|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 2, 2015 8:10:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2015 10:01:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 2, 2015 11:56:09 GMT -5
How do you know? That's the key question isn't it? No one knows when it comes to God, though plenty like to claim they do. What do you gain by being similarly presumptuous? Gain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 20:38:00 GMT -5
now that gay marriage advocates have opened the proverbial can of worms. i'm gonna be interested in what kind of mental gymnastics they will go through to prove it to be different than what was expected
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 2, 2015 20:45:37 GMT -5
Bob Williston has advocated for polygamy on TMB. Perhaps he can articulate why he feels strongly on this issue, or not.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 2, 2015 20:50:13 GMT -5
What do you gain by being similarly presumptuous? Gain? Right. Why do you predictably resolve the various misrepresentations of God into the dictum, "There isn't one" ?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 2, 2015 21:03:51 GMT -5
The scripture confirms and conveys the ideal of the physical and spiritual bond of the reproductive archetypes. In families, the will of the various individuals are consolidated or resolved into one, more or less. An analogy might be two trees growing side by side, corroborating, conferring, and deferring as they grow towards their common interests. The question had to do with the definition of 'one flesh' and from what event is it created. Do you believe that the each person looses their individuality to the common entity that is the 'married couple'? Do you believe, as it states in 1 Corinthians 7, that each member no longer has authority over their own body but does have authority over their partner's body? So this could apply to same sex couples as well - two individuals maturing side by side, corroborating, conferring, and deferring as they grow towards their common interests. To a degree. The original archetypal pair will always optimize the marriage union. They were given after all, the unique capacity to reproduce, not just physically, but by the various contributions of their relative natures. Gays would have few children to foster in a perfect world. Gay adoption is not a progressive-alternative-salvation or remedy to Christ's who desires that all men and women be redeemed to an original, teleologically-perfected state.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2015 21:12:45 GMT -5
now that gay marriage advocates have opened the proverbial can of worms. i'm gonna be interested in what kind of mental gymnastics they will go through to prove it to be different than what was expected ?? what was expected by whom?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2015 21:31:42 GMT -5
Gays would have few children to foster in a perfect world. Gay adoption is not a progressive-alternative-salvation or remedy to Christ's who desires that all men and women be redeemed to an original, teleologically-perfected state. While the desires of Christ are important to you, we live in a country where for many the desires of Christ are of little importance. There are options available to same sex couples that do not involve fostering/adoption.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 2, 2015 21:55:03 GMT -5
Gays have had options but wanted the status of being equals, hence gay-marriage.
They aren't equals, however. No man has the radiance or glory of a woman, and no woman will ever have that of man. God established these boundaries to testify of our secondary nature before Him.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 3, 2015 3:40:48 GMT -5
God established these boundaries to testify of our secondary nature before Him. You should have watched the program on transgender children this week, since you seem to think that it was "god" who established these boundaries.
You obviously still don't understand that if you believe in the supposed god you revere as one creating such perfection, -you will have to also accept the fact that same god erred when HE made children like these.
OOPS, again perhaps you shouldn't watch it! Probably make you have a fit of apoplexy (as they called it in the olden days when someone became so angry they had a stroke!)
.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 3, 2015 8:05:09 GMT -5
Gays have had options but wanted the status of being equals, hence gay-marriage. They aren't equals, however. No man has the radiance or glory of a woman, and no woman will ever have that of man. God established these boundaries to testify of our secondary nature before Him. Using your logic god then also created hermaphrodites and intersex individuals. I guess they would have the radiance and glory of a female and 'that' (whatever it might be) of a male. I wonder if the hermaphrodites are just experimental models. I am still waiting for you to explain why same sex marriages threaten you so much? What is it that you fear? What do you see as the worst case scenario that would have any impact on your life? Two women. Married. Living together. Raising children to whom they gave birth. How does this impact you?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 3, 2015 10:29:54 GMT -5
TG are what, one in 30,000? According to gays and atheists, you'd think they were one in seven.
