|
Post by Lee on Nov 14, 2019 0:10:57 GMT -5
Did you notice though that it doesn't seem to address female homosexuality, just male? The Hebrews were a small tribal community among a lot of very strong nations. They needed to make sure they reproduced as much as possible. Since women can't 'spill their seed' they don't seem to be the focus. So the way I read it, it only matters is a man lies with another man like he would lie with a woman. No comment about a woman lying with a woman. So maybe it wasn't about homosexuality, but rather reproduction necessity? Probably like every thing else in the old testament, -women were so unimportant to the grand scheme of things that what they did was of little importance unless it impinged on male authority.
From Eve....women were very important in the OT.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 14, 2019 0:13:29 GMT -5
The Bible doesn't condemn sexual wandering. It condemns acting on it. You know, I would hope some people on the TMB have observed their own selves to where they have realized their flesh operates on a separate level as the manifold and whole expression of their cognition and aesthetical sense of the good the true and the beautiful. Did you notice though that it doesn't seem to address female homosexuality, just male? The Hebrews were a small tribal community among a lot of very strong nations. They needed to make sure they reproduced as much as possible. Since women can't 'spill their seed' they don't seem to be the focus. So the way I read it, it only matters is a man lies with another man like he would lie with a woman. No comment about a woman lying with a woman. So maybe it wasn't about homosexuality, but rather reproduction necessity? It's about nature. Sexual feelings, as with all feelings are existentially emotional. Norms and forms exists apart from our feelers.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 14, 2019 0:36:20 GMT -5
Women are mentioned, Romans 1: 24 - 28. Romans 1: 24 - 28 reminds me of something that I have wondered about.
Paul condemns those people in such vile terms! I have wondered if perhaps it was somehow was connected to his own "thorn in the flesh" he referred to in 2 Corinthians 12:7.
He calls the thorn “a messenger of Satan” whose purpose was to “torment” him.
Since Paul doesn't say explicitly what it was, -he probably did not mean it as a literal thorn but rather a metaphorical thorn. He writes that he "sought the Lord three times to remove this source of pain from him."
His obvious dislike, -if not actual hatred of women and the fact that he came from the Greek city of Tarsus where he was educated and marinated in Greek culture, - makes if quite possible that his "thorn" was an attraction to men rather than women.
Like myself, I just think he wanted to be manly. How many women would have preferred for their man to be manly. Of course you think being manly refers to the juvenile man. There's another man.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 14, 2019 1:19:41 GMT -5
Yes in NT but not in the OT where the NT writers interpreted it from. Was the original meaning of it even about homosexuality? If so, why was there no mention of it being an abomination for women? as with most things in the bible whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... But what's good for the gander isn't good for the goose.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 14, 2019 1:23:27 GMT -5
Romans 1: 24 - 28 reminds me of something that I have wondered about.
Paul condemns those people in such vile terms! I have wondered if perhaps it was somehow was connected to his own "thorn in the flesh" he referred to in 2 Corinthians 12:7.
He calls the thorn “a messenger of Satan” whose purpose was to “torment” him.
Since Paul doesn't say explicitly what it was, -he probably did not mean it as a literal thorn but rather a metaphorical thorn. He writes that he "sought the Lord three times to remove this source of pain from him."
His obvious dislike, -if not actual hatred of women and the fact that he came from the Greek city of Tarsus where he was educated and marinated in Greek culture, - makes if quite possible that his "thorn" was an attraction to men rather than women.
Like myself, I just think he wanted to be manly. How many women would have preferred for their man to be manly. Of course you think being manly refers to the juvenile man. There's another man. Well, -you might think it is "manly" to tell women to keep quiet in meetings, -how to dress and wear the hair and etc...
I have another definition for that kind of male. As well as the definition of "manly" has a different meaning for me.
