity."

Like John Nash said, "In some ways sanity is a form of conformity."
--
Patriot Act /n./ 1. Pre-emptive strike on American freedoms to prevent
the terrorists from destroying them first. 2. The elimination of one of
the reasons why they hate us.

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, that is what YOU have reduced it to. That is not the reality of
the case. Infertile heterosexuals, homosexuals, animals or insects are
all mutations. Mutations evidence a LOSS of genetic information. That
is, if you can't understand this, they are lower forms of the species.

Did I really read this?

At first I thought, how could the moderator let this post through. But,
then, I'm glad it wasn't censored as it shows your true colors.

You, sir, represent the worst of Christianity. The bigoted, judgmental
and condescending. But I know our nonjudgmental God still loves you.

[Jani]

<snip>.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, that is what YOU have reduced it to. That is not the reality of
the case. Infertile heterosexuals, homosexuals, animals or insects are
all mutations. Mutations evidence a LOSS of genetic information. That
is, if you can't understand this, they are lower forms of the species.

Infertility can have a number of causes; it's nothing to do with being a
"lower form of the species". Worker bees are infertile, and are not a
"lower form of the species", they're essential to the survival of the swarm.
(Incidentally, I do hope you don't go spouting this "lower form" nonsense at
childless couples who would rather *not* be infertile....)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even your own paradigm teaches that it is the survial of the "fit."
And that there has never ever been a single recorded instance of a
"beneficial" mutation, your argument stands without substantiation, an
unscientific standing.

Oh, don't be so silly. Every single mutation which increases the organism's
chance of survival is a beneficial one. Try and get out of this science
fiction / horror movie mindset that associates mutation with deformity or
non-viability. A mutation is simply a *change*; whether a change for better
or worse depends on the effect it has on the organism's interaction with its
environment.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
Beyond that, the natural world
encompasses sexual and asexual reproduction, parthenogenesis, and species
in
which the same individual is female for part of its lifecycle and male
for
the rest.

But in the former it might bear children from a normal encounter with
a male of the same species, but the later will never produce children
in a female of the species. There are a several of Hollywood stars
which could be used to illustrate this fact. They have produced
children from one gender but have never produced it from the other.
That's because it is a mutant form of the species.

Oh, good grief. Read it again. "Species in which the same individual is
female for part of its lifecycle and male for the rest." Nothing to do with
Hollywood stars or even with human beings. OYSTERS. Fully functioning males
which later become fully functioning females. Not mutants, just perfectly
normal protandric oysters.

Now, I suppose you're going to tell me that oysters aren't part of the
natural world, or that scientists have deliberated falsified their data, or
somesuch. Sexuality, gender and reproduction in the natural world is *far
more diverse* than a simplistic male/female, ovum/sperm dichotomy. And
that's without the intervention of any modern scientific technology.

Jani

[Jani]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72
<snip>

Oh, but it does work. Added to that, it can easily illustrated. Take
a nice big book to the photocopier. Make one copy of one page. Now
make a copy of the copy. Then make a copy of that copy. Do this
1000 times. It won't take 100 copies before you realize you can't
read the original text.

Which has nothing to do with human reproduction, or the way that genetics
works, so what on earth is your point?


It has been approximately 1000 generations

Post by l***@hotmail.com
since Noah's worldwide flood.

There is no evidence for a worldwide flood. You keep citing myths as if they
were factual a prioris, and they're not. Start with evidence, and work from
there, not from a story.


Isn't it God glorifying that after all

Post by l***@hotmail.com
that "copying" of the DNA code from one generation to the next,
that we are even able to have this conversation of these highly
complex machines?

You could just as well say that God created evolution, so that we could
reach a point at which we could create and use complex machines. Whilst
that's still too anthropic for me, it makes rather more sense than your
mythical single couple.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Your entire argument is backward thinking. Information is not
gained, bloodlines don't become more pure, DNA strands don't
increase in genetic code, then all loose information upon
replication.

THIS is science. It is observeable and replicable.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You, on the other hand, have no scientific evidence to back
your assumption up.

