Unanswered questions

[Bad Writer]

How is homosexuality a sexual sin?

if you discount everything the bible says openly against it...

No. The Bible never speaks openly against it. Even the story of Sodom and Gomorrah never specifies that it's a sin. God is unhappy with the sinful nature of the people there, but it's never stated that their sexual behavior is the result of his displeasure.

Skip ahead a couple chapters, and Lot has sex with his daughters anyway, even though he was apparently the most righteous man in the entire city. You could say his daughters were the unrighteous ones, but try to explain to me how these girls were able to date rape their father and bear him children? To keep his dick erect for this act, it had to be consensual. Not only that, but he never kicked out his daughters for being pregnant without a husband. Remember, this is the most righteous man in all of the wicked city.

Does the Bible ever condemn homosexuality? We can't tell for certain, but does it speak out against it? Never. We do get a passage or two about a man cleaving to wife, but it never says that a man will not have sex with another man, or have thoughts of another man, or anything else of this nature. Your interpretation of the Bible's passages includes homosexual tendencies as a sin, even without it ever actually addressing the issue.

All homosexuality describes is an inclination towards the same sex.

Not according to merrium-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality it allows for either interpretation. Yours was a weak attempt in conversational control. Play nice or we will spend hours splitting hairs.

I don't play nice, and now you're trying to mess with my words. Is a man who has had sex with another man necessarily a homosexual? No. I have had sex with another man, but I am married to a woman. Nice try, but no dice. A person can be homosexual without having had sex, and you know it. I think we know who's stalling for time, and it's the person pulling up the Webster's dictionary to try and prove a moot point.

or does your porn have to have heterosexual intercourse only?

beggs the question.

It doesn't beg any questions. You answered the one about Lesbian porn, but now you're stalling on this one. Are you afraid that if you tell us that you like porn that we'll ridicule you for it? I may have something in mind with this line of questioning, but you'll never know if you're not honest. Stop beating around the bush like you did when you were talking about your son looking at you in the shower and just answer the questions. You made this thread for questions, and I'm going to damn well ask them.

How do you feel about threesomes?

I have trouble finishing a two some with my wife with out wanting to go to sleep afterward. I would not want to have to ride one horse into the ground, then jump off and hop on to another.

Interesting. So you're not interested in performing in one yourself, but do you ever watch them in porn? I'm just trying to find out how you personally feel about sexual acts because this is very connected to what we're discussing here.

So, by your logic if and when EVER we go against our 'sexual tendencies' we are doomed to psychological damage?

Not doomed, but we definitely run the risk. The thing that we all agree on in society is that even if we have sexual appetites that are outside the social norms, it is not okay to act upon them if they could potentially harm the other person, or if they compromise their ability to a consensual act. A couple who are homosexuals run much less risk of emotionally hurting themselves or others than a person who preys on women who are married.

If you are indeed doomed to mental instability because you can't sleep with a hotshot celebrity, then I'd say this is a case where the person does need help to figure out a healthy balance in life. This would be a cause worthy of finding a good solution to. Since gays do not generally run this same risk, a straight camp or any other kind of self-help facility is not necessary for them. Also, if they don't want to be gay, even though they are biologically wired that way, it's probably because someone told them it's not okay to be homosexual.

...the sanity of the majority of the world population of men who grew up in the 80's with pictures or posters of either of those two on the wall is in tact.

That can't possibly have anything to do with them coming to grips with reality...

It wasn't till the last ten or so years that we were told that it is our obligation to stick your dick in anyone/anything that will hold still long enough for you to do it. As per the current societal decline I would say this new philosophy where one sticks anything that he wants is the source of all instability we are currently experiencing.

I'd like to see a quote by a psychologist that actually holds to this standard that you are proposing. By this train of thought, we would also have more cases of rape and other sexual misdemeanors than we would know what to do with, if this was really the philosophy we are following. No...it must be something else. I wonder what it could be...?

I'm also interested in what you consider to be societal decline. Really. This should be good.

The story of the Prodigal Son wasn't about disowning the child.

exactly! It's about a child leaving his father's house (badly) or choosing a life style not consistent with how the father has chosen to expose his family to.

So the father is always right in every family?

Staying Gone till his lifestyle choice consumed him and spit him out when there was nothing more to take. Leaving him for the pigs.

