Homosexuality and the forces of resurrection

Im going to put this stupid 'shellfish' rhetoric to rest and I hope its for once and for all.
In case you dont know how this works here is the basic way it works:

- The Old Testament (NOT PAUL OK) contains many Laws and one of Laws states that a Man should not 'Lie' with another Man (as he would lie with a woman).

Follow by response:

- Well hehe.. the very same Book also forbids eating Shrimp or what Fabric to wear so ahhhh.. yeah...

STOP:

What the fuck sort of insinuation is that supposed to be?
That the least thing makes all others the least thing too?
That man-to-man copulation is nothing more than eating a piece of shrimp?

Look and listen: MURDER IS ILLEGAL
ROBBING IS ILLEGAL
TAX EVASION IS ILLEGAL
Trademark infringment is ILLEGAL
JAY WALKING IS ILLEGAL YOU MORONS

So lets just say that the whole 'Tax Evasion' thing is not really that bad because for crying out loud, 'for does not your own same book' consider Jaywalking illegal too.
hehe.. so yea.. so that goes to show.. rhetoric cough rhetoric cough...

And while your getting the fuck off of that stupid thing - get off the stupid 'Paul' bullshit too.
Stop acting like Paul is some fucking interloper who did his own thing when he was right there with the disciples and everyone knows it.

 

so how do you personally, decide what rules should be based higher then others, how do you know what was meant to be the higher rule, shrimp or homosexuality?? maybe God just hated shrimps at the time, but has a slight dislike for homosexuality. it is trying to read God again, which i do not, personally, think is possible.

and read the rest of the post, if so, see that the problems people see in modern christianity is attitudes such as yourself, demonstrated in your last post. it came across as a very angry post, as most of your posts do. try to live as Jesus did, not the opposite
peacex

 

There are no higher or lower rules.
Thats the very point.
Without getting into the finer points of the Purpose of the Law, its is basically set forward that if you want to live a righteous life and do no wrong then here are the Laws and you must not break them.
Eating Shellfish was against their Clubs rules. Period.
You dont do it.
You defied God and now you are guilty of doing so... never mind which rule it was.
Not unlike our system, it doesnt hinge on whether or not your 10km over the speed limit actually caused a horrific accident or was in a 20 or 80 km Zone.
You broke the law and now are 100% guilty and thats that.

For what its worth, God does give them a special commentary on the whole man-to-man sex.
He happens to give a the reason on that one: which is that God finds it an 'abomination' to Himself.
Any real Hippies in here would relate to that since there is nothing more revolting or offensive to the senses than seeing nature misused or used 'against itself' as opposed to the way it was intended.

 

A penis fits snuggly inside of a man's colon. There is no rationalisation that same-gender sex is not natural except when governed by religious beliefs. Hippies should not be brought into this argument, they would abhor such a statement. Just a contribution from the naturalist point of view....please continue

 

Arguably no civilization, except for the Ancient Greek, were more gay than the Japanese.
None.
Just because they are a distant second, don’t hold it against them. Anyone would come a distant second being compared to the Greeks.
The Greeks were so gay that they literally saw no purpose for women.
The Japanese were so gay that their was more social status in having Brad Pitt on your arm than Angelina Jolie.
I just want it to be known that keeping gays out of the military is a friggin crime.
Look at history. The Nazi were the most successful gay army ever assembled. Nearly all of the highest ranking officers in the SS were gay. They were founded by a homosexual and their earliest meetings before they gained power in Germany were held in well known gay bars.
Not only was homosexuality the thing to do in feudal Japan, but they kept such good records of it they can trace it back to the individual monk, a man named Kukai who started the whole nanshoku or “male love” craze in Japan.
The rumor is that although sex was forbidden in Buddhist monastic code, he “interpreted this” as only pertaining to "heterosexual love" not intended to forbid getting it on with cute, baby soft, shaved, oiled up, impressionable young "grasshoppers".
And the reasoning the samurai used to explain why they didn't like having sex with women were no different than the reasoning for the Nazi or for the Greeks.
In a nutshell their argument was this, women have no use except for birthing children, they make for shitty partners in combat because they can’t fight.
In the ranks of the samurai, taking on young male lovers was the thing to do. Although at 18 the relationships were ususally ended for the most part because at that time, it was believed that the boy had become a man at 18 and was old enough to take on his own young piece of man ass. But to me that sounds kinda like, by 18 these ass kicking pedophiles don’t have interest in you anymore because now they want to get themselves some new young man ass.
You would think true homosexual love and affection for another of the same sex wouldn’t just abruptly stop at his 18th birthday.
Apparently it all came to a stop rather suddenly when Japan became obsessed with modernizing itself and becoming more like Europe. They began to do away with any tradition that they saw as being inseparably tied to the old “backward” Japan.
And make no mistake about it, once Europe, and their Judeo Christian attitude towards homosexuality caught wind to how openly gay Japan was, Japan began to adopt a more western attitude towards its “backwardness”.
None of this is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned because the one common theme throughout all of this is that homosexuals have a history of kicking people’s ass.
Evidently before warfare got so "high tech" homosexuals held their own.
Damn, that sounded pretty gay didn't it.

