• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fawzo

  1. I remember the first time as a young teen I tried to get high. We tried smoking a joint made out of tea from inside a Lipton teabag. After just a couple puffs and I had a headache that would kill a horse.

    So it seems that it isn't only pot that will lead to harder drugs, but tea will lead to them as well lol

    Glad I decided way back then that drugs weren't for me.

  2. Your comment is way out of context. Robertson doesn't support, nor did he even imply that anyone should be killed. Your exaggerating what happened by reverting back to Mosaic law. Robertson expressed an opinion that was based in Christian scripture, he didn't advocate anything further. The only intolerance was demonstrated by those who disagreed with his Christian opinion, by wanting to punish him for what he thinks. That's ignorance and its anti-Christian. It would be no different if your job was threatened because of your pro-gay opinion. Your justifying hurting a person because you think they're ignorant, and you claim that's a good thing? That's sad...

    Dan but he is still judging and condoning denying these PEOPLE basic human rights based on the same ignorance, and people are being harmed because of it.

    He is condoning punishing and demeaning others because of the way they were born by denying them respect and basic equalities that most Americans share. You and many others don't see this, which is sad.

    Phil is merely getting what goes around comes around. He threw the first punch.

  3. I'd disagree... When you threaten someone for essentially paraphrasing what the bible says, that's about as anti-Christian as it gets. They only relented because they love money more than they hate Christ.

    Statement from A&E; "His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

    So Dan if someone supports killing folks who work the Sabbath, killing disobedient children, and condones owning slaves they should be able to propose such ignorance on A&E with no qualms.

    So you see Dan, standing against such bigoted intolerance isn't anti-Christian it is anti-Ignorance and that is a very good thing to many of us.

  4. "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

    I think common sense tells us even if Washington did state this then he and Phil and anyone who believes such nonsense is dead wrong. Defining the word "rightly" though may cause some problems, especially with all those foreign countries who have done quite splendid jobs governing without the Bible.

  5. Yes, I like being told that I can't be a (traditional) Witch because I was not initiated into a 2000 year old secret family practice by my grandmother or aunt in her kitchen or basement. I also like being told that I can't describe my practice as "Welsh" Witchcraft because I was not born in or do not live in modern Wales, although that is from whence my ancestors came. And of course "Witches aren't real," and "All Witches are Satanic." ;)

    I guess you have some labels of your own for those folks who claim such :angry2:

  6. First, how would we decide who would count in the “third gender”? How would we decide where to cut off the category of male and begin the category of intersex, or, on the other side of the spectrum, where to cut off the category of intersex to begin the category of female?

    Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone (including themselves) ever knowing.

    Which variations of sexual anatomy count as intersex? In practice, different people have different answers to that question. That’s not surprising, because intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category.

    So nature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins.Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex. (so why are you asking me to answer a question doctors and even the intersexed themselves can't agree on.)

    Rather than trying to play a semantic game that never ends, we at ISNA take a pragmatic approach to the question of who counts as intersex.

    So you see Fawzo I can't tell you who the intersex can have sex with. It's not specifically addressed in the Bible. Doctors can't agree what constitutes intersex. The intersex themselves don't advocate raising a child without assigning a gender. And many die having never questioned their gender.

    My ignorance aside, what you just stated is the whole point I am trying to make. People and even doctors can't definitively pinpoint where male and female begin and end and all the hormones and genes which decide one's sexual orientation. If we can't properly designate what sex people are and how their hormones which arise from such genetic makeups affect their physiology and their sexual preferences how can any sensible person consider the desires of these people a sin and hold prejudices and create laws to discriminate against them. In the genetic random soup that creates humans from recombining DNA the possibilities are endless as can be seen by even briefly looking into the matter. I am almost certain an intelligent empathetic deity could not judge them as abominations either as he is directly responsible for the system which gave rise to their unique birth just as he is responsible for the births of all creatures great and small.

    I fully understand the differences of the word Love in the Greek New Testament. My point is that in the Old Testament it is not a Godly prerequisite before intercourse was permissible.

    FI'm sorry Fawzo, I didn't realize you were homophobic. I also didn't mean to insinuate that you were homosexual. I meant that you in the general anyone other than me sense.

    May I note that I said a bit homophobic which is a far cry from the raging homophobe I was in my youth. I think my fear is basically that some guy will admire this cute little Alpaca more then I would like :)

    So now that we have dealt with intersex can we get back to the subject? Neither government nor society have the right to make Phil take any position contrary to the scripture of his religion! People of faith should not have to apologize for what their faith teaches. A&E can suspend him but they can also lose their highest rated show.

    Well that may very well depend on how his contract with the studios is written and what it states. Were you as big a defender of the Dixie Chicks remember them?

    Is it right for governments or societies to discriminate against any human being just because of the way they were naturally born?

    Perhaps you should get a red letter edition of the Bible. If you had one you would have known that in Matthew 5:18 Jesus himself was speaking when he said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
    As for New Testament Codes of conduct how about we look at 1 Corinthians 6:18 from the International Standard version;
    Keep on running away from sexual immorality. Any other sin that a person commits is outside his body, but the person who sins sexually sins against his own body.

    The New Testament didn't exist when Jesus stated those words we find in Matthew. The law Jesus was referring to for his audience was Mosaic Law. Something a guy named Paul and a bunch of modern Christians now deemed to consider a curse since it fits their agenda and yet sill consider some folks cursed under it when it fits other ignorant ideologies they hold to.

