Chefelf.com Night Life: God - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jordan - JM was revering to Romans with the Paul thing and that second quotation. And he's not saying that lust isn't a negative thing, just that the focus of that passage was more on lust than homosexuality. On Paul - By your own principles, then, Romans can be discounted due to its context, making Romans 1:27 null and void, leaving only the angry rant of Leviticus in the OT.

JM - give it up. None of them are ever going to even consider any idea other than the one they cling to. You're just preaching to a choir and the people in the back are covering their ears and screaming "Lalala! I'm not listening!"

The trouble with vague and interperative books being treated as ways of life is the multitude of ways they can be

Lets get off of this stupid homosexuality thing and get back to the principle: What justification do we have for God, in any sense? Using Socractic logic, "God", is a creative force (not applying any characteristics) that originated in the Void as a First Cause. That is, it provides an explination as to where everything came from when there wasn't anything there.

It doesn't neccesarily have to be Jehova in any sense. "We as human beings consistantly attempt to weave a web of meaning where there may be none." - Dr. Edward Roivas

Perhaps there are deities out there stemming from some original force, or being created independantly. Lets hear some more opinions. Please...

This post has been edited by Slade: 26 March 2005 - 05:26 PM

He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
Demands devotion atrocities done in his name

He never used Romans. He kept refering to Leviticus.

The only two god heads which do not allow gay sex is the Islamic and Chrisitna religons.

The nature of God, from a logical point of view can not argue this point. So ya, let's get back on topic.

Chrisitna? Is that like the Hare Krishnas? Or perhaps Uranta?

Go find a useless article to cut and paste.

Its a joke son, dontcha git it...you know boy, a "funny!"



Boy I tell ya...I say...i tell ya...youngsters deez daze...

This post has been edited by Hannibal: 26 March 2005 - 09:35 PM

No, lust IS a sin. Pride is a sin, but you don't have to act on it to be sinful. Vengeance is an action sin, but lust is not. And lust dosnt only have to be sexual, it can be any act of putting material things that you covet the sight of above the greater good. And that fits into what Paul was preaching very well. He's not comdemning homosexuality Jordan. He's stating that lust leads to weird things. There are acts you can commit one way that would be sinful but you can commit them another way and they're fine. For instance:

I am starving so I steal a loaf of bread? By the bible that's cool.

I feel like ripping someone off so I steal a loaf of bread? Sin.

I am a man wishing to express my love for my wife in a physical manner: Cool.

I am a man paying a prostitute three hundred dollars for sex: Sin.

So then, are you going to tell me that my cousin having sex with her wife (not legally wedded, but who cares) is more of a sin than a man making love to a prostitute whom he dosnt love at all?

Times have changed, Jordan. Homosexuality is no longer something that Roman aristocrats do for fun. It is an accepted and decent lifestyle, and homosexual couples can love one another and indeed they can get married, both by the acknowledgement of the church and the state. The roman orgies were full of lust and thus sin, but you don't see that in modern homosexual society, so why trash them?



Sure I did, cept for about ten passages from Romans I quoted...

Sin leads to sin.

And what you wrote below is not true.

I am starving so I steal a loaf of bread? By the bible that's cool.

I feel like ripping someone off so I steal a loaf of bread? Sin.

Lusting is a sin, the mere act of lusting leads to physical sin.

You can't help but lust and get angry. You can stop yourself from acting on those emotions. Lust is always used in a negative context in the bible. Lust is bad becaue it leads to depravity. If Homosexuality was not a sin, then the lust would not be called lust, but love.

Ya you did use romans. I missed it.

I know times have changed. Parts of Europe and Canada and about half of the USA all accept gay life style. The rest of the world, nada. Sure, one day when fundamental chirstian/Islamic people are all gone, then it will be ok.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 27 March 2005 - 03:55 AM

I'm saying that its the feeling involved and not the actions that are sins. For instance, if I stoned someone to death for being a witch I'd go to heaven, but if I just stone someone to death for no good reason I'd be in trouble. It's the feeling involved that matters, not the act itself. In Paul's time homosexuality was largely a product of lust. Do you mean to say that all homosexuals are commiting the sin of lust on an equal or greater basis than unmarried straight couples? It's absurd!

Props go to Dr. Lecter for his Heresy, and Hannibal for Foghorn Leghorn being so bizarrely juxtapositioned in there.

Thank God that I'm agnostic and I don't have to deal with the defence of Christianity or the defence of Athistocrity (sp/is that even a word?).

your god is dead and no one cares
if there is a hell i'll see you there

It is now! It's a cross between atheist and mediocrity!

Also, I have a brilliant idea. Somewhere in the communist manifesto it says something about how its unethical for a younger man to marry an older woman. Therefore as a good communist I'm going to make vaguely offensive and prejudiced comments about people who commit this evil practice against the proletariat. I'm also going to lobby the government to keep older women from marrying younger men. I've even got a horrible white rapper to sing about them and promote my cause. If we persecute them enough they're bound to realize they're wrong sometime, just like blacks and jews did.

So who wants to join my lobby?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 27 March 2005 - 09:29 PM

Theocracy? And Nietzsche also said God was dead. Bow down before the one you serve...

I would think if God was as nice a guy as he's made out to be he'd forgive people for screwing up.

At any rate, I've just consulted my pineal gland, and Eris has spoken through me. She says "Put the gorilla down." There's the answer right there. So succinct, so perfect.

Last Friday was Good Friday, the day on which Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world. Quite obviously, you can be forgiven. The issue isn't forgiveness, it's permission. Do it and be sorry for offending God, do it and be sorry because you don't want to go to hell is OK, but you can't do it and then pretend it isn't wrong.


Now there's proof that Satan exists in the world. White rap.