LGBT History Month

[Right Divider]

Well, yes you are when you still presume to label my position even when I've told you flat out I'm not an atheist.

Ok, so you want to keep your beliefs vague and ambiguous. Got it.

Fair enough on the second, it's traditionally held to be an apple but they just ate from the tree of knowledge which frankly, smacks of all sorts of allegory but hey...

So you think that they didn't really eat the fruit?

Thirdly, why would the animal kingdom suffer for one or two people's mistake? Do you believe animals have souls? What good is it to a Thompson's Gazelle that's food for a lion if it had nothing to look forward to but being eaten and nothing to look forward to afterward?

God cursed the creation due to Adam's sin. You may not like that, but too bad.

Fourthly, and again, why would the animal kingdom inherit homosexual characteristics and behaviour?

I can see that you are only concerned with justifying human perversion by this red herring.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ok, so you want to keep your beliefs vague and ambiguous. Got it.

I don't ascribe to any 'orthodox' belief. That better?

So you think that they didn't really eat the fruit?

I doubt the depiction is literal at all but rather allegorical, so in that sense no, because I don't think there was any literal fruit to be ate.

God cursed the creation due to Adam's sin. You may not like that, but too bad.

So, just too bad for all the animals then? They had to suffer as well?

I can see that you are only concerned with justifying human perversion by this red herring.

No, but I can see you're either unable or unwilling to argue this from a rational and objective perspective so as you were.

:e4e:

 

[glassjester]

So, just too bad for all the animals then? They had to suffer as well?

Who says they (the animals) weren't already dying anyway?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why you ask?

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

That's why..

everready

As with RD, none of that explains how homosexual characteristics were borne into the animal kingdom. If it were just human beings it still wouldn't really add up either but it isn't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Who says they (the animals) weren't already dying anyway?

Well, which is it? RD argues that in the future animals will be vegetarian which I suppose ties in with the 'lion lying down with the lamb' but you're saying animals died before 'the fall'?

 

[glassjester]

Well, which is it? RD argues that in the future animals will be vegetarian which I suppose ties in with the 'lion lying down with the lamb' but you're saying animals died before 'the fall'?

Sure, they must have. It's inconceivable that they didn't.

As for the future, the new Heaven and new Earth, that hasn't happened yet. So who knows?

 

[Right Divider]

I don't ascribe to any 'orthodox' belief. That better?

Just as vague as ever.

I doubt the depiction is literal at all but rather allegorical, so in that sense no, because I don't think there was any literal fruit to be ate.

I would expect nothing less from you.

So, just too bad for all the animals then? They had to suffer as well?

So you're doubting God's decisions?

No, but I can see you're either unable or unwilling to argue this from a rational and objective perspective so as you were.

:e4e:

Everything that's I said is completely rational and objective.

You are not the decider of rationality and objectivity.

 

[Ktoyou]

Well, which is it? RD argues that in the future animals will be vegetarian which I suppose ties in with the 'lion lying down with the lamb' but you're saying animals died before 'the fall'?

Animals will always be the same, plants are not only eaten. He must be talking some post-trib idea.

 

[Right Divider]

As with RD, none of that explains how homosexual characteristics were borne into the animal kingdom. If it were just human beings it still wouldn't really add up either but it isn't.

I guess that you are trying to claim that this is normal behavior.

For humans this is clearly not the case. God created man and woman for each other. Any other arrangement is perversion.

 

[Right Divider]

Sure, they must have. It's inconceivable that they didn't.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Before the fall, all animals were vegetarian; including humans.

As for the future, the new Heaven and new Earth, that hasn't happened yet. So who knows?[/QUOTE]

 

[quip]

I don't understand promoting the history of a group defined only by who they prefer to engage in sexual relations with.

Because homosexuals don't understand (thus, promote education against) the bigotry appointed upon them as a group defined only by who they prefer to engage in sexual relations with. :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I guess that you are trying to claim that this is normal behavior.

For humans this is clearly not the case. God created man and woman for each other. Any other arrangement is perversion.

Again, why do animals engage in it if it isn't part of nature? What was the point in that if it's clearly so 'abnormal' because aardvarks etc are hardly held to some sort of moral standard? By the way, I'm straight but I didn't have a choice in that anyway, not that I'm bothered.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just as vague as ever.

Eh, you'd just 'label' me regardless.

I would expect nothing less from you.

Well, I don't really expect much 'more' from you either. If you can't see allegory in Genesis and think a tree of knowledge is a literal tree dispensing literal fruit then not much more to add...or 'divide'...

So you're doubting God's decisions?

No, I'm asking you to explain as to why your idea as to what God decided makes sense. Different 'animal' altogether...

Everything that's I said is completely rational and objective.

You are not the decider of rationality and objectivity.

Really?

(Sorry, couldn't resist...)

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure, they must have. It's inconceivable that they didn't.

As for the future, the new Heaven and new Earth, that hasn't happened yet. So who knows?

Well hang on, why is it inconceivable to you that animals must have died before 'the fall'? Weren't things 'perfect' beforehand, yet death still existed?

:think:

 

[kmoney]

Well, how many 'history months' do we have? Are we going to have a 'heterosexual history' month as well? I don't see any need for it and I'm hardly a homophobe or anything as you know...

I'm not sure how many we currently have but I don't think there would ever be a heterosexual history month. It wouldn't fit in with the rest of them.

 

[WizardofOz]

Perhaps the same as those your fictional baker found so offensive.

I have a fictional baker? :idunno:

Do you find the free exercise of one's religion to be offensive?

Mr. Borgman was exercising his religion? What religion is that? :idunno:

THere are many including teh fact that there are indivuduals who are either misinforemd or are wishing to misinform that anyone is defined by sexual activity.

So, what should they be informed of? What should be taught during an LGBT history month? :idunno:

 

[Right Divider]

Again, why do animals engage in it if it isn't part of nature?

Nature changed after the curse.

If any sexually reproducing species were to go 100% homosexual, they would go extinct. God created them male and female for a reason.

What was the point in that if it's clearly so 'abnormal' because aardvarks etc are hardly held to some sort of moral standard?

I guess you think that man is just like the animals in every way. That is not so. God made man in His image.

By the way, I'm straight but I didn't have a choice in that anyway, not that I'm bothered.

Since your world view is a secret, it's hard to accurately discuss things like this with you. But it appears that you are some sort of materialist determinist. Do you make any decisions for yourself or is everything fatalistically determined for you?

 

[Right Divider]

Eh, you'd just 'label' me regardless.

Not true, but it's very difficult to discuss things with someone that keeps their beliefs a secret.

Well, I don't really expect much 'more' from you either. If you can't see allegory in Genesis and think a tree of knowledge is a literal tree dispensing literal fruit then not much more to add...or 'divide'...

There are many allegories in the Bible, but it makes it very clear when it's using such a device.

No, I'm asking you to explain as to why your idea as to what God decided makes sense. Different 'animal' altogether...

I don't understand the question.

Really?

(Sorry, couldn't resist...)

:french:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Oh, get back to your closet blog you propaganda spewing crank. Geez, look at the source you moron.

:doh:

Your hero, 40 year old Alan Turing was convicted of sodomy with a minor and chose chemical castration to take his desire away to rape underage boys in lieu of doing prison time.

 

[WizardofOz]

I wonder if it would make more sense to just have a civil rights history month since that seems to be a large reason for the various history months.

:first:

I think you're on to something here...