More conflation and rainbow flag wedging from the intolerable rainbow warrior terrorists

I dismiss his objectionable objection as an objectionist of the objectionable rainbow flag.

Dan.

The Bible, at least its first part, the "Old Testament", is the national book of the Jews. It speaks of their history, mythology, culture, norms, law and of their wisdom and religion too. Some parts are truly spiritual and God-inspired, others mundane and yet others just fake.

The injunction of Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." is an example of Jewish law - what has this to do with non-Jews? Even then, marriage does not necessarily imply sexual relations.

---

«the plebiscite held on 17 February, 2017 in regard to the question: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?".»

What a stupid question: same-sex couples, at least in Australia, were never forbidden to marry (not even when homosexuality was still a criminal offense). That the state did not recognise their marriage makes no difference - same-sex couples could still marry, no law would punish them for it and clergy could still freely marry them without fear of authorities.

This question was akin to asking, "should this door be opened?" when that door is already open - any rational person would need to answer 'No' in that plebiscite, as did I.

When anyone can prove beyond all doubt! That the bible is the literal word of God and free from any and all social mores of the time! Then well might we condemn SSM!

But because that's not possible and because hard medical science proves that there are gay genes. Then what the bible purports must be taken with a grain of salt.

If one believes something based on belief alone. Then in order for that belief to have legitimacy, the possibility of the opposite being true must be held open in the mind. SSM has never ever removed any of my rights! End of story.
Alan B.

It would be interesting to know how many people actually refer to the Bible to decide what they think of homosexuality. How many people actually refer to the Bible for any reason these days. My opinions on the matter, for instance, are my own, not what something or someone tells me.

An interesting article which gives rise to much logical thought.

For example:
Religion often trys to rival truth.
That cannot work!
Endless discussion of religious doctrine must lead nowhere?
Logical thinking has long superceded its tenets?
Preaching it can only benefit someone who likes to hear the sound of his own voice?
That someone probably likes to play 'dress-ups' too?

Another thing:
We live in a democracy.
We have laws.
Those democratically decided laws come first.
Where a personal religious view clashes with the law, that view must take second place.
The law is precedent.

Religious view is not law in our society.
It might be wise to consider why that is so.
And we must make sure it remains so.
That becomes clear when one thinks about countries where religion reigns.

The particular issue of sex with dogs was never considered within the historical context of the biblical writings

Sex with dogs? Well animals do what animals do. (Deliverance, oink oink?)

When folks are starving, with few if any means of financial support? Hard to say what any of us would do if stood in their shoes.

Except, (holier than thou) Dan, who would die in a ditch first!

Dan, believing the world was flat never ever made it flat! When all the available evidence says otherwise!

Only completely brainwashed idiots would believe it were flat or that lefties chose to be left-handed or than those born different from the rest did so via a choice!

And if the brainwashed from birth bigot cap fits? You'll have a nice day now y'hear!
Alan B.

ttbn,

<<My opinions on the matter [homosexuality & the Bible], for instance, are my own, not what something or someone tells me.>>

Are you serious? Is your own self the one who makes up your own values? That is relativism.

Is there Nobody greater than you to decide if murder and adultery are right or wrong?

OzSpen

You have been squinting at the Bible too long and have lost the ability to read plain language. The 'matter' that I have my own opinions on is homosexuality, not the Bible. Like most people these days, I rarely look at the Bible, although I have three of them for when I do.

My question: "how many people actually refer to the Bible to decide what they think of homosexuality" was rhetorical - I know the answer: very few people. It is not a religious matter for most people; it is about biology and commonsense.

There is no point to you or other Christians using the Bible to convince people who don't believe in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. They are not going to be swayed by a credo they don't believe in. And some practising Christians (including professionals) don't take any notice of what the Bible says about homosexuality either.

There really is no point in using the Bible to tell people that homosexuality is wrong.

My answer to your question? "Is there Nobody greater than you to decide if murder and adultery are right or wrong?" - l don't know. I believe in Jesus Christ and the Christian way of life; anything else, I don’t know. But, I do know that there are agnostics and out-and-out atheists who know that "murder and adultery" are wrong.

I accept and respect your reliance on the Bible; but using it to convince other people that they should behave in accordance with the word of God when it means so little or nothing to so many of them these days - including some who claim to be Christian, among the laity and even some claiming to speak for God professionally - is a waste of time.

I will stick to the facts: there are two sexes; their plumbing is different; sex is for procreation, with the pleasure of intercourse being to make sure we do procreate

Dear Ttbn,

«I will stick to the facts: there are two sexes; their plumbing is different; sex is for procreation, with the pleasure of intercourse being to make sure we do procreate»

Procreation is an outdated practice: cramming more people on this planet is a bad thing, so if anyone [possibly other than Jews, should the Bible be correct about this] "fails" to procreate due to their homosexuality then this is a good thing. In practice, however, homosexuals procreate at least as much as heterosexuals.

The greatest and routinely ignored issue for Pacifica is fossil fueled climate change! And the only way to address that is with non-fossil fuel that we the taxpayers of Australia have to Stump up for!

