Shy

. . .

Awe-inspiring.

Original.

Legendary.

The Mona Lisa of our time.

Westboro Baptist Church

Jorick said
-Lots of stuff-

To your first quote from me I addressed a lot of it afterwards with the whole marriage thing. At least I believe I did.

Jorick said Another example: being happy and thinking happy things is fine, but smiling and laughing are sinful. See how ridiculous it is?

Can I ask you for a better example? With happiness your smile and laugh is an automatic almost instant reaction, meaning it could happen without you having the time to stop the act from happening. Sexual acts, be they heterosexual or homosexual are not automatic or instant reactions to an emotion or feeling. It is a choice to act on those feelings instead of a bodily reaction.

To your second quote, yes I'm sorry if I missed some stuff, weeding it out through skype was a difficult task considering the conversation kept moving. In regards to Zechariah I stated how that one does condone rape, no if's, and's, or's about it. Numbers 31 also has no mention of sex at all. It simply says "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." I feel that wording there implies a far more long term relationship than just raping and leaving them. same thing with Judges.

Obviously forcefully taking a woman as a wife is wrong. But in some Christian denominations (especially if you go back before the reformation) so was divorce. However if you go into Exodus and Leviticus you will find laws regarding how to divorce your wife. Jesus explains about divorce in Matthew 19:8 "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard." Moses permitted a lot of things that Jesus later explained were not what was originally intended. In taking more wives from these others (those who were virgins so as to avoid adultery) The tribes of Israel were able to survive and grow. Many of the laws you find in the Torah were about the Israelites establishing themselves as a nation different from others and that must be kept in mind. Moses, while a great guy and all, wasn't perfect. He had a nation to take care of and expand and he did his best with the stubborn group he had. Was it right? No. In context can you see why it was that way? I can yes.

But that is a 100% contextual analysis, meaning what I just said is irrelevant to any defense of fundamentalist ideas.

---

Also just for fun here is an article written by a gay Catholic on his opinion about gay marriage and such. Like I said, its the guys opinion so its pretty biased and set on Catholic beliefs.

Westboro Baptist Church

Magic Magnum said
-Bible supporting rape-

With the Help of Jorick and Brand I scanned through the link you sent with bible passages ABOUT rape.

Deuteronomy 22:25-28 - Blatantly states if a man rapes a woman (who is married) he will die.

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 - States if the woman is unbetrothed, the man has to marry her now because he slept with her. Could be seen as condoning rape or not condoning rape.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - The rapist gets killed.

Zechariah 14:1-2 - This one appears to support rape. My only possible defense for this one is it is talking about the coming of the Lord so its some apocalyptic stuff. We'll count this as support of rape because, it definitely appears to.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 could be seen as sort of condoning rape, in that a captive woman can be made one's wife apparently without her consent if you give her a month to grieve her losses. (Jorick)

Leviticus 18:19-23 one doesn't support rape at all, doesn't even mention it. (Jorick)

Galatians 5:19-21 - Does not support rape at all

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Like Galatians condemns rape

Judges 5:30 - sort of implies that sex slaves as spoils or war are a thing that's allowed, which would be rape, but that's super tenuous. (Jorick)

Numbers 31:7-18 (particularly 18) is another thing that condones taking women as spoils of war, this far more clearly. (Jorick)

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - same thing

Leviticus 20:10-16 - No mention of rape like at all.

Exodus 21:7 is also weird and doesn't make sense to claim it's about rape. (Jorick)

Genesis 19:1-38 - This isn't really promoting rape. Lot was outnumbered and his guests were in serious danger. As was procedure back then, protecting your guests was the most important thing for you to do, so he offered his own daughters instead. Is it a good message? No. Does it support rape? Eeeh not really but if you tried maybe.

"And then for the rest of those quotes on this page, none of them really support rape. One mention of concubines, but meh." (Jorick)

---

So we have 1 that explicitly condones it while 2 others are maybe's. Then 3 support taking people as spoils of war and marrying them then having sex with them which could be considered rape. In reference to the spoils of war that was common practice back then to take women from places you conquered and marry them though.

Either way majority of your quotes did NOT support rape and only ONE blatantly condoned it. Again, stop just pulling quotes out without analyzing them.