 

you really can not use the hippie and nature arguament, because what about the amount of animals that are homosexual, i believe a high number of many species practise homosexuality, i know that you will respond with but humans are different, but i was only responding to you using the natural arguament. you will find most hippies including myself, have absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.

 

(Transferred from another Forum. All very amusing.)


Originally Posted by blazer2000x
The "fire" reffered to in the Bible is not a physical fire. It is sometimes used in context with the Holy Spirit, but it is not the same. It's being tested, trials, seeing if your faith can hold on. And by the way, the greek Bible contains the same truths as the english version. (though some of the more recent ones do have some stuff a bit confused).

Religion is myth misunderstood (Feuerbach).


Quote:
I'm not really sure how this is supposed to support homosexuality, or maybe I'm just confused. Anyway, homosexuality is clearly and extravegantely described as evil in the Bible. Not really sure why people are so confused about this, the Bible is never "gray" on any subject.

Never gray on any object? Judas dies twice in the Bible, Saul even thrice, and every time in a different manner. Check out http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/...cle_1494.shtml


Quote:
Rom 1:24-32

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
KJV

So much for Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Plato and numurous other pearls of the human race. But ofcourse, the Bible is right. These people were without natural affection, unmercifull, proud, boasters, inverstors of evil, backbiters and haters of God...

What is it Meyering said, d'apres Nietzsche? 'The old Jews, like Moses/Paul, had something against homosexuals and therefore God had something against homosexuals.'

My father told me that the Gospel is in the Bible, but not the whole Bible is the gospel. And that the fundament to the Gospel was to be found in the sermon on the Mount. And he said: prophets become prophets if clergy decides too. (There have been many Moses's, but the one we know made it). And he said too: prophets are failed philosphers. They couldn't convince through reason, and so they had to call in God and say: don't talk back to me: this comes from God.

And what is more human than to mix up you own likes and dislikes with those of 'God'? And even to deliberately promote your likes and dislikes under the name of God? Because if I read the Bible I have to believe that the same God who had the inner stability and overview to create the universe, all of a sudden is brought out of balance by the consumption of shellfish or the fact that two men caress eachother.

P.S.

If you visit Bible and contradictions within (the link I gave) in the first contradition given they even forgot one. In the original manuscript it is written The GODS created (Elohim bereshit/plural) heaven and earth. Not GOD. So much fir 'never being gray on anything'.

 

Yes, STOP indeed, Erasmus (who was gay by the way, the real one that is).

If someone eats shrimps nobody is harmed. But if somebody is murdered, somebody is harmed. But when two men make love nobody again is harmed...

 

No disciple said something about homosexuality.

 

That's what I said earlier too. The ego and the big mouth of Erasmus tell us that he is not Christian. He thinks he is one, but he's deeply pagan.

 

Eramsus, that's not what you said in an earlier post.

"That the least thing makes all others the least thing too?
That man-to-man copulation is nothing more than eating a piece of shrimp?"

 

Baja you wrote

"The Greeks were so gay that they literally saw no purpose for women."

The Greeks have never been more gay then any other people. The greeks allowed men to fully examine their homo- and bi-sexuality. That's a whole different thing. And about women, you clearly never had greek. If a greek man didn't procreate, even if he was gay, he was looked down upon. Yes, of women it was even said that if they didn't give birth for more then two years, the Gods might strangle them. That was said too, because the Greek had many wars against the Persians and needed new soldiers. The gay-culture never ever pushed aside the straight culture in ancient Greece. All nonsense.

 

Could we return to the Letters now? After all, we're not at ErasmusthePaganBiggot.com

 

Hmm.. they never corrected Paul did they.
Interesting.

Its clear that you are as insane and senseless as the 'homosexual forces of resurrection letters' you are, not surprisingly, taking seriously.

Good times.

 

We don't know that. A word in favor of homosexuality is not likely to survive 2000 years.

On top of that: 'beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you'. (Who said that?)

This can be said to both straigth and gay people. But certainly too to straight people.

 

You have the energy of the sun in you,
but keep knotting it up
at the base of your spine." - Rumi "(a medieval alchemy-writer.)

Christ isn't called the solar hero for nothing.

Tatsuko.

 

Why is he called 'The Solar Hero' then?
Based on what?

 

New articles have been posted. Links are in the URL (see topic-starter).

Greetz,

Tatsuko

 

This I found

 

News on the Letters!

http://www.world-mysteries.com/PhilipGardiner/forbidden_letters_12.htm