There is a *wealth* of scientific evidence relating to the way genetics
works. Actual evidence, not extrapolation from mythology. And it's a far
more complex process than mere "copying", or losing and gaining
"information". There is nothing scientific, or "observable and replicable",
in claims about a single human couple, a mere few thousand years ago.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And though procreation by a man and a woman does cause
a loss of genetic information,

Uhm, no, it causes genetic information to recombine.

homosexuality doesn't replicate

Post by l***@hotmail.com
at all so ALL genetic information is lost. That isn't evolutionism.
That's self-annihilationism.

As I said before, if you take *either* a homosexual couple *or* a
heterosexual one, your society won't last. It simply takes longer to die out
if the couple are heterosexual, but with a restricted gene pool, die it
will. If, on the other hand, you take an established community, with a wide
and varied gene pool, then it doesn't matter in the slightest if some
individuals never reproduce. Depending on the environmental conditions, it
may even be highly advantageous if a significant percentage of the
population doesn't reproduce. And nature doesn't care if they refrain
because they're infertile, because they're nuns and monks, or because
they're flaming queers: from a biological point of view, they're helping to
balance the size of the population with the resources available to it.

Jani

[Jani]

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Wow..you've obviously not heard of hermaphrodites...or the concept of
a female or male side within each being...Yin-Yang concepts.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The hermaphrodite condition does not support your case in
any imaginable. For one, a hermaphrodite does not carry
both genetically reproductively capable sperm and a genetically
reproductively capable egg. They do carry genetic information
from both male and female of the species, but that information
is an indication of a mutation which is ALWAYS a loss of
genetic information.

Intersexuality in humans has a wide range of causes and manifests itself in
an equally wide range of physical, chromosomal and hormonal features. It's
true that an intersexed person with fully functioning organs of both male
and female would be a rarity, although not impossible. The lack of
information on intersexuality is probably due to parental concerns to assign
a definitive gender to babies born with ambiguous genitalia, rather than
allowing their children to become the subject of ongoing scientific
research - which is understandable.

(And *every* human individual conceived and born through the usual processes
carries "genetic information from both male and female of the species". It's
called "having a mother and a father".)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You still have not produced one example of where a female-
female or a male-male animal, bacteria, etc, replicates itself.

There are numerous examples of species which reproduce by parthenogenesis.
Some of them alternate between asexual and sexual reproduction according to
environmental conditions, some don't. Parthenogenesis is generally less
conducive to species survival because it permits less genetic diversity, but
it certainly exists.


[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Sorry, but the single parent paradigm is still left standing
after all this smoke you've been blowing has cleared.

Oh, dear. At least look up some basic, simple information on sexual/asexual
reproduction, parthenogenesis, protandrism and so on. Humans happen to have
evolved in a way which requires the combination of gametes from two sexes to
reproduce, but sexual reproduction is just a particularly effective way of
mixing up genetic material. We could just as well have evolved into a
species which has one "sex" - in fact, "sex" as we define it wouldn't even
exist - as long as there was some biological mechanism for combining genetic
material and nurturing the result.

(And then we would probably have a creation myth about two *people*, not a
male person and a female person, which you could try and promote as
scientifically valid a few thousand years after it was invented :)

Jani

[B.G. Kent]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, that is what YOU have reduced it to. That is not the reality of
the case. Infertile heterosexuals, homosexuals, animals or insects are
all mutations. Mutations evidence a LOSS of genetic information. That
is, if you can't understand this, they are lower forms of the species.

Did I really read this?
At first I thought, how could the moderator let this post through. But,
then, I'm glad it wasn't censored as it shows your true colors.

B - Yes I do sometimes wonder why insults to you Tara are permitted but to
some of the more literal Christians...they aren't.

*shrugs*

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Don't like that illustration because it is two simple? Fine. Got a
floppy drive in your computer? Take the orginal disks from the
software provider and a make a copy of it. Make a copy of that
copy and a copy of that copy.

Unless the media is damaged in some way, making copies of the same
files on floppies will not create degredation. There is no data loss in
copying digital information.

This is both mathematically and experientially proveable. I know,
after having been a Desktop support administrator for 15 yrs, that
code degredation does occur. Try it for yourself. Even without
copying, say the OS, an OS will degrade on its own after a
number of start ups and shutdowns. Again, I know this based
upon experience.

As for a mathematical or scientific basis, "informational thermo
dynamics" maintains the loss of information as well. There is no
known workaround to entropy. RF "noise," mechanical failure,
media failure, contribute to the loss of information.

