Nev wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote...
>
> > To imply that the proscription excludes the social mores
> > of societies such as Sodom is the sodomizing of context.
>
> Spare us the prim euphemisms, please. The Leviticus 20:13 text you cited
> previously says nothing about Sodom.
It also says nothing about Seattle. By your reasoning I
guess the sodomite community on Capitol Hill is biblically
free and clear. Try harder.
>
>
> > Even if this were not a far stretch of the imagination, it is still
> > however, irrelevant.
>
> It is not a "stretch of imagination" and is still completely relevant to the
> discussion. Women were little more than property then and there.
Still, irrelevant.
Why did you snip the bulk of your irrelevant straw
man?... telling, what?
>
>
> > > Additionally, the quote [which I too have read in my KJSV Bible] says
> > > nothing at all about sex: directly or indirectly.
> >
> > The apologia you offer is off track.
>
> No, my apologia is completely on track and completely valid. Your
> understanding of it is incorrect. Read the Biblical quote again: it says
> nothing about sex of any kind.
What do you think its talking about, a recipe for blueberry muffins?
>
>
> > It might be helpful for you to read the context to get a
> > handle on what "to know them" means in biblical terms.
>
> I have read it and have had it explained from written sources and ministers
> in different denominational churches. Again, "to know" in this instance
> means "to understand"... to have more information about. Sex is not a part
> of this passage.
Baaloony.
>
>
> > Pay particular attention to Lot's pleading against the
> > wickedness of the deed the sodomites would perform
> > on the hapless visitors. <snip>
>
> "The sodomites" --some portion of the men from the city of Sodom [no sexual
> practices stated]-- were trying to find out who the strangers were, that's
> all. Again, sex was not part of the story.
Riiight, the story is about how flour and water makes paste.
You keep snipping relevant parts of my replies. That's dishonest.
>
>
> > 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known
> > man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do
> > ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men
> > do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the
> > shadow of my roof.'
>
> Yeah, it really makes Lot out to be such a righteous father for offering his
> daughters up. Oh, and later on his daughters got him drunk and jumped into
> bed with him, during which he got them pregnant. Such really wholesome
> family Biblical values demonstrated here, don't you think?
Lot and his daughters are not held up as moral examples but
exactly the opposite. If Lot were a 'wholesome family' man,
he wouldn't have been living in Sodom in the first place. He
was spared not for his sake but for Abraham's. The moral
of the story is: good does not survive well in the midst of evil.
>
>
> Man, what a story!... supernatural visitors, curious townspeople, suggested
> heterosexual gang rape, double incest and even a little sci-fi [Lot's wife
> vaporized by the explosion of Sodom... once thought in some scientific
> quarters to have been due to a meteorite air-burst over the city]. Who needs
> weird or X-rated movies when you can read it all in the Bible!
A fine example of fundie atheist disingenuous mistranslation..
>
>
> > > So the assertion it's
> > > [exclusively] done by male homosexuals is incorrect.
> >
> > No such assertion did I make.
>
> Yes you did...
Cite my words?... I'll wait.
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:14:39 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > >A good word for male "gays" is "sodomites".
>
> > I don't think any sane individual would consider sticking a
> > broom handle, etc. into an anus is "sexual intercourse".
>
> Me neither. What those policemen in NY did to that poor man was grotesquely
> wrong. Yet that horrific incident had nothing to do with sex [hetero or
> homo] and everything to do with violence. Why bring it up?
Fine piece of back-tracking.
>
>
> > > Assuming you're an adult [and regardless of your sexual orientation]
> what
> > > you do "in your bedroom" with other consenting adults is your business:
> it's
> > > not mine, not The Community's, not The Church's... yes?
> >
> > Only so long as not discovered. Still, abomination having
> > been done, it is usually paid for in one way or another.
>
> Then, by your definition "so long as not discovered", what consenting adults
> do in their bedroom makes no difference, because it is no one else's
> business.
No. Without witnesses it is merely no one else's direct knowledge.
It still makes a difference in the lives of the miscreants and the
innocents they adversely affect.. Their secluded perversions
fuel the degenerate behavior they exhibit beyond the bedroom.
>
>
> > Its better to not have community standards?
>
> What I do or don't do in my bedroom is not this community's business, nor
> vice versa. What you do or don't do is likewise not the community' business,
> nor vice versa. Neither you nor I set 'moral/religious sexual policy between
> consenting adults of any sexual orientation' [my phrase] because it's not
> our business.
If you want a "safe and sane world" it certainly is our business.
>
>
> > I suppose murder is not violent?
>
> I sure as hell don't make that supposition.
>
> > What of the "he-man, masculine dominance" argument you used back up the
> page?
>
> I made it in reference to the overwhelmingly male-dominated society during
> 'biblical times' and its consequent mis-understanding in relation to some
> contemporary religious mis-concepts of homosexuality. That's what.
>
> > In any event, willfully spreading deadly plague is murder.
>
> Yep, sure is. But, ummm... is our subject now about a combination of disease
> control and the law?
Yep, this part of the exchange is about sodomites and their partners
in crime, who by co-opting the law in order to willfully block the most
fundamental anti plague health measures, ensure proliferation of the
AIDS plague and consequently the murder of millions of innocents.
