To all, but particularly ELCA and ELCIC members; What are your thoughts?

[Zecryphon]

God is the author of the universe, science is just as much His infallible word as is the Bible.Wrong. Science is the observation and study of the world around us. It involves testing assertions and theories put forth by the people who study their surroundings. The observations in science are human, not divine. So God is not the author of science the way you think He is. Plus, science is always correcting itself. What's true today will change in the future. The truths of science are always changing. I remember when I was in school we had 9 planets. No ifs, ands or buts about it. That was a scientific fact. Now we have 8 planets. Why? Because someone goofed in the field of science. God doesn't make mistakes and never has to correct anything He has said because new information has surfaced that contradicts His earlier declarations. Science is always correcting it's statements because it's source is human observation and humans make mistakes.

Both are subject to human confusion and can be profoundly misunderstood, but neither is less or more the product of God's authorship than the other.

Wrong. The Bible is the product of divine authorship. It is free from contradiction and error. Science can not make the same claim.

Lots of bad ideas are possible for God, doesn't mean He'll do any of it.

Such as?

[Zecryphon]

PW: Oh boy. Now we're using the argument that gay sex doesn't hurt anyone else.

I know and I agree with you. Sin, any sin, whether it be sexual or something else, hurts God. That's who is hurt by homosexual sex. God is hurt by it. But we don't think of God as being a victim when we sin, because we're too focused on ourselves, our own pleasure and desires, and not on Him. We need to be thinking about God constantly as we live our lives as Christians. If we made this one small change and considered how what we do reflects upon God, we are His representatives on earth after all, you would see a radical shift in the behavior of all Christians.

[BabyLutheran]

And not just in sexual sin, in all areas of our lives. Greed, envy, lust for money and possessions, gluttony, all reflect poorly upon our Saviour, especially if it is seen by others who are not Christians. Gives them an excuse.

[Melethiel]

Informational bit: "sexual plasticity", in terms of psychology, refers to the ability to change sexual orientations. It's generally accepted in psychology nowadays (rightly or wrongly, I won't argue) that women are more sexually plastic than men. That is, lesbians are usually "made", not born. It doesn't refer to the ability to control sexual desire.

(Disclaimer: purely informational only.)

[Zecryphon]

Yes, in all areas of our lives, I agree.

[Zecryphon]

Informational bit: "sexual plasticity", in terms of psychology, refers to the ability to change sexual orientations. It's generally accepted in psychology nowadays (rightly or wrongly, I won't argue) that women are more sexually plastic than men. That is, lesbians are usually "made", not born. It doesn't refer to the ability to control sexual desire.

(Disclaimer: purely informational only.)

Thanks for the information, Mel. :wave:

[DailyBlessings]

So us Christians should be having a sinful orgy free-for-all then?

Of course not. We follow the commandments set before us because of God's great love for us, not because they will save us. It is a fruit of our faith that we would want to do what is right in God's sight.Yes, that is exactly what we should do in fact, and I desire nothing else. If we force others to follow a given law at the risk of excommunication or defrockment, then we are showing ourselves the hypocrite and laying down a new Law. We are acting as though man was made for the Sabbath and not the Sabbath for man when we use it as a bludgeoning instrument against our fellow saints and sinners.

[LilLamb219]

Are we our brother's keeper? Well, yes, we are. When we see a brother in error, we are to give him the law for correction. When we see a brother in despair, we are to give him the gospel for comfort.

The Law has its purposes...it's not to be cast aside.

[seajoy]

Are we our brother's keeper? Well, yes, we are. When we see a brother in error, we are to give him the law for correction. When we see a brother in despair, we are to give him the gospel for comfort.

The Law has its purposes...it's not to be cast aside.
Thank you for this moment of sanity.

[DaRev]

It's statements like these that concern me- you seem to think that Christ is not effective to save us from the whole Law. Why would some laws need to be followed and others not? You mention this unscriptural distinction between moral and ceremonial, but do not convincingly explain your decisions of what to place in which category. If homosexuality is "moral law" because the Jerusalem council forbade it, then we must also follow the dietary laws. If the Levitical restriction against touching a woman on her period does not hold, neither does the prohibition against men lying with men, which was instituted for the same reason. As near as I can tell, you are reading things into Scripture that are not there, all for the sake of placing God's people under a new Law.

The Biblical distinctions between the civil, ceremonial, and moral Laws have been explained here before. If you'd rather ignore that, that's your issue.

May I ask you, though, are you Lutheran?