You think this happens every time that a person leaves his family on bad terms? That person always ends up eating with the swine in the end? Jesus had some pretty bleak stories that scared little boys into aligning their views with their father's. That's really what the story of the Prodigal Son is about (and it seems you agree).

My step-brother is as gay as they come. His father is extremely Roman Catholic. Let's make a wager. $50 says he's going to do just fine in his life of debauchery and will never have to come back home crawling on his hands and knees. Will you take this bet? C'mon, you know you want to. Jesus can't be wrong!

As for the heterosexual sin of pre-marital sex or heterosexual fornication, I wonder what Jesus would think about you disowning your teenage daughter because she got pregnant?

again not disowned. I am giving her and her baby daddy an oppertunity to be the adults they were pretending to be. When there pride runs out they will return.

I'm sensing some backpedaling, but I don't think you see it. Anyway, we'll go with this last statement for now.

Fine, not disowned. But I do think you're being a little insincere about what you think the situation entails every time. I'll make another wager with you that perhaps if this happens, you'll be the best dad ever and even let them rent out your basement for a nominal fee! Another $50 says you do just that!

Situations involving teen pregnancy vary from teenager to teenager. You know what the leading cause of it is? Teaching kids about nothing but abstinence. You know what keeps the babies at bay? Teaching the kids about safe sex in a well-rounded sex education module. Facts are a bitch.

What's that story in the Gospel of John about Jesus saving the Hooker from being stoned, and then forgiving her on the spot?

this has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Or you don't want to discuss is because you know I'm right about this. Whether or not you disown your kids who you believe are sexually errant is one thing, but not forgiving them is another. That's the point this passage in the Bible is trying to illustrate, and it's actually my favorite one of all the Jeebus fairytales.

It's really too bad that most scholars agree that it's an interpolation that made its way into the Gospel of John well after it was written. Christians actually use that fact as a basis to ignore the teaching within the passage.

Allowing a prodigal to be consumed by their choices wil sift the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the weeds.

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine? This is blatant arrogance on your part to think so highly of your beliefs that you should want your "wayward" son to grovel at your feet like a servant to a master. Do this to your kids, and I guaran-fucking-tee you that you do not have what constitutes a healthy relationship with them.

Anyway, it's amazing how un-biblical you actually are despite your heavy Bible thumping, for all the good it does.

its almost cute the way you guys earnestly think that a few hundered Sunday schools worth of bible knowledge (Im being generous)...

Stop. Your generosity is misplaced. If you assume that we know nothing of the Bible, then you've just made an ass of yourself on that assumption alone. Most of us come from Christian backgrounds on this site, myself included. My experience involves missionary work. You can eat a bag of dicks now, please.

intolerant of intolerance and the intolerant is the only acceptable intolerance allowed in western soceity! That and intolerance of Christians in general...

Again. You are a bigot, a hypocrite, and crummy human being. I don't say this lightly. Your beliefs have made you so. You aim to promote unhealthy relationships with your children, as evidenced in this discussion. This worries me, and rightfully so as I am a father myself.

If you don't follow your Lord Jesus, then who is it that you follow? Pastor Fred? Well, it's apparent that he doesn't speak for Jesus either.

but, you who claim there is no God some how can navigate the whole bible better than men like 'pastor Fred' who have been formally educated and has given the lions share of his life to discerning God's word???

Why do you keep failing to realize that atheists do not make the claim that there is no god? We make the logical conclusion based on the lack of evidence to support your claims to a deity. Have you learned nothing of Burden of Proof?

Look at it this way: an atheist never has any reason to say "I don't believe in a god" if you don't first make the claim by saying "There is a god". You see how that works? Please tell me you understood it this time.

FYI. A formal education as a pastor does not an expert make.

But then it's hard to speak for someone who may never have existed in the first place...but that's another conversation.

Ah, the obligatory reminder/self assurance that even if I can dispel everything you said here you can default to the core of your new system of belief, and everything will be made well.

Wow. You read into that last one way too far.

It's a separate conversation because I don't want to include my proofs for why Jesus may not have existed in this discussion of ours. And yes, there is evidence for his non-existence. It is not a belief I hold, as I do not state as fact that there was no Jesus.

I hope that clarifies it a bit for you.