The cheapest most reliable dispatchable carbon-free power is not battery backed renewables. But Nuclear waste burning MSR! We should be doing this big time given it is very safe and also reduces the half-life of toxic nuclear waste to just 300 years.

Think, we were once the third wealthiest nation on the planet and a creditor one at that. That outcome was the sole result of soviet style cheap energy.

If today's useless, Polly waffling pollies had been in charge? There would have been no snowy hydro and our power supply would have been privatized or corporatized. And the national credit card would as now, been maxed out!

Renewable power at plus 45 cents PKWH will, ensure we become a debt riddled banana republic unable to assist anyone, let alone Pacifica. And ensure we become servants in our own land to the foreign investors we sell all we can to, care of, Un Australian, government policies.

Compare that with MSR power at less than 1 cent PKWH. And if sanity prevails, is what we will have?

The only danger is the idiots in charge, who as is their want, will want to privatize or corporatize all that generations of Ozzie taxpayers have sacrificed for!
Alan B.

Our plumbing has little to do with sexual orientation but rather the four sex centres at the base of the brain or if you will the Basal ganglia, there are two for males, on for sexual attraction and one for sexual drive or function. Ditto for females who almost always share the opposite pair.

Thermal imaging allows us to see which pair are firing when stimulated. That some female plumbed females are subjected to male oriented sexual stimulation/arousal the centres that are normal in males are the ones that light up!

And at times occurs as the opposite to normal in males who have "normal" male plumbing.

Pedophiles would seem to have all four firing at times, hence the selection of prepubescent boys, who seem to embody both female and male characteristics.

In Scotland some years ago, when a convicted pedophile was before the judge for the third time for buggering boys, the judge gave him two choices. For the term of his natural life in prison. Or as a volunteering subject in a research program. Naturally he volunteered for the research.

The thermal imaging showed all four sex centres were firing. The doctors decided to burn out the female sex centres in the basal ganglia. And then monitored the subject's progress.

In about a year the subject's sexual orientation was strictly heterosexual. And later he married and fathered two boys and reportedly, has never been happier.

In Sydney some time ago a very masculine male rugby player was injured in a scrum. It was a neck injury where bone fragments entered the basal ganglia and destroyed the normal male sex centres totally. About a year later he was employed as a hairdresser and was as typically gay.

So, the so-called plumbing doesn't decide one's sexual orientation but clearly the centres in the basal ganglia and hormones.

Q. what makes a hormone
A. when you don't pay her.
Alan B.

So, and to continue currently, we alter the plumbing to suit the orientation. And that often requires major surgery and large medical bills. The other choice is to implant a couple of electrodes in the improperly firing sex centres in the basal ganglia and with tiny imperceptible electric current, burn out the sexually inappropriate sex centres. Given around a year or so of expected confusion, the sexual orientation ought to become normal for the sexual plumbing. And the procedure could be done in a few minutes in a day clinic, with far less expense.

It would need to be by choice as the respondents would feel their, [normal for them,] different sexual responses were to be changed.

It is thought these abnormalities are the result of female hormone loads at the time of conception/pregnancy and the stress load on the mother. It could also have a genetic component and passed on by the female line?

Simply put, not everything penned in the bible by mere men, ain't necessarily so! Some of those writers if alive today, would be medicated or even institutionalized.

I mean, hearing voices coming out of thin air is very disconcerting, but even more so when you understand, what they're saying!
Alan B.

Alan B

The vast difference between your view and mine is; you speak “to” madness, whereas I speak “ of” it!

Dan

Alan B,
Are you justifying adult male sex with boys because there is a natural attraction

Hi ttnb

Your question about whether people take the Bible into account when forming a view on same-sex marriage is an interesting one. Many people who consider themselves Christian do indeed take the bible into account when forming a view on this, but there are different ways of approaching the Bible and interpreting it, and that can lead sincere and thoughtful Christians to reach opposite conclusions.

There are seven texts in the Bible that may condemn homosexuality: Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 9:1-13; Judges 19:16-13), the Holiness code (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), and three sections of the Pauline epistles (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:9-11).

I think the differences of interpretation of the “seven texts” rest on three broad questions:

Does the activity described refer to homosexual acts and homosexual relationships as we understand them today?

If it does, Does the condemnation reflect social taboos relevant only to their time and culture, or are they permanent and enduring commands; and

Do these reflect a broader biblical view of proper sexual conduct?

All of these questions are debated by theologians and Bible scholars as well as in the churches more broadly.

My own view is that homosexuality is understood and experienced very differently nowadays from in Biblical times; that these texts reflect social prejudices of their time and do not have enduring authority (the Holiness Codes also condemn tattoos and wearing clothing made of more than one material, for example, but we can safely say these are not binding on modern Christians). I also think the broader message of love and inclusion that we find throughout the Bible is a more important guide when we grapple with modern social issues than reproducing the particular social conditions and values prevailing 2,000-3,000 years ago.

And, as Ray points out, Jesus apparently had precisely nothing to say about homosexuality. But he had lots to say about religious authorities that exploit and tyrannise the people they are supposed to care for.