[DaRev]

PW:

I know and I agree with you. Sin, any sin, whether it be sexual or something else, hurts God. That's who is hurt by homosexual sex. God is hurt by it. But we don't think of God as being a victim when we sin, because we're too focused on ourselves, our own pleasure and desires, and not on Him. We need to be thinking about God constantly as we live our lives as Christians. If we made this one small change and considered how what we do reflects upon God, we are His representatives on earth after all, you would see a radical shift in the behavior of all Christians.

True. And we also need to remember that sin hurts the sinner. One who sins and is blatantly unrepentant is doomed to hell.

[Zecryphon]

True. And we also need to remember that sin hurts the sinner. One who sins and is blatantly unrepentant is doomed to hell.

Yes, that's a great point to remember as well.

[LutheranMafia]

Wrong. Science is the observation and study of the world around us. It involves testing assertions and theories put forth by the people who study their surroundings. The observations in science are human, not divine. So God is not the author of science the way you think He is. Plus, science is always correcting itself. What's true today will change in the future. The truths of science are always changing. I remember when I was in school we had 9 planets. No ifs, ands or buts about it. That was a scientific fact. Now we have 8 planets. Why? Because someone goofed in the field of science. God doesn't make mistakes and never has to correct anything He has said because new information has surfaced that contradicts His earlier declarations. Science is always correcting it's statements because it's source is human observation and humans make mistakes.

Wrong. The Bible is the product of divine authorship. It is free from contradiction and error. Science can not make the same claim.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Creation is authored by God, along with the Bible. I did not say that either science or religion is authored by God, because both are subject to fallible human misinterpretation. Is religion always right? Is religion always a reflection of God's authorship? Not at all. Neither is science. But Creation and the Bible are authored by God.



Such as?
He could destroy the world. Clearly God can do this, but do you think it would be a good idea?

[Zecryphon]

You are mixing apples and oranges.

Actually, I'm responding to what you have plainly said.

Creation is authored by God, along with the Bible. I did not say that either science or religion is authored by God, because both are subject to fallible human misinterpretation.

Really? So in post # 228 you deny saying the following:

God is the author of the universe, science is just as much His infallible word as is the Bible.


It looks like to me, that you said God authored both the universe and science, since you consider science to be just as much His infallible word as the Bible is.



Is religion always right? Is religion always a reflection of God's authorship?

Religion has nothing to do with God. Religions are focused on what man can do to earn his way back to God. Christianity is not a religion, because it teaches us what God did to reconcile us to Himself. Religion is about us doing, Christianity is about God doing for us.

Not at all. Neither is science. But Creation and the Bible are authored by God.

The Bible is authored by God. Science is authored by men who have observed God's creation and drawn conclusions about what they have observed.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47136893#post47136893)
Such as?


He can destroy the world. Clearly God can do this, but do you think it would be a good idea?


I think it's a great idea, and the scriptures make it clear that He will. The world is contaminated with sin. The Bible makes it clear that God will destroy the world and that a new heaven and a new earth will take it's place.

21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Rev 21:1 (ESV)


10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

2 Peter 3:10-13 (ESV)

[LutheranMafia]

That's who is hurt by homosexual sex. God is hurt by it. But we don't think of God as being a victim when we sin, because we're too focused on ourselves, our own pleasure and desires, and not on Him.Its not very Lutheran in a certain sense, but I very much agree that sin hurts God and that God's presence in this world is a fragile thing that can easily be dispelled, for the fate of the human race rests in the balance as the children sleepwalk on the edge of an abyss. Mostly it is a problem with lack of love, such that our presence stings God’s heart, even as our own hearts are hard and cold such that we cannot ourselves feel the pain of separation from God, only He does.

But your argument here is like saying marijuana is bad because it is illegal. That is very circuitous. Can a sin be harmful simply by definition without having to demonstrate any tangible harm done? Sin is a sin for definite objective reasons for God is not whimsical or capricious. You can’t just define something as a sin and claim it hurts God because all sin does, that is just evading the question of what makes it harmful to them OR to God.

My arguments are replete with concrete examples of the kind of harm gender bending can have. I’m making your own best arguments for you. But despite the fact that my arguments against all forms of gender bending are hands down superior to anything you have been able to come up, I still do not see these arguments as comprehensively addressing all gay men.

Nor do I see any evidence that the Bible is focused on condemning gay men rather than bi-sexuals. I see lots of presumptions, much as invading Iraq was based on not making any distinction in our understanding of Sunnis vs. Shiites. When you take a complex situation and paint it all with the same color brush what you get is complete nonsense that if acted upon, does nothing but harm.

*MAN* I’m really getting tired of this subject. I don’t even begin to care enough to drag this out any longer, except for the fact that I believe that acting out of loveless contempt hurts God.

[LutheranMafia]

God is the author of the universe, science is just as much His infallible word as is the Bible.