Scientific American, Vol 224, Sept '71, p 188, Tribus & McIrinve
writing in an article titled, "Energy and Information,"

"It is certain that the conceptual connection between information
and the second law of thermodynamics is now firmly established."

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And though procreation by a man and a woman does cause
a loss of genetic information, homosexuality doesn't replicate
at all so ALL genetic information is lost. That isn't evolutionism.
That's self-annihilationism.

Then tell me: why is the world's population increasing and not
decreasing?

When I was living in Fairbanks, Alaska, one winter a phenomenon
occurred that that I will never forget. One year there were so
many rabbits (hares actually) that the hill sides were literally
littered with them. We didn't even have to get out of the car to
shot a dozen or so of them for a roast. And if you missed, the
dumb animal would just hop a foot or so and then stop. Then
very next winter, we hardly ever saw a rabbit.

It's all about dynamics. Human population will increase but
you are wrong in thinking that it is a uniformitarian process.
Disease could easily wipe out a 1/4 of earths population in
less than a year. In fact, over just the last year, year and
a half, the news has been repeatedly peppered with the
discussions concerning pandemics.

But this isn't your argument. Your argument is that population
growth somehow evidences an increase in genetic information.
It catagorically does not. Whether it be Adam or the last man
living, the chromosome count will remain a constant 46.
Population growth does not add to the argument. In fact, it
argues against it because historically it can be shown that
in the animal kingdom the cyclical nature of radical population
increases. Whether it be disease, food loss or preditors,
that population surge always balances out eventually.

The scientific laws are conservation, not innovation and
disintergration not intergration. Evolutionism requires
both innovation and intergration but it has yet to provide
mechanism that fulfills this. And I don't care how many
monkeys you have or how much time you will grant,
but never will that group ever produce a novel by hitting
the keys randomly. And this illustration exactly portrays
the evolutionary theory. You pretend that by random
events, matter has evolved through successive stages
from elements, stars, chemical polymers, living cells,
worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals then
somehow (never explained) Man. Evolution requires
that there be a Law for increasing complexity. But
both the 1st and the 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics
deny the principle innovation and intergration.

There had to be a single, Divinely created parent
because left to itself, the universe could never, ever,
produce a cell let alone a human with 46 DNA strands
that that a mere 2 tablespoons are enough that if
tied end to end, they would reach from earth to the
moon and back 5 million times. And you want us
to belive that this sort of complexity just randomly
occurred? Boy, talk about taking it on blind faith!

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, that is what YOU have reduced it to. That is not the reality of
the case. Infertile heterosexuals, homosexuals, animals or insects are
all mutations. Mutations evidence a LOSS of genetic information. That
is, if you can't understand this, they are lower forms of the species.

Infertility can have a number of causes; it's nothing to do with being a
"lower form of the species". Worker bees are infertile, and are not a
"lower form of the species", they're essential to the survival of the swarm.
(Incidentally, I do hope you don't go spouting this "lower form" nonsense at
childless couples who would rather *not* be infertile....)

Your whole argument fails to adhere to the particulars of the case. A
worker bee will never produce a queen bee. Which came first?

But either you are being deliberatly obtuse or you simply don't grasp
the argument. Worker bees are not mutant queen bees. Infertility
in a queen bee would be what? Mutation is NEVER beneficial.

[Jani]

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
Infertility can have a number of causes; it's nothing to do with being a
"lower form of the species". Worker bees are infertile, and are not a
"lower form of the species", they're essential to the survival of the
swarm.

Your whole argument fails to adhere to the particulars of the case. A
worker bee will never produce a queen bee. Which came first?

A worker bee doesn't need to produce a queen bee; that's not its function.
But you need workers *and* drones *and* a queen for the swarm to survive.
Removing the infertile individuals, on the mistaken grounds that they're a
"lower form", doesn't make the community stronger, it kills it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But either you are being deliberatly obtuse or you simply don't grasp
the argument. Worker bees are not mutant queen bees.

I didn't say they were. I said they were both infertile and essential to
species survival. You were arguing that any infertile individual is a "lower
form of the species" which is clearly wrong.

Infertility

Post by l***@hotmail.com
in a queen bee would be what?

Equally detrimental to the swarm as removing the workers from it. However,
because a queen can be created at any time, the detrimental situation can
easily be remedied.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Mutation is NEVER beneficial.