Here is a few of the Paul's Ecclesiastical directives : .[Eph. 5:22–24] "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", and "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church". 1 Corinthians 14:33-35(NIV) states: "As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."[1Cor. 14:33-35] 1 Timothy 2: 9-15 (NASB) says: Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.[1Tim. 2:9–15] [1Cor 11:3–9] But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. Is this is what you believe is being "manly," Lee?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 1:27:09 GMT -5
as with most things in the bible whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... But what's good for the gander isn't good for the goose. with most things in the bible its a two way street for do or don't among the 2 genders bob....have you forgotten that or are you just ignoring it?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 14, 2019 1:31:14 GMT -5
But what's good for the gander isn't good for the goose. with most things in the bible its a two way street for do or don't among the 2 genders bob....have you forgotten that or are you just ignoring it? I haven't forgotten. I was just remembering things you've said about women that don't convince me of what you just wrote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 3:37:27 GMT -5
with most things in the bible its a two way street for do or don't among the 2 genders bob....have you forgotten that or are you just ignoring it? I haven't forgotten. I was just remembering things you've said about women that don't convince me of what you just wrote. so you haven't forgotten but your not convinced of what i wrote? contradict yourself much?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 14, 2019 15:52:40 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten. I was just remembering things you've said about women that don't convince me of what you just wrote. so you haven't forgotten but your not convinced of what i wrote? contradict yourself much? Just because I remember doesn't mean I've been convinced. When I'm not convinced by what you say, it doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself. It just suggests that you think you're right and I'm dumb not to agree with you. It's okay. Happens with a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 14, 2019 22:06:13 GMT -5
so you haven't forgotten but your not convinced of what i wrote? contradict yourself much? Just because I remember doesn't mean I've been convinced. When I'm not convinced by what you say, it doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself. It just suggests that you think you're right and I'm dumb not to agree with you. It's okay. Happens with a lot of people. Right. In fact, from what I read here on the forum it is seems somewhat of a systemic disease with some people.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 14, 2019 22:08:22 GMT -5
Probably like every thing else in the old testament, -women were so unimportant to the grand scheme of things that what they did was of little importance unless it impinged on male authority.
From Eve....women were very important in the OT. Really? WOW! -you sure could have fooled me!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 15, 2019 13:30:43 GMT -5
From Eve....women were very important in the OT. Really? WOW! -you sure could have fooled me!Well they were an important component in all the begatting you know!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2019 14:51:27 GMT -5
Like myself, I just think he wanted to be manly. How many women would have preferred for their man to be manly. Of course you think being manly refers to the juvenile man. There's another man. Well, -you might think it is "manly" to tell women to keep quiet in meetings, -how to dress and wear the hair and etc...
I have another definition for that kind of male. As well as the definition of "manly" has a different meaning for me.
Here is a few of the Paul's Ecclesiastical directives : .[Eph. 5:22–24] "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", and "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church". 1 Corinthians 14:33-35(NIV) states: "As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."[1Cor. 14:33-35] 1 Timothy 2: 9-15 (NASB) says: Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.[1Tim. 2:9–15] [1Cor 11:3–9] But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. Is this is what you believe is being "manly," Lee?
If earthling men actually behaved like men I believe women would be consummately attracted. The 2x2 offers their gender annihilation platform in the form of 'The worker who offers prosperity in this life and salvation'.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2019 15:05:54 GMT -5
The Bible doesn't condemn sexual wandering. It condemns acting on it. You know, I would hope some people on the TMB have observed their own selves to where they have realized their flesh operates on a separate level as the manifold and whole expression of their cognition and aesthetical sense of Oh! -how I do wish that all people here on TMB and everywhere else would realize that we really still do not know enough about all the aspects, -biological, as well as psychological, of what comes into play that accounts for how we see as our gender.
That cognition would help us understand others and be able to find the " the good the true and the beautiful" in all of our brothers & sisters.You're offering a standard socialist platitude. You need to remember people behave apart from their socialist confessions. Even the evil socialist Satan herself. ---- Mankind needs a solid concept of God, and some laws to order his behavior.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 16, 2019 15:38:32 GMT -5
Oh! -how I do wish that all people here on TMB and everywhere else would realize that we really still do not know enough about all the aspects, -biological, as well as psychological, of what comes into play that accounts for how we see as our gender.
That cognition would help us understand others and be able to find the " the good the true and the beautiful" in all of our brothers & sisters. You're offering a standard socialist platitude. You need to remember people behave apart from their socialist confessions. Even the evil socialist Satan herself. ---- Mankind needs a solid concept of God, and some laws to order his behavior. Sorry, Lee. But I have heard that before.