It looks like to me, that you said God authored both the universe and science, since you consider science to be just as much His infallible word as the Bible is.
I was referring to science here as an abstract ideal of a perfect understanding of Creation. While my words were not as precise as they should have been, your interpretation doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. Do you mean to say that you really believe that I consider ALL scientists to be infallibly right? That is an absurd interpretation of my statement.

I think it's a great idea, and the scriptures make it clear that He will. The world is contaminated with sin.
That is about the worst example of an "I'm not OK, your not OK" point of view that I've ever heard of. "Kill'em all and let God sort'em out." I have to admit that sometimes I have felt the same, but I was not quite so unabashedly gleeful about desiring the genocide of the human race.

The Bible makes it clear that God will destroy the world and that a new heaven and a new earth will take it's place.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Rev 21:1 (ESV)I agree with DaRev on this one. He asserted in another thread that this verse refers to a baptismal change, not the destruction of the Earth.

[LutheranMafia]

This contradicts what you stated in post # 217, where you said:

While bi-sexuals and lesbians are not born, they are made, gay men are born.

So what do you actually believe? Are gay men born or created? You've said earlier in this thread they are born, now you're saying that you don't have any sources that conclusively prove this to be true. So why do you believe something that has not been proven to be true?
They haven't found genes yet for lots of things known to be purely genetic. The main issue is that the great majority of scientists agree that if it is not genetic then it is a product of en utero factors. Scientists virtually all agree that it happens in the womb.

You don't believe it is possible for gay men to be reoriented since you believe they do not have sexual plasticity and therefore can not be reoriented. So how does this discussion support your assertion about the inability of gay men to be sexually reoriented? To refresh your memory you made the assertion that gay men can not be reoriented in post # 217:

Gay men do not have sexual plasticity any more than straight men, and asking them to change would be exactly no different from demanding us to be gay.


This contradicts your statement in post # 217 about the dangers of leaving girls alone in a room together. You said:

Women naturally have sexual plasticity; don't let young teen girls spend too much time alone together, but men and boys do not.

If science proves that boys have a greater sexual desire than girls do, wouldn't the danger be found in leaving young boys alone in a room together too long? Since the scientific evidence you have provided says that sexual desire is higher in boys, if no proper outlet were given for their sexual desires, doesn't it make sense that they would turn to their own gender for sexual satisifaction sooner than women would? It seems that science is not behind you, like you think it is.
I think that is all referring to the same point, I can't quite follow you here. Sexual plasticity and sexual aggressiveness cannot be substituted one for another. Being aggressive does not make us plastic. You argument here is based entirely on swapping these two concepts.

[LutheranMafia]

RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural 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 indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

We see men "abandoning" relations with women. (This is not bi-sexuals, not born homosexuals). This is a learned behavior.
How is that not bi-sexual?

I am not denying that some people are born that way.
I do see on some rare occasions some boys acting like girls.
So, I keep an open mind that it is possible that some are born that way. I see hermophrodites that are born that way. So, it is possible.
Hopefully it was not a self-fertilizing hermaphrodite! (Apologies, a bit of agriculture humor, all cultivated crops are self-fertilizing hermaphrodites... ewwww....)

Yet the overwhelming evidence is that homosexuality is a product of the environment, blunt refusal of God, learned behavior that is taught by others to the impressionable young men and children.
You are lumping three categories together indiscriminately. What you say is true for two of the categories, but not the third.

[WildStrawberry]

I'm sexist and derogatory because I disagree with you that homosexuals are evil? :D That is certainly rich with irony.

Nope, you're sexist and derogatory because you assert that Lesbians and Bisexuals are somehow damaged goods and that the only reason they exist is because of this damage.

I'm sorry but that is patently untrue and your assertion that you can't leave little girls alone but you can with little boys is just ridiculous. I can't imagine where you got that piece of "information". In my experience, both as a little girl and as a teacher and teacher helper of younger children, it is often the little boys that are "curious" more so than the little girls. Especially in this society where it's okay for boys/men to be interested in sex and not okay for girls/women. To refute this even further, is there any pill on the market that makes sex better for menopausal women? Nope. There is no viagra for women. Why? Well because women are plastic! They can "do it" anytime they want and dang their feelings about it. *eyeroll*


I was referring to science here as an abstract ideal of a perfect understanding of Creation. While my words were not as precise as they should have been, your interpretation doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. Do you mean to say that you really believe that I consider ALL scientists to be infallibly right? That is an absurd interpretation of my statement.

From what I read, it did indeed sound as if you were saying that belief in science should be on the same level as belief in God.


That is about the worst example of an "I'm not OK, your not OK" point of view that I've ever heard of. "Kill'em all and let God sort'em out." I have to admit that sometimes I have felt the same, but I was not quite so unabashedly gleeful about desiring the genocide of the human race.