A mutation is a *change*, that's all. Some mutations increase the likelihood
of survival, some decrease it, some don't affect it either way. As I've said
before, you need to get out of this sci-fi / horror-film mindset that
"mutation" equals "bug-eyed monster".

Jani

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72
These Emperors Have No Clothes;
Roman Catholic Bishops Issue New Pastoral Guidelines
By Rev. Nancy L. Wilson
Moderator
Metropolitan Community Churches
There comes a point when one must finally say about the Roman Catholic
hierarchy's moral authority on issues of human sexuality: "These
emperors have no clothes."

If they have no clothes', it is because wolves like you have stolen
them to disguise yourselves as sheep.

Post by shegeek72
The latest pronouncement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on
"ministry to persons with homosexual inclinations" is completely
without credibility,

So _you_ say. But why would anyone believe you? After the flood of
anti-christian propaganda you have subjected us to in your brief time
in this NG, it is _you_ who is "completely without credibility". You
cannot suddenly regain it by quoting Wilson.

Post by shegeek72
especially in the US, where the Bishops have utterly failed as moral
and spiritual leaders to deal with the decades of documented sexual
abuse of children entrusted to the care of the Roman Catholic Church
through its priests. The cover-up and complicity, the pastoral
failure to take seriously the suffering of the victims and their
families, the scapegoating of homosexual priests, and efforts to save
institutional face at all costs have wounded and alienated US
Catholics as nothing before in history.

This false accusation is a _perfect_ example of how you inflict us
with anti-christian propaganda. This is every bit as serious a
misrepresentation as the old Soviet history textbooks that called the
American Revolution a "bourgeois revolution".

Some of us in the NG realize taht when a misrepresentation is THAT
bad, it is no better than an outright lie.

That said, I will leave a detailed refutation of your propaganda to
the Latins in this NG.

Post by shegeek72
Now, in the face of this lapse of moral responsibility, the US
Catholic Bishops have chosen to pontificate on matter of sexual
practice and morality crucial to heterosexuals and homosexuals in
ways that can only be described as reflecting "willful ignorance"
(quoting Sam Sinnett, President of Dignity USA).

The "willful ignorance" is Sinnett's and Wilson's, not the
Bishops. And his willful ignorance is very much the same type as your
own.

Post by shegeek72
The latest word from the US Bishops make it very clear that we truly
stand in need of a new moral paradigm when it comes to human
sexuality.

No, what we need is a faithful understanding of the paradigm God
revealed. But as long as Rome insists on the unjustifiable refusal to
ordain married men, Rome cannot remain faithful to it. Then again,
neither can those critics of Rome who insist on an even worse
disaster, ordaining the unchaste.

Post by shegeek72
The 21st century demands a major revisiting of the purpose, moral
boundaries and values that promote healthy, just and loving human
sexual and familial relationships, especially by Christians. A 19th
century hymn writer, James Russell Lowell wrote, "New occasions teach
new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth; they must upward still and
onward, who would keep abreast of truth."

But you are misquoting Lowell here. Of _course_ they teach new
duties. But not all old duties fade away. And the duty of preserving
the faith intact and unadulterated NEVER fades away. Yet your
so-called "new duty" is _adulterating_ that faith.

Post by shegeek72
In public campaigns around the world, the predominantly LGBT
"Would Jesus discriminate?" - a question that's been met by
grassroots people of faith with an intuitive and resounding "no."

A wrong answer to the wrong question. Why am I not surprised?

Post by shegeek72
It's far too easy to make proclamations that are rooted in outdated
societal mores, rather than in God's love and grace.

Well, so what? That is NO excuse for what you do: making proclamations
rooted in a _perversion_ of God's love and grace.

Post by shegeek72
Over centuries and millennia, human sexual mores and practices
change, but the core values of love and justice, mercy and grace, of
respect and honor, do not.

And you have shown yourself time and time again to be _completely_
alien to those core values.

Post by shegeek72
It is these core values that need to be lifted up and reinterpreted
in out times.

So why are you continually _resisting_ these core values?

Post by shegeek72
For example, when the Bishops say that artificial contraception
introduces a "false note" into heterosexual marriage, they
disrespect and dishonor millions of Catholic families who use
contraception with a clear conscience.