Westboro Baptist Church

Magic Magnum said
@Homosexuality: Well if we wish to resolve this conversation and understand each other, rather than simply ending it here that seems to be the direction we need to go in.But before I do that I also feel the need to ask, define what you mean by Heterosexual and Homosexual acts before marriage.Do you mean sexual intercourse? Do you mean dating, kissing, simply being attracted?

A sexual act is usually in reference to things such as lustful kissing (virtually eating each other's faces off), sexual intercourse (regular or anal), as well as oral and "heavy petting." If it is anything along those lines then it is most likely considered a sexual act that should not be engaged in outside of marriage.

I'll come back to the marriage thing in a minute.

Westboro Baptist Church

Magic Magnum said It's still a Bible.Perhaps you should clarify which Bible you follow though and why?Since if we're going that route, there's 1000's of sub-groups of Christianity (All claiming to be the only true one, go figure) and all probably have a revised bible in some way at least.As for describing the act, that is still discrimination and homophobia.If you claim a man laying with a woman is fine, but a man laying with a man is not then it's the same argument and issue.

I already stated which Version of the Bible I used. I use the NRSV although the NIV is typically the most common translation. Why do I use this version? Well quite frankly, as wonder a piece of literature as it might be, the KJV is known to not be the greatest translation (no offence to KJV users) and is rarely used by biblical scholars worldwide. The NRSV contains the Septuagint for the Old Testament meaning no books have been removed and it is the most accepted "Catholic" bible.

Now you see, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, we do not see homosexuals as hated by God or any of the like. Also contrary to popular opinion we don't look at homosexual acts as any different that heterosexual acts. Both are considered sinful OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. The problem arises in the fact that the RC Church does not believe in same sex marriage therefore the heterosexual couples can get married while homosexual couples cannot. But then comes the question of "Well why can't homosexuals get married? The Church just discriminates against the gays!" But that involves going to the roots of marriage and what exactly it means as well as it's purpose.

But that is a totally different topic.

Magic Magnum said But look at it this way.Homosexuality is a sin.But Heterosexuality isn't a sin.That ultimately means one (Hetero) is better than the other (Homo) and that Heterosexuality is therefore a true and right sexuality while the others are flawed and wrong.

Wow. You just aren't getting it. Homosexuality is NOT A SIN for most Christian denominations. The emotions and feelings and attractions are not sin. Just like If I have the urge to eat an entire cake that is not necessarily sinful whereas going and eating that whole cake is considered gluttony. Probably not the best example, but I'm writing a Philosophy essay right now so that's what it shall be for now.

EDIT: Actually its a pretty bad example. Thoughts of Gluttony and the like can be bad. However a pure attraction to someone that is not adulterous is not.

Westboro Baptist Church

Brovo said
The fact that the bible decries the act to be evil, then God creates people who have such tendencies, is a pretty damming thing. It's to the level of saying that if you have feelings for people of a certain skin colour or hair colour, that those thoughts are sinful, and if you act on them, you'll be punished for . Even if it's just damning the act, it's a pretty abhorrent thing to then program people to want to do that act......And yes, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all space and time must have programmed the genes that cause people to have homosexual thoughts, or at least created the possibility of the mutation occurring.There. Happy now Shy? :p

Well now you get into a boatload of theology that explains (or attempts to) all that.

But yes I am content :3

Westboro Baptist Church

Magic Magnum said
Just a handful of Bible Quotes that outright says God doesn't like Homosexuals/"Fags".Not defending Homophobia in the slightest's.Religion's Homophobia is one of many reasons I despise and disagree with Religion.But to claim that those who are Homophobic aren't following their Bible?That's just an inaccurate statement.

Magic Magnum said
1. In this specific case, those with the sexual orientation themselves

Magic Magnum said
Romans 1:26-27

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Magic Magnum said
Leviticus 20:13

‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Magic Magnum said Leviticus 18:22

“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Magic Magnum said
1 Corinthinans 6: 9-10

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Magic Magnum said
1 Timothy 1:8-10

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality , for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"

---

All verses are quoted from the New International Version of the bible (I was too lazy to actually check my NRSV)

If you're going to use the bible to back up your claims, try finding proper evidence next time. Every verse you referenced discuss an ACT of homosexuality, none speak in regards to the person themselves.

Hey.

Drakel said

He???

Totally thought Larfleeze was a girl.

Hey.

If this is the real CG things will be interesting.

RP heaven!

Welcome to the Guild!

The members are friendly enough so you shouldn't have any trouble finding new partner here :)