You're not waiting for the end of the world with bated breath? I sure as heck am!!! I can not WAIT for Jesus to come back and put paid to all the nonsense that is going on these days. I'm so SICK of the corruption of the entire human race. (and yes, that even includes myself. Chief of sinners though I be!)

What did you think the end of time as we know it would be other than the "genocide of the human race"? Some will go into eternal life and others into eternal separation from God.

You know, LM, there's many a time that I read your posts and think "Uh, I have no clue what you're talking about so, here's a bunny with a pancake on its head".

Kae http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/Kaemea/smilies/pancake.gif

[DaRev]

How is that not bi-sexual?

I see no difference at all between "bisexuality" and "homosexuality." They are both unnatural and inherently sinful.

[Zecryphon]

But your argument here is like saying marijuana is bad because it is illegal.You have made the claim that homosexual sex is a victimless sin and hurts no one. The scriptures disprove your claim. All sin hurts God and we can see this by looking to how God reacts to sin in the scriptures. Seems to me that in Genesis God saw so much sin in the world that He regretted ever creating humanity and sent a flood to wipe all He had made off the face of the earth.

That is very circuitous.In other words you can not disprove my assertion and bring out the word 'circuitous' again. Moving on.

Can a sin be harmful simply by definition without having to demonstrate any tangible harm done? Sin is a sin for definite objective reasons for God is not whimsical or capricious. You can’t just define something as a sin and claim it hurts God because all sin does, that is just evading the question of what makes it harmful to them OR to God.God has declared homosexual sex to be a sin. It's not up to me to declare what is and is not a sin. If you think this is my job, you are attributing way too much power to me. God's declartion about what is a sin is apparently, not good enough for you. No, you need to know why it's a sin. You can not, for whatever reason, take God at His word.

Lutherans have no problem taking God at His word and we do not attempt to go beyond what scripture plainly states. God has said it is a sin, that's all that is necessary for it to be a sin. People get into real trouble when they try and think for God, instead of just having faith in what God has said and letting His word be the final word on the matter.

My arguments are replete with concrete examples of the kind of harm gender bending can have. I’m making your own best arguments for you.(staff edit) They lack logic and evidence for the claims you've made. You claim that homosexuality is a matter of mental health. Where is your proof for this assertion? Buried somewhere in the dark ages most likely and it's best left there. Nobody actually believes that tripe these days.

But despite the fact that my arguments all forms of gender bending are hands down superior to anything you have been able to come up, I still do not see these arguments as comprehensively addressing all gay men.You have not presented anything that is superior to what I have written. I have supported my assertions, you haven't. You can't even present any evidence for your claims without throwing a major hissy fit. But I'll tell you what, you can start a poll thread about this matter, and that matter is your posts being superior to mine, and we'll let the forum decide who the winner is.

Nor do I see any evidence that the Bible is focused on condemning gay men rather than bi-sexuals.In the Bible God condemns gay sex. He doesn't limit this sex to men or women. It's all condemned. What you seem to forget or ignore is that bi-sexuals are gay too, as they are engaged in homosexual sex as well as heterosexual sex. They even have their own place in the GLBT acronym. Just what do you think the "B" in that acronym stands for?

I see lots of presumptions, much as invading Iraq was based on not making any distinction in our understanding of Sunnis vs. Shiites. When you take a complex situation and paint it all with the same color brush what you get is complete nonsense that if acted upon, does nothing but harm.So you're actually an advocate for the fair treatment of homosexuals? Who'd have guessed? I mean with all your derogatory comments about them, calling them queers and queens and saying they're insane. :doh:


*MAN* I’m really getting tired of this subject. I don’t even begin to care enough to drag this out any longer, except for the fact that I believe that acting out of loveless contempt hurts God.

[LutheranMafia]

Nope, you're sexist and derogatory because you assert that Lesbians and Bisexuals are somehow damaged goods and that the only reason they exist is because of this damage.
Is that worse than what you folks say about them?

I'm sorry but that is patently untrue and your assertion that you can't leave little girls alone but you can with little boys is just ridiculous. I can't imagine where you got that piece of "information". In my experience, both as a little girl and as a teacher and teacher helper of younger children, it is often the little boys that are "curious" more so than the little girls.
I said young teens, not small children.

From what I read, it did indeed sound as if you were saying that belief in science should be on the same level as belief in God.
”Belief in science”? Do you doubt the existence of science? Science is the study of how God makes the universe operate. Even if all scientists have it completely wrong, clearly the universe does operate, and so a proper understand of how it operates is still science. A proper understanding of science also clearly points to the existence of God in a multitude of ways, so yes, you are correct, I do equate belief in God with a proper understanding of science.

