14 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsPresumably, therefore, oral sex is also a sin.
I believe the circumstances are when a man puts his penis into another
man's anus. This is not a natural act intended by God.
P.S. The anus is not the place for a penis regardless of sex.
God does seem to get awfully worked up about where people stick different parts of their anatomy. I wonder why?
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt lies there, in a field, a few metres beyond the end of the runway, smoke rising, cables crackling, its pilot staggering around holding his head with one hand, rummaging in his bomber jacket for his Mosaic Flight Manual with the other.
What a quite remarkable thread.
14 Jan 12
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFactually I have not crashed at all, you have been unable to demonstrate why the
It lies there, in a field, a few metres beyond the end of the runway, smoke rising, cables crackling, its pilot staggering around holding his head with one hand, rummaging in his bomber jacket for his Mosaic Flight Manual with the other.
simple request, by God, as written in the Mosiac Law and practised by the Israelites
was in any shape of form, an unreasonable request. So far it has been asserted
that, it was unreasonable because,
1. it limits sexual freedom to married couples and men and women, a rather
reasonable request considering the anatomy of each.
2. It coerces people to a certain morality, as if that was an unreasonable request,
when the universe contains a plethora of laws which demand our coercion are not in
the least instance considered to be unreasonable.
3. because people think that its unreasonable, which is not really a reason at all.
4.because genetics predispose one to a particular sexuality, making the request
unreasonable, when in fact it has been demonstrated that predisposition and
determination are not one and the same thing.
5.because FMF doesn't believe that it was actually from God, despite the fact that the
mandates are well documented and exist irrespective of whether God exists or
whether FMF believes that they originate from God.
14 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEvery time I presented my case, you simply refused to discuss it, then you declared that it was "just" my opinion, in the end you just moved the goalposts. What a quite remarkable thread, indeed.
actually I have not crashed at all, you have been unable to demonstrate why the
simple request, by god, as written in the Mosiac Law and practised by the Israelites
was in any shape of form, an unreasonable request.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNeither the fact that you are of the opinion that a death sentence for homosexuality is [or was] mandated by God, nor the fact that the Israelites believed their Mosaic Law to be 'God's instructions', makes the discrimination and victimization of homosexuals "reasonable", robbie, no matter how "well documented" it all is in your mind.
5.because FMF doesn't believe that it was actually from God, despite the fact that the mandates are well documented and exist irrespective of whether God exists or
whether FMF believes that they originate from God.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFon the contrary FMF, i simply was not willing to pander to your personal foibles, at
Every time I presented my case, you simply refused to discuss it, then you declared that it was "just" my opinion, in the end you just moved the goalposts. What a quite remarkable thread, indeed.
every turn you seemed insistent on attempting to throw a spanner in the works, with
the consequence that it simply clouded the question, to wit, i dont believe the
mandates come from God, irrelevant, they exist irrespective of whether you believe
they come from God or not, i dont think that it applies to atheists, irrelevant , it doesn't
need to apply to atheists for them to form an opinion and then we had the quite
ludicrous, i have never met a practising homosexual who lives under the Mosaic law,
have you? again totally irrelevant.
14 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFsimply being asked to refrain from homosexuality is victimisation, why is it
Neither the fact that you are of the opinion that a death sentence for homosexuality is [or was] mandated by God, nor the fact that the Israelites believed their Mosaic Law to be 'God's instructions', makes the discrimination and victimization of homosexuals "reasonable", robbie, no matter how "well documented" it all is in your mind.
victimisation FMF, because you say it is.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't have any objection to someone requesting that I refrain from homosexuality. But I do object to it being enforced by laws or any other coercive means.
actually I have not crashed at all, you have been unable to demonstrate why the
simple request, by God, as written in the Mosiac Law and practised by the Israelites
was in any shape of form, an unreasonable request. So far it has been asserted that, it was unreasonable because,
1. it limits sexual freedom to married couples and men and women, ...[text shortened]... t irrespective of whether God exists or whether FMF believes that they originate from God.
s
Why? Because no one has shown why one religious code should be preferred over and above the hundreds of others. So why should I adhere to a code that you happen to have chosen?
If all you want is the right to express your personal conviction, I will fight for your right to continue to express it, within reason.
If you want more than this, then answer the question "why should I not reasonably demand of you that you follow any other tenet of any other religion that I choose to select."
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt was punishable by death, robbie, according to Mosaic Law. "Victimization" is one word that applies. "Barbaric" is another. Are you seriously claiming that Mosaic Law simply "asked [people] to refrain from homosexuality"?
simply being asked to refrain from homosexuality is victimisation, why is it
victimisation FMF, because you say it is.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderFirstly you adhere to laws all the time, objecting to them on the basis that they are
I don't have any objection to someone requesting that I refrain from homosexuality. But I do object to it being enforced by laws or any other coercive means.
Why? Because no one has shown why one religious code should be preferred over and above the hundreds of others. So why should I adhere to a code that you happen to have chosen?
If all you ...[text shortened]... demand of you that you follow any other tenet of any other religion that I choose to select."
coercive is a nonsense, for example when you take a flight in an aeroplane, do you
jump up into the isle and demand of the stewardess, oh by the way, i dont like being
coerced to remain in my seat during departure and take off, I feel i am being
coerced, is that what happens, no, why not, because its reasonable for you to be
asked to remain seated. It only seems that in matters of sexuality, that somehow
the matter of coercion takes on some kind of new significance.
secondly i am not asking you to live under any code and i asking you to consider
whether it was reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to do so, why, because it has
been stated that its discriminatory, it victimises people and is barbaric, yet they
have not found a singled valid reason as to demonstrate why such is the case.
Its not about me.
I am not demanding that you do anything other than consider the question that I
asked.
14 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyes, i think it was a reasonable request. citing that the punishment was severe is a real
It was punishable by death, robbie, according to Mosaic Law. "Victimization" is one word that applies. "Barbaric" is another. Are you seriously claiming that Mosaic Law simply "asked [people] to refrain from homosexuality"?
no goer FMF, the punishment for bestiality and adultery was also severe yet you have
no problem stating that it was reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to desist from
them.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy "foibles" were my moral takes on adultery, homosexuality and bestiality, I take it. And the "spanner in the works" was the fact that I disagreed with you. As for the "pander" thing, onlookers would be forgiven for thinking that you have been in 'self-pander' mode from page 1, and that, indeed is exactly why it has been "a quite remarkable thread", as Proper Knob put it, and now the cables are buzzing and the smoke is rising.
on the contrary FMF, i simply was not willing to pander to your personal foibles, at
every turn you seemed insistent on attempting to throw a spanner in the works...