  7. "Acceptance" is often confused with "approval". I have learned that I do not need (nor desire) to approve of that which does not resonate with me. In fact, other peoples views and beliefs do not require my approval or disapproval to validate or invalidate them. When I look at my own beliefs as a mallable, amendable and expanding set, and I do, then I can more easily accept the beliefs of others, even when they dont jive with mine, as a growing and viable path to thier own enlightenment. Even when a person or persons belief system is seemingly rigid or set in stone it is my responsibility only to accept them for where they are on thier journey.

    Insofar as the topic lead: From my point of view is has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to pigeon hole individuals into neatly labled religious, spiritual, political, philosophical or scientifical boxes. As overall global consciousness shifts and expands, the lines blur, and the boxes begin to overlap more and more as we begin (continue) to see each others similarities and accept our differences.

    Welcome to the forum Awakener.

  8. No I can't tell you who they can have sex with.
    What has that got to do with "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind"

    Hermaphrodites are folks born with both pairs of sexual organs. These people are basically both male and female, and on rare occasions both sexual organs are fully operational. So who can they make love to? In God's eyes can they choose either sex they prefer or are they to abstain from sex completely because in every case they will be sinning mankind with mankind and womankind with womankind.

    What percentage of male genetic makeup must a human be of the 1% of all humans born with transgender issues ( 70,000,000 humans) before God is ok with them having sex with a female.

    Earlier you insinuated love was disassociated with "intercourse". Here you seem to be saying love and intercourse are one and the same. I can't agree with that view either. I can love someone without having, or even desiring, sex with them.

    The Bible doesn't make distinctions between Love and intercourse. Many folks were forced to marry those they had no love for and that was fine in God's eyes. This is not pertinent to the main question being asked.

    Now you are twisting the words of scripture. In fact, as I see it you are attempting to have genetic defects seen as the same thing as a man lying with a man as a woman. I don't think most homosexual men would appreciate their lifestyle being compared to a genetic defect.

    There is only one person in this discussion labeling natural genetic makeup defective and that would be you sir. I agree no one does appreciate such ignorance.

    But we are not talking about animals here. We are talking about people. People who have been given the capability to know good and evil.

    Yes, we are talking about people many of whom who are born naturally with a genetic makeup that makes them partial to same sex unions just as everything else is in nature. It is natural and the act is natural. Not an abomination.

    Now to be honest, personally, I don't care if you have sex with men. It doesn't bother me in the least. I've had a few gay friends over the last half century. That has nothing to do with Christian Morality. And it has even less to do with Christians standing up for Biblical standards of morality. We also stand against murder, theft, animal cruelty, and lying to have someone punished for something they are innocent of. If Christians fail to stand for morality then immorality will surely take over.

    For the record I am straight and must admit from past programming I am a bit homophobic myself when it comes to homosexual males. I can not stand by though and tolerate the discrimination and hatred I see quite often being vexed at these individuals, due merely to the fact that many were born with a specific genetic makeup. It is barbaric ignorance which blights our society and such ignorance has caused much more devastation then any number of homosexual unions has ever done.

  9. The force of gravity may be the weakest, but isn't it true that its range is the farthest? So that while any give object is only subject to a modest number of objects exerting strong force on it, there are a massive number of objects exerting a weak gravitational force on it. Which, if in a large enough number, are able to completely overwhelm the strong force to create a black hole. Thus, while it maybe the weakest force, its range makes it more active, and have a greater influence on the structure of the universe as a whole.

    That is very true panpareil but as you have stated gravity is the weakest force and it takes massive amounts of mass for it to overcome the strongest force which is the Strong Nuclear force. Enough small animals can bring down any larger stronger beast but that doesn't make the smaller beasts stronger.

  10. There is no "for the sake of argument". If you believe in the G-d of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob then, he has forbidden it. If you do not believe in that god then your god may have not forbidden it.

    I will attempt to answer your questions once you have answered mine. You see our discussion can only be productive when there is an exchange.

    My question to you therefor must be; ... and still is ... Which and how many of the regulations on sexual morality espoused in Leviticus 18 are you saying are wrong? Is it just verse #22 or are there more?

    We know having sex with blood relations causes genetic problems so I agree with those. I also feel as if sex with animals is wrong since an animal cannot give it's consent.

    I feel the question isn't always black and white though regarding sexual relations between non-blood related people who have reached the age of consent. In our human society the act of adultery and the responsibility for rearing young create disharmony which in an a more evolved society may not be the case. In a more evolved society people may unconditionally care so much for the happiness of others they won't care who the ones they love decide to have intercourse with and maybe some type of localized governed nursing agency raises everyone's children.

    We also know that verse 16 isn't an absolute edict either since men are lawfully bound to have sex with their brother's wife if the brother were to die and leave no children behind. God will even kill someone for refusing to do so as was the case with Onan.

    So as you see I feel the laws given may have been fine for a less evolved society struggling to live surrounded amid hostile forces, and many of them still to this day bear merit to help keep the peace and tranquility of society, but as society becomes more enlightened they will need to evolve as society evolves.

    Highly Intelligent humans still don't think God views people as abominations for eating crab cakes, shellfish and pork, or for working the Sabbath, or for wearing clothes made of multiple fibers, or for planting multiple crops in the same fields.

    We have evolved and our laws have evolved. What if we judged and killed all those people in the text above for those simple everyday actions which mankind once was told God hated. How barbaric would we be seen as. Those judging and condemning and harming homosexuals are just as barbaric in my eyes and the eyes of enlightened people the world over.