Usually people don't cry out for new ontological categories of human beings when fetuses are joined at the hip or have extra limbs and organs, so why do gays and atheists want categorical expansions for GLTGTS?
Its because they want to capitalize on the nature of the sexual drive and identity, the emotional center of creaturely will and volition.
Its because they want to make the human being the focus of attention to further their fight with God.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 3, 2015 11:10:14 GMT -5
TG are what, one in 30,000? According to gays and atheists, you'd think they were one in seven. Hermaphrodites are not transgender individuals. They are, according to you, god's creations that are both male and female. Does the number of individuals matter? I think the point is to consider all umans equally regardless of their sexual preference. It seems like you are wanting to consider them in a different category and have different rules apply. No, they only want to be treated equally. You would like to see them treated differently. In all fairness, more people are concerned with human beings than are concerned about whatever concerns you believe your god has. You commented not too long ago that people were focused not on the reproductive process of sex but on the pleasure. You have to ask your self if this was not to be the case why would a creator not make sex painful except when it was possible to conceive a child? It seems like s/he tried out that concept with spiders where the female kills the male.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 6, 2015 1:56:09 GMT -5
Pleasure's good.
But just because something's pleasurable doesn't mean its good, even if might seem "natural".
Why do we draw these distinctions?
Ontologically-speaking, are homo sapiens natural or not?
What does it mean to be natural?
Jean skirts?
Plain faces?
Cowboy hats?
Calloused fingers?
Long hair?
Anyone .... ?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 6, 2015 2:11:11 GMT -5
Does the number of individuals matter? In a democracy they do. According to modern political-theory, consensus offers us the best indication of a norm. In terms of data, numbers indicate patterns and trends, transcendence and order.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 6, 2015 2:45:10 GMT -5
With respect to the gay-marriage ruling, the majority rule of the supreme court trumped the majority will of various states' majorities. Does it mean God is in the house? Or does it mean some animals are more equal than others?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 6, 2015 8:07:38 GMT -5
Pleasure's good. But just because something's pleasurable doesn't mean its good, even if might seem "natural". I have a feeling your definition of good is very different from mine. Pleasure is one of the factors that drives animals to behave in the way they do. If coitus was as painful as a broken tooth the number of teen pregnancies would drop way down. And, perhaps, none of us would be here writing on this discussion board. Pleasure is a feature of the biological make-up of of humans. Religions use it as a factor to control the members. Imagine an omnipotent omniscient being being concerned about the sexual acts of animals. How much time do you spend worrying if clams are having same-sex relationships? Do you think your god is really concerned that a woman might seek and find pleasure with another woman? If that is the case I guess it could explain why homeless children, who are not having same-sex relationships, are starving to death. If I am not mistaken you are the one making these distinctions. I do not speak fluent ontological. Are you asking if Homo sapiens exist? Or are you asking where they stack up in the classification of other similar beings? I am not sure how natural would fit into an ontological discussion about humans. I trust you can enlighten me. Something caused by nature as opposed to human intervention. That would be a great topic if you wanted to flesh it out. As mammals, hair and finger ridges would be natural. Jean skirts, since they are man made and can be removed (yes, in the past I did field testing of this theory! No, I have no data to share.)Would probably not qualify as natural. As to plain faces, Once you stop and look, humans do not have plain faces. They are unique and interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 6, 2015 21:22:08 GMT -5
The creed of the atheism closes around narcissism, 'survival of the fittest'. Then it seeks transcendence in relativism!
Make that your idol. Become just like it!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 6, 2015 21:44:30 GMT -5
The creed of the atheism closes around narcissism, 'survival of the fittest'. Then it seeks transcendence in relativism! Make that your idol. Become just like it! Well, it sounds crazy enough to be god's will. So, Thanks for that!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 7, 2015 2:16:51 GMT -5
TG are what, one in 30,000? According to gays and atheists, you'd think they were one in seven. Usually people don't cry out for new ontological categories of human beings when f etuses are joined at the hip or have extra limbs and organs, so why do gays and atheists want categorical expansions for GLTGTS? Its because they want to capitalize on the nature of the sexual drive and identity, the emotional center of creaturely will and volition. Its because they want to make the human being the focus of attention to further their fight with God. Lee!, Thanks for mentioning that!
