TV makes me sick!

[Marius27]

Cite that please, I have a rough time believing that.

Which part, them being bisexual or sharing 98% of our DNA?

 

[Marius27]

I've seen two bulls engage each other as well as two female rabbits, it certianly goes on in the animal kingdom. However they are stupid animals (I assume most homosexuals would not like that as a comparison) who are fullfilling their most primal urges in whatever way they can.

Dolphins and the other Great Apes aren't stupid, yet homosexuality is quite prevalent among them.

 

[Marius27]

I believe he is thinking of Bonobos, not all chimpanzees.

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bonobos are another case. I was referring to Dwarf Chimpanzees though.

 

[Habbit Animal]

Chimpanzees also kill and eat each other.
What a terrible comparison testimony for the bisexual human.

I agree, TV is horrible. Unfortunately, its programming is what leads people to alter their attitudes and behaviors toward certain issues.

That's one of the foremost launching pad for what we see today as the erosion of a moral society.

 

[Belk]

Bonobos are another case. I was referring to Dwarf Chimpanzees though.

That would be the Bonobo then.

The bonobo, Pan paniscus, formerly called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee

 

[Belk]

Chimpanzees also kill and eat each other.
What a terrible comparison testimony for the bisexual human.

I agree, TV is horrible. Unfortunately, its programming is what leads people to alter their attitudes and behaviors toward certain issues.

That's one of the foremost launching pad for what we see today as the erosion of a moral society.

Homo Sapiens do the same thing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which part, them being bisexual or sharing 98% of our DNA?

Bisexual.

 

[mafwons]

Dolphins and the other Great Apes aren't stupid, yet homosexuality is quite prevalent among them.

In comparison to human beings yep, stupid. We are vastly suprior in inteligence to any animal. Of course our intellect is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. God reigns supreme and all human unterstanding from all history, cannot even begin to approach being God's. That being said God has forbidden homosexual behavior therefore it is immoral.

 

[Sofaman]

In comparison to human beings yep, stupid. We are vastly suprior in inteligence to any animal. Of course our intellect is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. God reigns supreme and all human unterstanding from all history, cannot even begin to approach being God's. That being said God has forbidden homosexual behavior therefore it is immoral.

God has said that owning another human being as a slave is allowed. I therefore take it that you believe slavery is not immoral.

 

[HitchSlap]

God has said that owning another human being as a slave is allowed. I therefore take it that you believe slavery is not immoral.

That was the OT, silly.

 

[Sofaman]

That was the OT, silly.

Oh yes. Sorry, I forgot they are allowed to pick and choose what suits

 

[Rajni]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

I've seen two bulls engage each other as well as two female rabbits, it certianly goes on in the animal kingdom. However they are stupid animals (I assume most homosexuals would not like that as a comparison) who are fullfilling their most primal urges in whatever way they can.

This statement presumes that the only time people engage each other is[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]due to animalistic primal urges. This would be highly inaccurate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

In comparison to human beings yep, stupid. We are vastly suprior in inteligence to any animal. Of course our intellect is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. God reigns supreme and all human unterstanding from all history, cannot even begin to approach being God's. That being said God has forbidden homosexual behavior therefore it is immoral.

Correction: Ancient texts have been interpreted by some to say that God[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]has forbidden homosexual behavior. This particular interpretation leads[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]them to conclude that it must, therefore, be immoral. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Incidentally, the same parts of the bible that are said to forbid[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]homosexuality also forbid eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics. Do[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]you refrain from those things and tell others they must as well?[/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]-[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[mafwons]

God has said that owning another human being as a slave is allowed. I therefore take it that you believe slavery is not immoral.

As it is in the Bible, yes. The Bible doesn't change because society does. The Bible however does not require owning slaves, so it is not some moral imperative. The people who owned slave pre emacipation proclamation certianly were not living up to the bar set in the Bible for how one is to treat slaves, so if you are trying to get me to espouse the slavery that wenr on in this country forget it, I would have been an abolitionist for sure. Not engaging in homosexual acts is a moral imperative set forth in the bible therefore no change in society or laws can make it acceptable.

 

[mafwons]

This statement presumes that the only time people engage each other is
due to animalistic primal urges. This would be highly inaccurate.

Correction: Ancient texts have been interpreted by some to say that God
has forbidden homosexual behavior. This particular interpretation leads
them to conclude that it must, therefore, be immoral.

Incidentally, the same parts of the bible that are said to forbid
homosexuality also forbid eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics. Do
you refrain from those things and tell others they must as well?