You're offering the standard excuse. Always nice when one can believe that their concern only for themselves, -and to hell with others, -can be backed up by some edit from a god!
Humankind has always done so, -it makes them feel righteous while at the same time they are getting what they want without a care for what their fellow travelers may be suffering.
Thankfully, -there are "good Samartians" that come along and rise beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2019 20:00:17 GMT -5
Your good Samaritan idea is a gratuitous concept of socialists.
Cause a problem like a fireman starts a fire just to put it out.
No one is truly a good Samaritan.
If the good Samaritan was truly good he'd kiss his life goodbye.
Because if a good Samaritan were truly good he'd devote his whole life to purging the poor, not just when they crossed his path so he could look like a hero or a "good person"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 16, 2019 20:18:48 GMT -5
Your good Samaritan idea is a gratuitous concept of socialists. Cause a problem like a fireman starts a fire just to put it out. No one is truly a good Samaritan. If the good Samaritan was truly good he'd kiss his life goodbye. Because if a good Samaritan were truly good he'd devote his whole life to purging the poor, not just when they crossed his path so he could look like a hero or a "good person" Then Lee, - you must not believe that Jesus meant what he said in Luke in the parable of the good Samaritan exemplifying the ethics of Jesus by which he advocated we were to treat others?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2019 21:35:56 GMT -5
I'm saying people don't normally treat people like theyd like to be treated.
Indeed, the paradigm we reverence is competition. You're a loser if you can't compete. But we can include you into our political partisanship.
But you must be willing.
Sound familiar?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 16, 2019 21:37:37 GMT -5
I'm saying people don't normally treat people like theyd like to be treated. Indeed, the paradigm we reverence is competition. You're a loser if you can't compete. But we can include you into our political partisanship. But you must be willing. Sound familiar? That's the bully sub-culture.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2019 21:51:50 GMT -5
And what is the take away?
That people are evil, or that people are naturally inclined to evil?
Why do people want to run me over on the freeway?
They're evil.
They're not alone, it's an exhibition of mankind's evil.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 16, 2019 23:57:22 GMT -5
I'm saying people don't normally treat people like theyd like to be treated. Indeed, the paradigm we reverence is competition. You're a loser if you can't compete. But we can include you into our political partisanship. But you must be willing. Sound familiar? Come on, Lee! You are trying to change the subject!
You were dissing my statement by saying: "You're offering a standard socialist platitude."
Then when I state what Jesus said about the good Samaritan about how we should treat others you ignore his meaning and change the subject.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 17, 2019 0:07:15 GMT -5
And what is the take away? That people are evil, or that people are naturally inclined to evil? Why do people want to run me over on the freeway? They're evil. They're not alone, it's an exhibition of mankind's evil. It's the bully culture you live in, justified by the thirst for place and advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2019 6:11:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 19, 2019 5:47:10 GMT -5
Why do people want to run me over on the freeway? Because you drive slowly in the fast lane?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 8:43:25 GMT -5
I'm saying people don't normally treat people like theyd like to be treated. Indeed, the paradigm we reverence is competition. You're a loser if you can't compete. But we can include you into our political partisanship. But you must be willing. Sound familiar? On the other hand, perhaps the way people treat others does in some way reflect on how they feel about themselves. Then, if someone treats you poorly, it's easier to feel compassion rather than offense.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2019 10:45:11 GMT -5
Why do people want to run me over on the freeway? Because you drive slowly in the fast lane? Are they baffled by your bumper-stickers? Did someone place a joke sticker saying "Hit me if you can!"?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 21, 2019 16:37:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2019 17:23:03 GMT -5
So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’. Again, you and the people at the creationist sites you quote are incorrect. Controlled physical experiments are not a requirement of the scientific method. This is an often used tactic by creationists to try to support their claim that there is no way to subject the theory of evolution to the scientific method. The seven steps are: 1 - Question. The question you want to answer. 2 - Research. Conduct research. 3 - Hypothesis. Develop a working hypothesis. 4 - Experiment. Test the hypothesis. 5 - Observations. Data you collect during the investigation. 6 - Results/Conclusion. 7 - Communicate. Present/share your results. Replicate the process. Some evolutionary details
|
|