Especially in this society where it's okay for boys/men to be interested in sex and not okay for girls/women. To refute this even further, is there any pill on the market that makes sex better for menopausal women? Nope. There is no viagra for women. Why? Well because women are plastic! They can "do it" anytime they want and dang their feelings about it. *eyeroll*
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!

Like Zec, you are confusing plasticity with (1) aggression, but you are also throwing in a contradiction to the (2) female limbic system. (1) Lack of plasticity is much more determined and aggressive because there is no confusion about what we (men) want. That is why plasticity and aggression are inversely related. Female plasticity is more closely related to the way women rearrange the furniture. “Move it over here. No, I liked it better over there. Oh wait, it would be even better over on the other side!…” It is not a product of aggression, but rather inability to make up her mind.

(2) Male arousal is extremely simple and uncomplicated. The female limbic system is far more complex, so female arousal is effected by all sorts of things that mean absolutely nothing to men, like candle light dinners, poetry, flowers, cards and candy. We do it all for you, it doesn’t mean very much to us personally, but if it works for you then we’re happy to do it. Men do not have all of these complex instinctually built in arousal patterns, that is why men are always ready but women have to be in the mood. But also because of this sometimes we feel like we’re traversing a maze in dealing with women. You may not like your end of the stick, but it’s not all a bed roses on this end either!

You're not waiting for the end of the world with bated breath? I sure as heck am!!!
I am waiting for the Resurrection of the Dead with baited breath.

I can not WAIT for Jesus to come back and put paid to all the nonsense that is going on these days. I'm so SICK of the corruption of the entire human race. (and yes, that even includes myself. Chief of sinners though I be!)

What did you think the end of time as we know it would be other than the "genocide of the human race"? Some will go into eternal life and others into eternal separation from God.
I think of the end time in terms of Ezekiel where a sacred army is raised from the dead. The dark side controls all of the visible universe that you can see, but not for much longer. God will soon have an army on his side fighting in the physical universe, not just in the angelic realms.

You know, LM, there's many a time that I read your posts and think "Uh, I have no clue what you're talking about so, here's a bunny with a pancake on its head".

KaeAll I need now is some syrup!

[LutheranMafia]

You claim that homosexuality is a matter of mental health. Where is your proof for this assertion? Buried somewhere in the dark ages most likely and it's best left there. Nobody actually believes that tripe these days.
Ah yes, calling someone insane is far worse of an insult than calling them damned.

You are sputtering dude, I don't have time to reply to all that. You need to focus your thoughts if you want a reply. You are all over the place.

[Zecryphon]

It looks like, contrary to what LM has said previously, he has not tired of this topic after all. I am not the one who has declared unrepentant sinners to be damned, that would be God's declaration, not mine. It's also not an insult to pass along the truth of God's word to the people who need to hear it. We can prove to people that God has said unrepentant sinners will be damned. You can not prove your assertion about homosexuals being insane, to be true. There was a time when scientists did believe such statements were true, but science has moved on from that time and I can't imagine any credible scientist still believing that homosexuality is caused by insanity. What was the prescribed treatment for such an ailment in the past? If I recall correctly, it would be a Lobotomy, right? So since you want everyone to believe you care SO much for the well-being of the homosexual community, when will you start drilling holes in people's heads?

[LutheranMafia]

I see no difference at all between "bisexuality" and "homosexuality." They are both unnatural and inherently sinful.Even if one accepts this as true, still one clearly involves sexual plasticity and the other does not. Sinful or not, they are utterly different in their cause. If you think of it as a condition to be treated rather than simply something to rile about, then clearly the treatments that could potential succeed for each group is very different since they must address different causes.

[LutheranMafia]

It looks like, contrary to what LM has said previously, he has not tired of this topic after all.I'll make an exception for you!

[Edial]

How is that not bi-sexual?
Abandoning relations with women means one no longer has relations with women, but exclusively with men.
Bi-sexuality has relations with both, men and women.
I am just showing that one becomes homosexual while being born "straight".

You are lumping three categories together indiscriminately. What you say is true for two of the categories, but not the third.

"Product of the environment, blunt refusal of God, learned behavior".

Learned behavior could fall into the category of the product of the environment.
However, learned behavior could also be the one-on-one teachings that are made by the adults to children in about any environment.

Thanks,
Ed

[Zecryphon]

Stop lying. You're not making an exception just for me, if you were you wouldn't continue to discuss this topic with people like DaRev and WildStrawberry, too. You'd respond only to me, if you were truly making an exception for me. Now in your post to DaRev you state that the proper treatments for homosexuality and bi-sexuality will depend on the cause of these conditions. So tell me, how does believing that homosexual and bi-sexual people needing to be fixed, because there is something wrong with them, not come off as insulting to those people?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/Kaemea/smilies/pancake.gif[/quote]

A Bunnie with a Pancake ain't natural either, but at least he's not sinning.