I did not assume anything about people engaging in these acts, simply stated The reason animals do.

I belive that the law is the law, and that Christ fullfilled the law when he gave his life on the Cross. Moral laws did not change, you still shouldn't kill anyone, take the Lords name in vain, engage in homosexual acts etc..

Even though the law is no longer applicable in this context in regards to moral law we are held to a higher standard, we are not even to think these things. These laws do not apply to non Christians however, if you have not accpted Christ as your Savior, and repented of sin it makes not a bit of difference what sins you commmit, you have no hope of eternity with God, in that case sin is just sin, however that does not make Christians want to be exposed to these sins.

 

[HitchSlap]

As it is in the Bible, yes. The Bible doesn't change because society does. The Bible however does not require owning slaves, so it is not some moral imperative. The people who owned slave pre emacipation proclamation certianly were not living up to the bar set in the Bible for how one is to treat slaves, so if you are trying to get me to espouse the slavery that wenr on in this country forget it, I would have been an abolitionist for sure. Not engaging in homosexual acts is a moral imperative set forth in the bible therefore no change in society or laws can make it acceptable.

Your god could have easily said; rape, incest, slavery and homosexuality, don't do it. Yet he didn't. So, right off the bat, a credibility issue there.

 

[Sofaman]

How could you stand for abolition of slavery when according to your bible, the owners are doing no wrong (providing that when they beat them, they don't kill them. Beating within an inch of death is ok of course).

Wouldn't you be at risk of angering your god by protesting against his rules?

Or is it that you pick the parts of the bible that suit your own sense of morality and dismiss those that don't.

 

[Belk]

In comparison to human beings yep, stupid. We are vastly suprior in inteligence to any animal. Of course our intellect is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. God reigns supreme and all human unterstanding from all history, cannot even begin to approach being God's. That being said God has forbidden homosexual behavior therefore it is immoral.

No, not really.

Animal Intelligence Under-rated By Humans, Researchers Say : Environment : Nature World News

 

[Rajni]

I did not assume anything about people engaging in these acts, simply stated The reason animals do.

You had said in your statement about the animals that you assumed
most homosexuals would not like that as a comparison, so this is
where I got that impression.

I belive that the law is the law, and that Christ fullfilled the law when he gave his life on the Cross. Moral laws did not change, you still shouldn't kill anyone, take the Lords name in vain, engage in homosexual acts etc..

However, as James puts it, if you would obey the whole law and yet
offend in one point, you're guilty of breaking all of it. So it would
seem to be an all-or-nothing proposal.

And why lump homosexual behavior in with killing, when it could be
just easily lumped in with the nowadays-innocent wearing of
blended fabrics? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

Even though the law is no longer applicable in this context in regards to moral law we are held to a higher standard, we are not even to think these things. These laws do not apply to non Christians however, if you have not accpted Christ as your Savior, and repented of sin it makes not a bit of difference what sins you commmit, you have no hope of eternity with God, in that case sin is just sin, however that does not make Christians want to be exposed to these sins.

“Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” Seems like both
Christians and non-Christians have nothing to worry about. Simply
love one another, and it will all fall into place.

By the way, there is nowhere one could end up that wouldn't include God,
given that He's omnipresent.

-

 

[mafwons]

How could you stand for abolition of slavery when according to your bible, the owners are doing no wrong (providing that when they beat them, they don't kill them. Beating within an inch of death is ok of course).

Wouldn't you be at risk of angering your god by protesting against his rules?

Or is it that you pick the parts of the bible that suit your own sense of morality and dismiss those that don't.

Obviously when you put it that way I see your point. We should bring slavery back, and maybe stoning. This type of reasoning is pretty flimsy. Jesus does not require slavery nor does he require one to be in favor of it, he simply lays out the rules for the practice of it. If I were a slave and a Christian inwould be obliged to serve my master to the best of my ability, not because slavery is any great thing but so that my master may see Christ in me and be saved. I am opposed to the death penalty even though it was used in the Old Testament, even required it is no longer so, not because of picking and choosing but because the law has been fullfilled.

The laws in the Old Testament were to govern a nation, the rules of the New Testament are to govern the conduct of those who choose to follow Christ, if you don't why fret, you are good until you meet your maker, then maybe not so much.

 

[Rajni]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

the rules of the New Testament are to govern the conduct of those who choose to follow Christ, if you don't why fret, you are good until you meet your maker, then maybe not so much.

Why is that? If the NT rules don't apply to those who don't follow Christ,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]then the penalties wouldn't either; they have nothing to worry about. [/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]-[/FONT]