But if they do so "with a clear conscienc"< then their conscience is
defective, failing to rebuke them for sin. Why? Because whether they
agree with Rome's position or not, they _are_ bound by obedience to
it. And they are _flagrantly_ disobeying. The conclusion may be
unpleasant, but it is unavoidable: they are sinning through
disobedience.

Post by shegeek72
In a world in which over-population - not homosexuality - is a major
contributor to poverty and undermines women's dignity and health, the
Bishops, themselves, are speaking falsely.

Again, I will leave the details of the refutation of this nonsense to
the Latins.. But is _is_ nonsense. Your understanding of causality is
flawed. We _have_ the technological and economic capacity to feed and
clothe _ALL_ these people. It is only because of the sick
misorganization of society that we do not.

Post by shegeek72
With a vastly declining celibate priesthood that has been even
further diminished and disgraced by pedophilia, the Bishops should
focus their moral fervor on an institution other than marriage.

Now that is a _whopper_ of a non-sequitur! No, a much better approach
would be to focus their moral fervor _on_ marriage, including
returning to the historic practice of ordaining married men to the
priesthood. But this would be a very difficult change for them to
make, which is why even the Orthodox bishops, who keep this historic
practice, have agreed that the change might be to difficult to pull
off.

Post by shegeek72
At a time when civil authorities in Catholic Spain and Mexico City
are recognizing the rights of LGBT families and couples, the Vatican
and the US Catholic Bishops are still living in the Middle Ages.

"Middle ages"? Your overstatement is preposterous. It only underlines
the preposterousness of your _whole_ line of reasoning.

Post by shegeek72
Gay marriage is not contributing to the devaluation of marriage; in
fact, it does quite the opposite.

This is even more preposterous.

Post by shegeek72
The reality is this: These emperors of the Church have no clothes.

No, the reality is that it is you proponents of perversion who "have
no clothes".

[snip]

[gilgames]

<<
The latest pronouncement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on
"ministry to persons with homosexual inclinations" is completely
without credibility, especially in the US, where the Bishops have
utterly failed as moral and spiritual leaders to deal with the decades
of documented sexual abuse of children entrusted to the care of the
Roman Catholic Church through its priests.
Do you really think that the Catholic Priest were the only abusers?

If not, those who exploit only the Catholic priests, abandon the other
hundreds of thousands of innocent children's, who were victims of
others. Should the owners of the media, forcing this exploitation
judged, and deprived from their power as it was done with some
bishops? Do they had clothes, or even skin?

[shegeek72]

Firstly, to those who addressed me directly regarding the article: I
posted it, not wrote it, though I agree with the statements expressed.

Post by gilgames
Do you really think that the Catholic Priest were the only abusers?

Of course not. The majority of pedophiles are married, heterosexual
men.

Post by gilgames
If not, those who exploit only the Catholic priests, abandon the other
hundreds of thousands of innocent children's, who were victims of
others. Should the owners of the media, forcing this exploitation
judged, and deprived from their power as it was done with some
bishops? Do they had clothes, or even skin?

The media reports on sexual abuse cases no matter whom the perpetrators
are. However, priests should be held to a higher accountability.

[gilgames]

<<
he media reports on sexual abuse cases no matter whom the perpetrators
are. However, priests should be held to a higher accountability.
Does the media not higher effect on the people's mind than the
priests, and consequently higher accountability?

[Remnant]

Post by shegeek72
These Emperors Have No Clothes;
Roman Catholic Bishops Issue New Pastoral Guidelines
By Rev. Nancy L. Wilson
Moderator
Metropolitan Community Churches
There comes a point when one must finally say about the Roman Catholic
hierarchy's moral authority on issues of human sexuality: "These
emperors have no clothes."

That may be true, but thank God that the authority on what is moral is God
and not man. According to God, homosexuality is a perversion, an
abomination, reprobation. God's word is beginning and the end of the
matter.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Remnant
That may be true, but thank God that the authority on what is moral is God
and not man. According to God, homosexuality is a perversion, an
abomination, reprobation. God's word is beginning and the end of the
matter.

B - NO. According to what you perceive of in the Bible......NOT according
to God.
I agree Gods word is the beginning and end..but no one has proof that God
said it is an abomination.

