Quoting wolf:


Oh noes. Scriptures. They be the truth! We must obey the scriptures!

I would've thought humanity had grown out of that by now.

The ridiculous closed-mindedness of religion happens to be the reason why this here has become an "issue" in the first place.

You do realize that this stuff was most likely written by some guy with a superiority complex a long, long time ago?

Nowhere in the scriptures will you find a book of righteous relations concerning animal life, for the animal, for indeed animals were not made in the image of God the creator, only man wears that distinctive mark, that makes man special in the eyes of God as sated in His own words, "every living thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN." -- Genesis 9:3-7.

Agreed, with you so far.

Man is indeed superior to animals and should act and carry himself in the image in which he was made, not in the image of any animal. My example was presented due to the fact of God being the creator and the establisher of such to what is natural in the animal kingdom. As there is no law or dictation from God that regulates animal behavior, for indeed they are not considered to be in the image of the Creator. But there is established Law presented in the concerned will of God in relation to the natural hierarchy between God and man, and between man and woman.

But here I feel you lose us both a little. You bothered to make an example of Lion prides a few posts back. How could anything having to do with lions have meaning? If you're trying to draw an equivalance about the natural hierarchy between God and man and men and women, then surely you must understand how by dint of the first two paragraphs, you can NOT draw that paralell. You can't selectively pick the examples you like from the animal kingdom and then use scripture to explain away the rest. It's hypocritical. Either "nature", that being the nature of animals, has substance in this discussion or it does NOT. It's as simple as that.

And I'll make it even easier for you: If you want to win this argument, win it solely in the realm of faith and mankind. The animal kingdom will betray you at every turn if you rely upon any part of it.

Man and women are both made in the God's image -- Genesis 1:26. Both are equal in regards to salvation -- Gal. 3:28. Men and women are "joint" heirs of life -- l Peter 3:7. Some may want to stop at these declarations from God's word, but the words of revelation do not cease with these declarations alone.

Men and womens clothing are to be distinctive to their gender -- Deut. 22:5. Even their hair styles are to be distinctive -- l Cor. 11:14-15

Oh but how distinctive? If women all start to wear their hair short, shall the men begin to wear it long? I don't claim to be the king of scripture, but I am curious how much it specifies.

The scriptures even point out the distinctive forms of purification after birth, between the male and female gender -- Lev. 12:2-8.

Hm. That's all well and good, but there no reason for say, the medical establishment to rely upon it.

There is a difference presented when either of the two different genders are to be released from a vow. -- Lev 27:2-4. Why does God make such distinctions? He informs us of why.

Oh! This I gotta hear!

Man was created first -- Genesis 2:18. Woman was created "from" man -- Genesis 2:21-23. Both words "female and woman" literally mean "from man". It is for this reason that the Hebrew word "adam" not only refers to the very first man but also is the "general" word for the entire human population of earth. Woman was created as a "helper" for man, not inversely so.



Ah ah ahhhhhh, that's ENGLISH you're using, which is not the language that God dictated to the ancient tribes in. Woman and Female are not hebrew. You're right about Adam's meaning, but not Woman and Female's at all, at least not as God made such things known.



-- l Cor. 11:8-9. Even before the fall (the original first sin), man was placed into the position of authority -- 1 Tim 2:12-14. As exampled, when God called man into question for breaking His law and eating of the forbidden fruit, it was ADAM that was called into the presence of God and questioned even though it was EVE who was first to sin. God held Adam responsible, even for the sin of Eve.


And God charges Adam with not one but two sins -- Genesis 3:17. Eating from the tree, and listening to the advise of his wife when he was in charge and knew exactly what God declared to be unlawful. Its not that Adam was deceived by his wife as he very well knew the law, but he "chose" to follow unrighteous advise. But just as in today's society, what did Adam do? He tried to blame it all on his wife, "And the man said, The WOMAN THOU HAST GIVEN TO BE WITH ME, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." -- Genesis 3:12. But God would have none of that, for man indeed was appointed as the Head of the woman.

The scriptures declare that this order must remain in effect, not just between husband and wife, but in general between man and woman -- l Cor.11:2-3,10
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ, is God." "For this cause
ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angles."

Women are not allowed to hold positions of authority over man -- 1 Tim 2:12. Women can not give instruction to man -- 1 Tim 2:12. Women are instructed to "quietly" receive instruction -- 1 Tim. 2:11. Quietly does not mean in complete silence, for it is the same word used in ll Thess. 3:12, it means to take instruction without complaint.

This is not presented in the form of bigotry nor condescension toward women as declaring they are inferior, for indeed they are not, we are equal in the eyes of God, as God informs us that we are to protect and cleave to our wife as we would ourselves for we become one flesh in the act of marriage. -- Genesis 2:24. God is simply instructing the natural hierarchy of leadership roles. Nothing more. BD[/quote]

I've a lot more to pick with the individual pieces of scripture as you've laid them out here, but I don't have the time at the moment. I'll pick up the rest later.

In the short version, if this isn't bigoted, then why do women seem to have to suffer so much subservience? If we're equal, then why the seperate roles, one that historically seems to involve so much more suffering and confinement and oppression?