[PreachersWife2004]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/Kaemea/smilies/pancake.gif

A Bunnie with a Pancake ain't natural either, but at least he's not sinning.

BWAH! That was funny.

Now, play nice guys.

[WildStrawberry]

Is that worse than what you folks say about them?

I haven't said anything horrible about homosexuals. I've said that they are sinners and I've said that *I* am a sinner. My sin isn't greater or worse than theirs. It's the matter of repentance that is the difference.

I said young teens, not small children.Either or. Having been both, I can tell you that young girls do NOT, in fact, explore more than young guys. And honestly, it's more likely for small children of both sexes to be curious.

”Belief in science”? Do you doubt the existence of science? Science is the study of how God makes the universe operate. Even if all scientists have it completely wrong, clearly the universe does operate, and so a proper understand of how it operates is still science. A proper understanding of science also clearly points to the existence of God in a multitude of ways, so yes, you are correct, I do equate belief in God with a proper understanding of science.Nope. No doubt that science exists. I said that you are putting belief in science up there with belief in God. And it doesn't belong there. God is infallible, science is not. I don't disagree that "science" points to God...however I don't believe that just because it does means that you should trust it as much as you trust in God.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!Heh. I don't protest at all. As a 38 year old celibate woman who has never been married and is, at this moment, only a month away from her wedding night...I am HIGHLY interested in sex. Very very very very interested. So interested that I'm really looking forward to it. Really. Really really. Thank you very much.


Like Zec, you are confusing plasticity with (1) aggression, but you are also throwing in a contradiction to the (2) female limbic system. (1) Lack of plasticity is much more determined and aggressive because there is no confusion about what we (men) want. <snip> It is not a product of aggression, but rather inability to make up her mind.Nope I'm not confusing it. Both women and men can be, and often are, attracted to the same sex or "sexually plastic". However, it's what you do with that attractedness that makes the sin. Jesus said "whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart sins with her just as if he sinned with her in the flesh" (that's Kae's translation there. Didn't take the time to look it up.) I have a good friend that identifies as bisexual and has never been victimized or abused or any of the stuff you say "makes" a bisexual man. He's an extremely happy person who loves life and loves God. He doesn't act on his homosexual feelings because he says, rightly so, that it's an abomination to God. He doesn't understand WHY he has the feelings but he's had them all his life. He figures that God tests him and he wants to be true to God.

I also find it REALLY offensive that you lump all women into the "can't make up their minds" pile. I am MUCH more decisive than my fiancé. He takes FOREVER to make a decision. Case in point is our wedding rings. He has yet to make a decision about just WHAT he wants. Me? I'm pretty well decided but will go along with whatever he wants. My sexual habits aren't a matter of "making up my mind". They are what God has given me.

Besides, wasn't it Paul that said that some men are born to be married and some are born to be celibate? (again, Kae's translation)

(2) Male arousal is extremely simple and uncomplicated. The female limbic system is far more complex, so female arousal is effected by all sorts of things that mean absolutely nothing to men, like candle light dinners, poetry, flowers, cards and candy. We do it all for you, it doesn’t mean very much to us personally, but if it works for you then we’re happy to do it. Men do not have all of these complex instinctually built in arousal patterns, that is why men are always ready but women have to be in the mood. But also because of this sometimes we feel like we’re traversing a maze in dealing with women. You may not like your end of the stick, but it’s not all a bed roses on this end either!I'd sure like to see you try and convince my fiancé of this. He loves to receive flowers and little presents and he says that it makes him feel more romantic as well. He's also all about the little things, the foot rubs (for both of us) and the little things that I guess YOU don't consider "romantic". He certainly isn't "ready" at the drop of a hat and he has never said that he doesn't "understand" me.

What I don't like about "[my] end of the stick" is exactly what you're saying. I don't like "he men" who think that all women are interested in are the flowers...chocolates...promises you don't intend to keep. (50 blessings to whomever knows that movie reference) I'm tired of the "men are this but women are this" mentality. Especially the cow cookies that you've been tossing around in this thread. I don't CARE how much science (and you) want to generalize women's libidos...not ALL women are like that. And for you to continually toss the "lesbians are lesbians because of insanity and abuse but gay men are born" road apples and the other disgusting things you've said, up in our female faces is rude and very very demeaning.

Kae

[WildStrawberry]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/Kaemea/smilies/pancake.gif

A Bunnie with a Pancake ain't natural either, but at least he's not sinning.[/quote]

Like that didja?