Blessings
Bren

ps. who personally believes that God could not care less where we stick it
as long as we are kind....loving ...and don't go against anyones personal
right or do it to a child.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Remnant
That may be true, but thank God that the authority on what is moral is God
and not man. According to God, homosexuality is a perversion, an
abomination, reprobation. God's word is beginning and the end of the
matter.

B - NO. According to what you perceive of in the Bible......NOT according
to God.
I agree Gods word is the beginning and end..but no one has proof that God
said it is an abomination.
Blessings
Bren
ps. who personally believes that God could not care less where we stick it
as long as we are kind....loving ...and don't go against anyones personal
right or do it to a child.

But you DON"T live this way. You live daily as if law, rules,
standards are to be lived out **literally.** You dare not pull your
car out onto the highway thinking otherwise. You don't go grocery
shopping while allowing for what you have here led us to believe. You
would not tolerate the check out clerk to charge the items you chose
to purchase solely on what he saw fit. You would stand with your mouth
wide open if he said to you, "I see that the price is marked $5 but I
think it should really be $15." And this is EXACTLY what you are
proposing above. God has placed a price tag on that item and we are
not allowed to change it.

Again I will remind you and again you will ignore it because you cannot
answer the charge, your thesis circumscribes all that God is by the
determinative "love." But this will not do and in fact, once again,
you
yourself do not live this way therefore your thesis is worthless. God
is declared "Holy, Holy, Holy." His love is governed by His holiness.
John writes, "God is love" not "Love is God." The syntax of the Greek
simply will not allow a reversal of the nouns.

So:
1) scripture denies your presupposition
2) you cannot and do not live consistently inaccordance with you
presupposition.

If it don't fly, it caint be true.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If it don't fly, it caint be true.

B - interpretation? if Isender does not agree with it....it *caint* be
true.


Sigh...

Bren

[Dionisio]

Post by Remnant
That may be true, but thank God that the authority on what is moral is God
and not man.

Strange. Every time I hear that, it's from a man...

[Dionisio]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
God has placed a price tag on that item and we are
not allowed to change it.

Aww... C'mon! Can't we "dicker" a little?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If it don't fly, it caint be true.

B - interpretation? if Isender does not agree with it....it *caint* be
true.

Again, you display a failure to understand the point or the
argument. You can't live your propositions. It doesn't matter
whether I say so or not. The fact remains as an existential
evidence. And because that is true, then your propositions
themselves display testimony to the fact that they are false
even as would a square winged airplane zooming down the
runway. It is doesn't get off the ground, it's a lie

Rom 1:25.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If it don't fly, it caint be true.

B - interpretation? if Isender does not agree with it....it *caint* be
true.

Again, you display a failure to understand the point or the
argument. You can't live your propositions. It doesn't matter

B - funny how I say this exact thing to you as well.

Blessings
Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, you display a failure to understand the point or the
argument. You can't live your propositions. It doesn't matter

B - funny how I say this exact thing to you as well.

You can say it but you can't point a specific out. Biblical
Christianity
is the only truth system that conforms to the reality of the universe,
to the experience of society, to day-to-day living of individuals. It
is the only system which provides not only the answers but the
reasons. Either it "fits" or it doesn't. Your's doesn't.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, you display a failure to understand the point or the
argument. You can't live your propositions. It doesn't matter

B - funny how I say this exact thing to you as well.

You can say it but you can't point a specific out. Biblical
Christianity
is the only truth system that conforms to the reality of the universe,

B - *splutter*.....when you find that four legged fowl...let me know will
ya?

Bren

[shegeek72]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - *splutter*.....when you find that four legged fowl...let me know will
ya?

And living creatures that were the form of men, but had four faces and
wings, calves feet and sparkled like burnished bronze! (Ezekiel 1:5)

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <FV2eh.741$***@trnddc06>, B.G. Kent says...
[snip]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - *splutter*.....when you find that four legged fowl...let me know will
ya?

Your dishonesty is showing, Bren. You are practicing a dishonest form of
concealment when you repeat this THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED misreading of Scripture
as 'evidence' of faults in Scripture.

The fact is that the word mistranslated as "four legged fowl" is somewhat
obscure: it probably really means 'locust'.

We have been over this before. Yet you persist in your error.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by shegeek72

Post by B.G. Kent
B - *splutter*.....when you find that four legged fowl...let me know will
ya?

