Politiks

Ulyanov · Tue May 08, 2007 1:39 am

I think he was kind of expanding on it, and he didn't say the exacct same thing.

Roy's Our Boy · Tue May 08, 2007 1:47 am

I did not see anything different.

Ekaf · Wed May 09, 2007 10:32 am

You seemed to be talking about whether animal behavior made homosexuality moral. I was talking about whether it should make it legal.

Roy's Our Boy · Wed May 09, 2007 7:07 pm

My comment pertained to both, yet it matters not.

LeilaniSurferGirl · Fri May 18, 2007 12:15 am

God created man and woman to be together. It is not something you're born with. It is a choice you make. I could choose to like and kiss and have physical relationships with girls, but I'm not. Truthfully, that's repulsive to me. God created man and woman to come together as one flesh to create life. With homosexuality, you can't do that. Mary Cheney is a great example. She didn't conceive by a man. I'm sure Mary grew up like a normal teen girl having huge crushes on boys, and eventually made a choice to become homosexual.

Bob Frankenberry · Fri May 18, 2007 6:25 am

LeilaniSurferGirl wrote: God created man and woman to be together.

Because God felt that man needed a companion.

Quote: It is not something you're born with. It is a choice you make.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? And do you completely disregard the idea of environmental factors and the possibilities of genetics?

Quote: I could choose to like and kiss and have physical relationships with girls, but I'm not. Truthfully, that's repulsive to me.

Then obviously you aren't gay. Nice of you to share.

Quote: With homosexuality, you can't do that. Mary Cheney is a great example. She didn't conceive by a man. I'm sure Mary grew up like a normal teen girl having huge crushes on boys, and eventually made a choice to become homosexual.

Evidence? Thanks.

Houndstooth · Fri May 18, 2007 9:28 pm

Bob wrote: Because God felt that man needed a companion. A helper, rather. The implication is that woman was created with qualities which endeared her to helping man.

Bob Frankenberry · Fri May 18, 2007 9:42 pm

Houndstooth wrote: Bob wrote: Because God felt that man needed a companion. A helper, rather. The implication is that woman was created with qualities which endeared her to helping man.

Indeed. "Companion" was the word that the translation I had read used.

Houndstooth · Fri May 18, 2007 9:45 pm

Bob Frankenberry wrote: Houndstooth wrote: Bob wrote: Because God felt that man needed a companion. A helper, rather. The implication is that woman was created with qualities which endeared her to helping man.

Indeed. "Companion" was the word that the translation I had read used. Do you agree on the implication? And which verse are you referring to?

Bob Frankenberry · Fri May 18, 2007 9:53 pm

Houndstooth wrote: Bob Frankenberry wrote: Houndstooth wrote: Bob wrote: Because God felt that man needed a companion. A helper, rather. The implication is that woman was created with qualities which endeared her to helping man.

Indeed. "Companion" was the word that the translation I had read used. Do you agree on the implication? And which verse are you referring to?

I agree that the implication is present, after reading a footnote in the text I had cited.

I'm referring to Genesis 2:18:
NET Bible: The Biblical Studies Foundation wrote:
[note - quoted simply for presentation of the variant translation]
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.”

There is a footnote, on the actual text that reads:
Footnote 56. Appears with word companion wrote:
Traditionally “helper.” The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here. See further M. L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Jud 139 (1986): 277-80.

So it would seem from the text, as well as the elaboration given by Rosenweig, that woman was designed so that man would have a complementing companion, or some such thing.

Anything I add would simply reiterate the citation I just made, and, thus, be redundant.

Roy's Our Boy · Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 am

Charles Manson was a murderer. He, being either created or crafted into this state of mind, should then be allowed to kill.

Bob Frankenberry · Sat May 19, 2007 3:08 am

Roy's Our Boy wrote: Charles Manson was a murderer. He, being either created or crafted into this state of mind, should then be allowed to kill.

Murder infringes on the civil, and human, rights of others. It's also illegal.

I wasn't aware that was the same with homosexuality.

Roy's Our Boy · Sat May 19, 2007 3:26 am

Since when is the legality of something to be taken as support?

Houndstooth · Sat May 19, 2007 3:37 am

Bob Frankenberry wrote: Houndstooth wrote: Bob Frankenberry wrote: Houndstooth wrote: Bob wrote: Because God felt that man needed a companion. A helper, rather. The implication is that woman was created with qualities which endeared her to helping man.

Indeed. "Companion" was the word that the translation I had read used. Do you agree on the implication? And which verse are you referring to?

I agree that the implication is present, after reading a footnote in the text I had cited.

I'm referring to Genesis 2:18:
NET Bible: The Biblical Studies Foundation wrote:
[note - quoted simply for presentation of the variant translation]
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.”

There is a footnote, on the actual text that reads:
Footnote 56. Appears with word companion wrote:
Traditionally “helper.” The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here. See further M. L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Jud 139 (1986): 277-80.

So it would seem from the text, as well as the elaboration given by Rosenweig, that woman was designed so that man would have a complementing companion, or some such thing.

Anything I add would simply reiterate the citation I just made, and, thus, be redundant. Thus, why man needs woman, woman needs man, homosexuality is wrong.

For a stupid fundamentalist like myself, at least.

Bob Frankenberry · Sat May 19, 2007 3:41 am

Roy's Our Boy wrote: Since when is the legality of something to be taken as support?

Are you simply not going to touch on the whole "infringing on human rights" thing?

Houndstooth wrote: Thus, why man needs woman, woman needs man, homosexuality is wrong.

For a stupid fundamentalist like myself, at least.

Fair enough.

Roy's Our Boy · Sat May 19, 2007 3:45 am

Bob Frankenberry wrote: Roy's Our Boy wrote: Since when is the legality of something to be taken as support?

Are you simply not going to touch on the whole "infringing on human rights" thing?

Who defines that again?

Bob Frankenberry · Sat May 19, 2007 4:02 am

Roy's Our Boy wrote: Bob Frankenberry wrote: Roy's Our Boy wrote: Since when is the legality of something to be taken as support?

Are you simply not going to touch on the whole "infringing on human rights" thing?

Who defines that again?

The answer is probably either "The Government", which will lead back to the "legality" question.

Or the answer is "God", which goes back to the whole God issue.

I could suggest that human rights are defined by humans, but that might result in more questions.

Jo · Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:40 pm homosexuality is natural

homosexuality is not a mortal sin. it is nothing but natural. It is not their fault that they are homosexual. they also deserve some respect and understanding!