Somewhere on the 'net is a picture of a stack of pancakes and a bunny on top of them. It says "here's a picture of a pancake with a bunny on its head"

LOL

Kae

[PreachersWife2004]

mmmm....pancakes...


/homer simpson reference

[LutheranMafia]

I haven't said anything horrible about homosexuals. I've said that they are sinners and I've said that *I* am a sinner. My sin isn't greater or worse than theirs. It's the matter of repentance that is the difference.
In other words they are damned because they are unrepentant. No need to mince words.

Either or. Having been both, I can tell you that young girls do NOT, in fact, explore more than young guys. And honestly, it's more likely for small children of both sexes to be curious.
Sexually turned on curious? It does not happen with straight boys, at all. That was my experience, no curiosity what-so-ever. Your whole notion of “curiosity” in this regard is entirely feminine and completely alien to the male psyche. We aren’t “curious” about who we are strongly attracted to (that would be an understatement) and we definitely aren’t at all curious about who we aren’t attracted to. Even as 13 year olds.

And I've heard WAY more stories of young teen guys in "Circle jerks" and things of that nature than I've ever heard of young teen girls being sexually active with one another.You can’t be serious. Where do you live, San Francisco?

Young teen girls of this day and age are more likely to be engaged in "rainbow parties" than in homosexual behavior. And if they are engaging in same sex sex, it is mainly because their boyfriends have said how "cool" it is.
Usually it’s just messages and stuff, but even when I was in the 5th grade when the lights went off for a movie the two prettiest girls in the class would start giving each other sensual messages in the dark. My first kiss was a threesome. Then there were those two sisters in high school…!

Nope. No doubt that science exists. I said that you are putting belief in science up there with belief in God. And it doesn't belong there. God is infallible, science is not.
Creation is infallible. Science defined as human understanding of Creation is obviously not infallible. However, the science of God’s creation IS infallible, because that’s what God did. If the science of God’s creation is flawed then God must be flawed.

I don't disagree that "science" points to God...however I don't believe that just because it does means that you should trust it as much as you trust in God.Creation is just as much a product of God as the Bible. To ignore what God’s creation says is to ignore God.

Heh. I don't protest at all. As a 38 year old celibate woman who has never been married and is, at this moment, only a month away from her wedding night...I am HIGHLY interested in sex. Very very very very interested. So interested that I'm really looking forward to it. Really. Really really. Thank you very much.Congratulations!

Nope I'm not confusing it. Both women and men can be, and often are, attracted to the same sex or "sexually plastic". However, it's what you do with that attractedness that makes the sin. Jesus said "whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart sins with her just as if he sinned with her in the flesh" (that's Kae's translation there. Didn't take the time to look it up.) I have a good friend that identifies as bisexual and has never been victimized or abused or any of the stuff you say "makes" a bisexual man. He's an extremely happy person who loves life and loves God. He doesn't act on his homosexual feelings because he says, rightly so, that it's an abomination to God. He doesn't understand WHY he has the feelings but he's had them all his life. He figures that God tests him and he wants to be true to God.
It sounds like he is in fact a gay who is trying very hard to at least be bi.

I also find it REALLY offensive that you lump all women into the "can't make up their minds" pile. I am MUCH more decisive than my fiancé. He takes FOREVER to make a decision. Case in point is our wedding rings. He has yet to make a decision about just WHAT he wants. Me? I'm pretty well decided but will go along with whatever he wants. My sexual habits aren't a matter of "making up my mind". They are what God has given me.
I was being somewhat silly there. Still, females are more indecisive about certain matters, that is why all police dogs are male. Women have a lot of personal dislikes and dislikes that men aren’t so prone to have, but this is different from being decisive on such things as military matters.

I'd sure like to see you try and convince my fiancé of this. He loves to receive flowers and little presents and he says that it makes him feel more romantic as well.

He's also all about the little things, the foot rubs (for both of us) and the little things that I guess YOU don't consider "romantic".
Yeah, I always turn down beautiful girls that ask me for messages. NOT!

He certainly isn't "ready" at the drop of a hatGive him five minutes to wake up.

and he has never said that he doesn't "understand" me. I was referring to young men, mainly. Some never learn of course, but men figure women out long before women figure out either men or themselves!

What I don't like about "[my] end of the stick" is exactly what you're saying. I don't like "he men" who think that all women are interested in are the flowers...chocolates...promises you don't intend to keep. (50 blessings to whomever knows that movie reference) I'm tired of the "men are this but women are this" mentality. Especially the cow cookies that you've been tossing around in this thread. I don't CARE how much science (and you) want to generalize women's libidos...not ALL women are like that. And for you to continually toss the "lesbians are lesbians because of insanity and abuse but gay men are born" road apples and the other disgusting things you've said, up in our female faces is rude and very very demeaning.