"Fetuses joined at the hip (or heads*) or have extra limbs and organs or no limbs or organs (or no anus**)"
Do you think that we should also make those incidents a fight with "God?"
Obviously, it must be some kind of mistake on "God's" ability to create normal human beings every time.
* I have seen two babies born fused head to head
** I also saw a child born with no anus.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 7, 2015 2:29:31 GMT -5
Does the number of individuals matter? In a democracy they do. According to modern political-theory, consensus offers us the best indication of a norm. In terms of data, numbers indicate patterns and trends, transcendence and order. In a democracy we also have the need to protect the minority from "tyranny of the majority," the term used in discussing systems of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 8, 2015 19:23:59 GMT -5
Apart from salvation, all political orders are topsy-turvy, are they not?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 8, 2015 19:25:22 GMT -5
TG are what, one in 30,000? According to gays and atheists, you'd think they were one in seven. Usually people don't cry out for new ontological categories of human beings when f etuses are joined at the hip or have extra limbs and organs, so why do gays and atheists want categorical expansions for GLTGTS? Its because they want to capitalize on the nature of the sexual drive and identity, the emotional center of creaturely will and volition. Its because they want to make the human being the focus of attention to further their fight with God. Lee!, Thanks for mentioning that!
"Fetuses joined at the hip (or heads*) or have extra limbs and organs or no limbs or organs (or no anus**)"
Do you think that we should also make those incidents a fight with "God?"
Obviously, it must be some kind of mistake on "God's" ability to create normal human beings every time.
* I have seen two babies born fused head to head
** I also saw a child born with no anus.Yeah yeah. It's not easy to be perfect in the flesh.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 8, 2015 19:29:06 GMT -5
The creed of the atheism closes around narcissism, 'survival of the fittest'. Then it seeks transcendence in relativism! Make that your idol. Become just like it! Well, it sounds crazy enough to be god's will. So, Thanks for that! On judgment day, those who are longing to be spoiled shall be.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 8, 2015 20:57:23 GMT -5
Lee!, Thanks for mentioning that! "Fetuses joined at the hip (or heads*) or have extra limbs and organs or no limbs or organs (or no anus**)" Do you think that we should also make those incidents a fight with "God?"Obviously, it must be some kind of mistake on "God's" ability to create normal human beings every time.* I have seen two babies born fused head to head** I also saw a child born with no anus. Yeah yeah. It's not easy to be perfect in the flesh. Why not?
If your "god" is suppose to be so perfect in how HE does everything, even in how HE creates people's sexuality, how come HE would create two children born fused at the top of their heads?
Also why create a baby whose digestive tract had a normal mouth at one end a & normal tract in between but no opening at the other end called the anus.
Or do you think that I am lying when I say that I have seen such children?
I also saw a child born that was already old with grey hair & a full set of teeth?
Don't believe me?
Google:
Progeria is an extremely rare genetic disorder wherein symptoms resembling aspects of aging are manifested at a very early age.
And I saw all these in the space of three months.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 8, 2015 21:04:15 GMT -5
Apart from salvation, all political orders are topsy-turvy, are they not? In my opinion it is the crazy notion that a perfect god created people in HIS image & then needs to save us!
If that is true maybe it is HE that needs the saving,- since HE is supposed to be like us!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2015 21:48:06 GMT -5
Apart from salvation, all political orders are topsy-turvy, are they not? In my opinion it is the crazy notion that a perfect god created people in HIS image & then needs to save us!
If that is true maybe it is HE that needs the saving,- since HE is supposed to be like us!Well there certainly are a lot of things that God has done that I wouldn't even think of doing. Who would sentence their child to an eternity of torture first off.
|
|