Loa, wolf is wrong, 100%. There are no animals who fit the criteria:
1. no animal has "too big" of a population except maybe humans, all other populations are entirely manageable.
2. there is no species which has a varying rate of homosexuality, either the species gay fucks or it doesn't, and always at the same rate.
I'm not saying it wouldn't take time to warm up to the idea, but of course I could have enjoyable gay sex. I can make myself like whomever I want, and stop liking whomever I want as well. You do it in relationships all the time. You think people are just pre-disposed to fuck asses? How would the brain actually beable to manifest that in someone without the idea of gender being natural? There is no NATURE whatsoever involved in homosexuality, no pre-disposition (you couldn't begin to explain how the mechanisms of predisposition would even work), there is no gay-gene. People are raised in a society, nowadays, with two genders and several more gender roles. A human can fit into any of these categories, as he or she grows and interprets experience, one of these choices might seem a bit more high-lighted. Look, want some scientific facts? Its a scientific fact that all human beings can be sexually aroused by inanimate object. I think we can handle fucking other humans with as much ease. You think sexual arousal is some kind of political choice. You're probably one of those people who thinks women don't get sexual pleasure from rape. Of course they do! That what makes it so sick. Your penis would feel good in a man's ass, thats all there is to it

What does this mean?

I am not a christian, and will never be one. But I have to tell some of your arrogant faggots this: There are some people in this world who have learned some things from scriptures in many different holy books, and many from the common bible. It has become "fashionable" in here for you faggots to attack someone for merely being christian. I dont think you faggots really do this from a strong base of credibility, and it makes you faggots look ridiculous every time you do it.

If anyone in this world needed someone credible to give an opinion, and there was a choice between choosing a faggot or someone who respected education from the scriptures, I am sure that the person who respected the education from the scriptures would win the credibility contest everytime.

One of the two people bases their life on what they found and educated on in the scriptures. The other of the two people merely bases their life choice on what they shove up their ass.

There are no need of faggots in anyone's society, for the faggot is worthless, useless, filth producing, disease propagating, child molesting, illogical, and of no value beyone the level of a scum sucking piece of sewage wad.

The quicker we openly attack these faggots, and remove them from society through expulsion, the better off the world will be for everyone.

I am so proud of several major cities in which their top developers are working even now to eliminate faggot parts of town. Dallas for example has a section full of faggots, and the city and county fathers are working dilligently with the developers to purge all faggot businesses and gay bars from the area. If a few fags fall by the wayside and find their way into the local dumpsters over it, then so be it. At least children will be all the safer.

i think most people arguing here are just academics, not homosexuals. See, there is a direct statical correlation between intelligence and religion. As it would happen, the stupider you are, the less educated you are, the more harmful to society you are the more you believe in the Bible. thats a fact, jack. Dont get all insecure, you CHOSE to be a christian, you chose a life style of inconsistencies, stupidity, bible quoting, brainwashing, and mimicking your pastor. I didn't chose this ridiculous comedy of a life for you! Now suffer the consequences in silence like Jesus.

But still you have failed to prove any of the scriptures as an example of false teachings. I find your secular rantings only slightly amusing based in the ignorance of non-comprehension grounded in your self professed religion of human secular humanism. With the odds of a self gestating universe having the capacity to evolve anything other than ignorance might less life itself most amusing of all. BD

Loa, wolf is wrong, 100%. There are no animals who fit the criteria:
1. no animal has "too big" of a population except maybe humans, all other populations are entirely manageable.

Here I agree with you. Whatever homosexuality may be, population control, it ain't. Most gay animals do reproduce after all.

2. there is no species which has a varying rate of homosexuality, either the species gay fucks or it doesn't, and always at the same rate.

This on the other hand is not true. How much gay sex (and other "deviant") behaviors is quite variable from species to species, population to population, and no scientist can claim to have observed ALL species so that if such deviations were rare, they would definitively catch them all.


I'm not saying it wouldn't take time to warm up to the idea, but of course I could have enjoyable gay sex. I can make myself like whomever I want, and stop liking whomever I want as well. You do it in relationships all the time.

While I happen to believe that most of us are bisexual to varying degrees, and that brings some truth ot your first statement, the idea that it is raw choice is a bit misleading. In a relationship you choose whether you ARE with someone or not, you do not choose whether you WANT to be with someone or not, that distinction is enormous. Heartbreak would not exist if what you said was true. "Dumping me? Meh, okay, whatever, I choose not to like you." (Dusts off hands and walks away happy.)


You think people are just pre-disposed to fuck asses?

A.) Ass-sex ain't the only gay sex. B.) Some have a greater inclination than others for it, yeah, same with straight people who give/take it up the ass.

How would the brain actually beable to manifest that in someone without the idea of gender being natural? There is no NATURE whatsoever involved in homosexuality, no pre-disposition (you couldn't begin to explain how the mechanisms of predisposition would even work), there is no gay-gene.

In some ways, this is the overall point to my thread, you can't take all predicters for it evenly. However that doesn't mean that there are not Genes that affect it, they are just very unlikely to be the sole factors.

People are raised in a society, nowadays, with two genders and several more gender roles. A human can fit into any of these categories, as he or she grows and interprets experience, one of these choices might seem a bit more high-lighted. Look, want some scientific facts? Its a scientific fact that all human beings can be sexually aroused by inanimate object. I think we can handle fucking other humans with as much ease. You think sexual arousal is some kind of political choice.

Well no, YOU'RE the one whose arguing that it's a choice.... you just said that people do NOT have predispositions and that you can always take or leave it.

You're probably one of those people who thinks women don't get sexual pleasure from rape. Of course they do! That what makes it so sick. Your penis would feel good in a man's ass, thats all there is to it

While Nancy Friday's work certainly shows many women enjoy rape fantasies, this does not mean that every woman who gets raped enjoys it. The brain's ability to shut down and reject the whole experience is well documented, and lord knows it hurts. Are you suggesting that just because your penis would feel good in a man's ass, that you would be just as happy getting sodomozed by a broom-handle or dildo without warning or lubrication? Come on.

fuck, cant you use the quote system like everyone else, it makes debating so much easier!

As you can see, yes. I just find it much less pleasing to the eye.