[LutheranMafia]

mmmm....pancakes...


/homer simpson referenceMeaty pancakes! Mmmmm........

[WildStrawberry]

In other words they are damned because they are unrepentant. No need to mince words.

Yep. Just as I would be damned if I were unrepentant of my sins. They're damned. That's what the Bible says. God said it. I believe it because HE said it.


Sexually turned on curious? It does not happen with straight boys, at all.Wanna bet? I guess you've never heard of Dr Alfred C. Kinsey. He had a scale that asks "how gay are you?"

0- Exclusively heterosexual

1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6- Exclusively homosexual

Wanna know more about him? http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/about/photo-tour.html (http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekinsey/about/photo-tour.html)


That was my experience, no curiosity what-so-ever. Your whole notion of “curiosity” in this regard is entirely feminine and completely alien to the male psyche. We aren’t “curious” about who we are strongly attracted to (that would be an understatement) and we definitely aren’t at all curious about who we aren’t attracted to. Even as 13 year olds.So it's YOUR experience and ONLY YOUR experience that counts here huh? Talk to the more than 18,000 people that Kinsey based his research on. Talk with those who are currently in many of the research studies going on. You're not the only human male on planet earth.

And I know plenty of men who are curious creatures. If men had no curiosity, where do you think this planet would be? Do you think that we'd be discussing this on a computer? Heck, if Ben Franklin wasn't curious about what lightening was, do you think we'd have electricity to RUN the computers??

As for curiosity about "who you're attracted to" HONESTLY??? Really??? You aren't at ALL curious about these "beautiful women" that you're so all fired attracted to? Not even a LITTLE BIT??? Man, you must be some kind of superhero or something.

You can’t be serious. Where do you live, San Francisco?I am perfectly serious and where I live is in my profile.

”I’d pay to see you two kissing!” Usually it’s just messages and stuff, but even when I was in the 5th grade when the lights went off for a movie the two prettiest girls in the class would start giving each other sensual messages in the dark. My first kiss was a threesome. Then there were those two sisters in high school…!Again, YOUR experiences. Not EVERYONE has the same experiences. One has to wonder how much YOU are protesting. And was your threesome kiss mff or mmf or mmm? Hmmm???

The two prettiest girls giving "sensual" massages in 5th grade...huh. See, how do you know they weren't, in fact, gay? Just 'cause they were pretty? Or because you had a crush on them?

It sounds like he is in fact a gay who is trying very hard to at least be bi. My friend is nothing of the sort. He loves and is VERY attracted to his (beautiful) wife and is the devoted father of 4 very active and wonderful boys. He just happens to also be attracted to men. He tries very hard to subdue that part of his sexuality BECAUSE he loves his wife and BECAUSE he knows what God's Law is about that attraction.

I was being somewhat silly there. Still, females are more indecisive about certain matters, that is why all police dogs are male. Women have a lot of personal dislikes and dislikes that men aren’t so prone to have, but this is different from being decisive on such things as military matters.Your "being silly" is not conducive to this discussion. If you actually have a valid point, make it. Don't make ridiculous blanket statements based on conjecture rather than fact.

Sounds like you have him whipped good!I take extreme offense to this and request...no DEMAND...that you apologize immediately. You have no right to say something like that to me.

Give him five minutes to wake up.YOU may think exclusively with that part of your anatomy but believe me, a REAL man knows what it is to have discretion.


I was referring to young men, mainly. Some never learn of course, but men figure women out long before women figure out either men or themselves!Poor attempt at humor? And let me tell you, there are more older men out there who believe the whole "oh I don't know WHAT women are thinking" rhetoric than there are women who believe that men are "confusing".

Oh those poor sinning and most like damned lesbians who are also, God forbid, being insulted! I’ve never heard so much concern for lesbians come from Christians in all my life!My concern is for the people you are denigrating. They, too, are children of God. For you to go around saying that they're suffering from insanity is a very very unloving act. I have many friends from various jobs that are lesbian and none of them suffer from insanity. They suffer from not knowing God's love and caring, mainly because they turn their back on the truth and don't want to face the fact that they are sinning. They want to believe that because THEY feel they're okay and "normal" that God must be wrong and well...phooey on Him.

If God's word said that heterosexual activity was a sin, would you fight to overturn His word as you are for the homosexuals? Would you feel that God was wrong and that male heterosexuals were born that way but female heterosexuals were somehow flawed, insane or abused?

I'll be awaiting your apology for the comments above.

Kae

[LilLamb219]

I need to close this thread for a while...it's under Staff Review.