And living creatures that were the form of men, but had four faces and
wings, calves feet and sparkled like burnished bronze! (Ezekiel 1:5)

B - Yes indeed...does it ever occur to some persons that what maybe
described are sculptures and depictions of other cultural religious beings
that were misinterpreted to be actual living creatures?
For instance....Kali the Goddess of destruction/creation and protection of
women in the Hindu faith could be seen as a creature that really exists on
the face of the earth (not in a spiritual realm) with a lolling
tongue...black skin....heads in a necklace around her neck etc.

Bren

[Jani]

"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message news:zcpeh.141$***@trnddc03...

[]

Post by Matthew Johnson
The fact is that the word mistranslated as "four legged fowl" is somewhat
obscure: it probably really means 'locust'.

Excuse my chuckling at your post, Matthew. I don't suppose you're a
Pratchett fan, but he's a writer full of obscure allusions which his readers
delight in identifying.

And there's a comment by one of his characters, a priest of a religion not
a million miles away from medieval Christianity, who says in conversation
with a witch that "some scholars argue that that word (witch) probably means
'cockroach' "

I'd always assumed it was a reference to the poisoner/witch translation in
the KJV, but apparently it's rather more subtle than that. Thank you for the
information :)

Jani

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - *splutter*.....when you find that four legged fowl...let me know will
ya?

http://www.bulapictures.com/gallery/four_legs_bird.html

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent
B - *splutter*.....when you find that four legged fowl...let me know will
ya?

http://www.bulapictures.com/gallery/four_legs_bird.html

If I really had to believe those pictures were genuine, I would have to believe
that bird was exposed to mutagenic substances as an embryo. Does that bird hail
from Love Canal, Three Mile Island?

But seriously now, as I pointed out before, the translation "four legged fowl"
is HIGHLY doubtful at best. It makes much more sense to assume the word used is
really just another word for 'locust'.

So Bren's continual resort to this same discredited line of attack on Scripture
is quite dishonest.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent
B - *splutter*.....when you find that four legged fowl...let me know will
ya?

http://www.bulapictures.com/gallery/four_legs_bird.html

B - well hot diggity....thanks. LOL.

Bren

[Jani]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
http://www.bulapictures.com/gallery/four_legs_bird.html

If I really had to believe those pictures were genuine, I would have to
believe
that bird was exposed to mutagenic substances as an embryo. Does that bird
hail
from Love Canal, Three Mile Island?

It probably is genuine; quite possibly an instance of conjoined twinning
where one twin is imperfectly developed. If you look at the picture which
shows the bird from the side, it seems as if there's a second half-bird
growing out of the rear part of the first. It's not all that uncommon,
actually, even in humans.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But seriously now, as I pointed out before, the translation "four legged
fowl"
is HIGHLY doubtful at best. It makes much more sense to assume the word
used is
really just another word for 'locust'.

True, but a prohibition against eating any creature with "unnatural"
deformities also makes sense, especially if the process by which food
becomes "part of" the eater isn't well understood.

Jani

[l***@hotmail.com]

Can we get back to the original argument of this thread?

Homosexuality is both a curse and a judgment. However, in epic terms,
it is a johnie-come-lately, a secondary front, an alternative means
when the original was Divinely stopped. What am I talking about? The
relationship of homosexuality to that of the original affront to the
Divine promise of the Messiah being brought forth through the seed of a
woman.

Jude 6-7 clearly links two biblical events as being one subterfuge, a
machination to destroy the regeneration of procreative abilities of the
race of men. This artifice or dodge was first tried by means of a few
fallen angels leaving their proper domain, that of not regenerating,
that of the angelic realm in heaven, and cohabiting with females of the
human race. Sodom and Gomorrah were a less effective affront to the
promised Messiah than the Nephilim, but it received Divine judgment for
it nonetheless.

To prove this theorem, one must first return to the original account
of the original maneuver to destroy the race of men. That biblical
account is found in Gen 6.

Gen. 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of
the land, and daughters were born to them,
Gen. 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were
beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen. 6:3 Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man
forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one
hundred and twenty years."
Gen. 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and
they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old,
men of renown. [NASB]

Clearly this passage begins with the emphasis being on "multiply" or
procreation. This is the multiplication or the profound increase in
the birth rate of the race. The race was at that place where its
numbers were beginning to see duplicity causing a large spurt of growth
in the population of "men." Literally, verse one reads that
"humanity" (men) began to multiply exponentially and in turn there was,
evidently, a greater number of female babies to that of man babies.
This only further fueled the population growth. The emphasis of this
verse is on the female gender of the race.

Now in verse two we find the introduction of the "sons of God" and
their taking "interest" in the females of the human race. In the OT,
the term benei elohim, or "sons of God," is strictly applied to angels.
It is only in the NT that the term is used of saints and then only in
their relationship to be citizens of heaven, not earth. So two things
about this term. One, is speak of that which is characterized by being
that which is identified as having its proper habitation in heaven.
Second, it speaks of a segment of this angelic realm which leaves its
"proper abode" to cohabitate with the women of men.

As with verse one, the key emphasis of verse two is the "daughters of
men. Like "men" in verse one, so too is "daughters of men" in verse
two a generic term signifying in the first humanity while in the second
femdom. There is also an important emphasis which must be pointed out.
It is the "*sons* of God" who cohabit or have sexual relations with
the "*daughters* of men." The order is never reversed. The angelic
realm is _always_ represented in the masculine gender -in both
testaments.

Now there is often an objection raised at this point. That objection
proceeds something like this: "Christ revealed that angels do not
procreate, never "marrying nor giving in marriage," therefore the Gen 6
account cannot refer to angels." Well lets briefly look at this
objections:

Matt. 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given
in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

The problem of this objection is that it does not take into
consideration ALL that Christ spoke of. Specifically, Christ set the
parameters of His context to that of being "in heaven." The saints,
when "in heaven," like the angels who remain "in heaven," their proper
abode, do not procreate. So strictly speaking, this passage does not
argue against the Gen 6 passage speaking of angels who are not "in
heaven."

Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned
their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the
judgment of the great day.
Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since
they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went
after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the
punishment of eternal fire.

When one surveys all the relevant data, there is no argument given for
it being beyond the scope of possibility that angels are without sex.
Mt 22:30 cannot be presented as an argument supporting that thesis.

So in verse three of Gen 6, we are given the results of these "sons of
God" having sexual intercourse with the "daughters of men." The result
is a new race of *men* who are called the "Nephilim." Again, we need
to look at this word. Often it is thought that this word merely
denotes the fact that these were just really big, oversized men.
However, that is the "modern" interpretation and not the historic one.
For the LXX chose not to leave the original Hebrew word but rather
substituted the Greek word, "gigentes." Now it is obvious even to the
novice that in the English language, this word is transliterated to
become the word "gigantic". So the natural inference would be that the
Nephilim were just really "large folk." However, when one looks at the
Greek use of this word, that is not the correct assumption. "Gigentes"
in the Greek means "Titan." Now granted, "Titan" also infers bigness,
but that is only a secondary meaning. It's original intent was to
illustrate a special race of, again, men, who were the product of the
gods having intercourse with human women. They were part god and part
human but also, now outside of both realms.

So what? Well it is interesting to note the "giborim" or the "mighty
men. . . men of renown" were only that -men. There were no female
offspring of this bastardized union between angels and human women. It
could not regenerate itself. Left without Divine interference, the new
race would have conquered the weaker human race and eventually it would
have come to stand on the very same "island" paradigm that I have
earlier made mention of.

Sodom and Gomorrah were judged exactly for the same basic reason that
pre-deluvian world was judged -it ruined the blood lines and would have
eventually led to death of the race.

In both cases, God have given humanity a stern warning. If you stray
from the original Divine design of one man/ one woman, then you are
going to be judged -harshly. The angels of Gen 6 are confined in
Tartarus and are never granted any leave except to be case directly
into the Lake of Fire at the time of the final judgment. Sodom and
Gomorrah, homosexual communities that sought the "young men", i.e. the
angelic visitors to Lot, where also judged with hells fire. There is
no tolerance, no pluralism, no synthesis or leeway in this matter. God
has said. God has judged with fire and water. To continue to argue
otherwise is to place your mortal soul in danger of hell's fire
-forever.

There is one and only one Divine design for the race of men, and that
is

Gen. 2:24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Gen. 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Can we get back to the original argument of this thread?

The original argument of this thread was rampant pedophilia among
Catholic priests.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Homosexuality is both a curse and a judgment.

I doubt most gays and lesbians would agree.