And, for what?... the preservation by murderous effete thugs of the
AIDS cash cow.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Nev wrote:
> Hey, good morning, Roy! Well, here we go again...
>
> > It also says nothing about Seattle. By your reasoning I
> > guess the sodomite community on Capitol Hill is biblically
> > free and clear. Try harder.
>
> "The sodomite community on Capitol Hill"????
In Seattle.
>
>
> Oh! My!! God!!!
Now you're on the right track.
>
>
> Congratulations, Roy: you got me good. I really don't remember the last time
> I laughed so hard for so long. Funny, funny stuff! Man... get off this
> newsgroup and go audition as a religious commedian. You have the gift.
> You'll make millions.
Nothing to 'getting you good'.
>
>
> > Why did you snip the bulk of your irrelevant straw
> > man?... telling, what?
>
> You must be new to USENET discussion groups. People frequently include all
> previous material in their replys, which thus add up and up and up until the
> replys are unmanageably long and hard to follow. I snip to make my responses
> to yours easier to navigate through.
Riight.
> No one says you have to do it.
Thanks.
>
>
> And besides, I happen to like 'irrelevant straw men'. Some of them are great
> card players, too.
I'm sure they take you to the cleaners often.
>
>
> > > Read the Biblical quote again: it says
> > > nothing about sex of any kind.
> >
> > What do you think its talking about, a recipe for blueberry muffins?
>
> Sure! They're really good this time of year, especially on these colder
> mornings.
They warm your buns?
>
>
> > > I have read it and have had it explained from written sources and
> ministers
> > > in different denominational churches. Again, "to know" in this instance
> > > means "to understand"... to have more information about. Sex is not a
> part
> > > of this passage.
> >
> > Baaloony.
>
> Ah... then all the sources and the ministers are making it up, yes? By
> golly, they must be covert homosexuals. Yes, yes that's the only possible
> explanation.
No. That's one explanation.
> No, wait... *I* made it all up.
You said it.
>
>
> > > "The sodomites" --some portion of the men from the city of Sodom [no
> sexual
> > > practices stated]-- were trying to find out who the strangers were,
> that's
> > > all. Again, sex was not part of the story.
> >
> > Riiight, the story is about how flour and water makes paste.
>
> No, it's about blueberry muffins.
Now you're getting it.
>
>
> > You keep snipping relevant parts of my replies. That's dishonest.
>
> It has nothing to do with honesty or dishonesty. See my 'snipping' comment
> above.
See my comment to your 'comment' above.
>
>
> > > weird or X-rated movies when you can read it all in the Bible!
> >
> > A fine example of fundie atheist disingenuous mistranslation.
>
> Oh, but it gets better! All sorts of neat weird stuff in the Bible: wheels
> within wheels in the sky [Ezekiel], dragons and Heavenly warfare [various],
> dry bones raising up, parthenogenic births... great reading! Let me
> recommend it to you.
I should explain to you tghat the only authority as
far as I'm concerned is The Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy}. It is tghe word of God.
All the rest of everything else ever written are the
words of fallible men.
>
>
> > > > No such assertion did I make.
> > >
> > > Yes you did...
> >
> > Cite my words?... I'll wait.
>
> I did, in the response prior to this last night. You must have missed it, so
> go back and read it again.
You cite them if you have them... which of course you don't.
>
>
> > > > I don't think any sane individual would consider sticking a
> > > > broom handle, etc. into an anus is "sexual intercourse".
> > >
> > > Me neither. What those policemen in NY did to that poor man was
> grotesquely
> > > wrong. Yet that horrific incident had nothing to do with sex [hetero or
> > > homo] and everything to do with violence. Why bring it up?
> >
> > Fine piece of back-tracking.
>
> Thanks. Remember, you brought up the broom handle incident to be begin with.
Irrelevant.
>
>
> > No. Without witnesses it is merely no one else's direct knowledge.
> > It still makes a difference in the lives of the miscreants and the
> > innocents they adversely affect.
>
> Yeah, for those police it's called jail time.
You do love your straw men.
>
>
> > the degenerate behavior they exhibit beyond the bedroom.
>
> Of which I have no information on, and can thus make no assumptions.
Hmmm.
> Hmmm...
> feeding into my doubtlessly perverted interests [must be a 'closet gay']...
Revealing.
>
> exactly what DO they do "beyond the bedroom?"
Aside from sodomizing each other in public?... You
do have access to the media, don't you?
>
>
> > > Neither you nor I set 'moral/religious sexual policy between
> > > consenting adults of any sexual orientation' [my phrase] because it's
> not
> > > our business.
> >
> > If you want a "safe and sane world" it certainly is our business.
>
> Oh, so the sexual practices of commited, loving, caring, responsible
> heterosexual adults is no ones business [especially the 'community'], but
Didn't say it... don't believe it.
>
> the sexual practices of \
> commited, loving, caring responsible homosexual
> adults is just the reverse.
Oxymoron.
> .. and all because of seven snippets of verse
> scattered throughout the Bible like afterthoughts...
In your dreams.
> each hyper-magnified,
> pontificated over and blown wildly and irrationally out of proportion by
> lock-step religious twits. Yes?
In your dreams.
>
>
> > > Yep, sure is. But, ummm... is our subject now about a combination of
> disease
> > > control and the law?
> >
> > Yep, this part of the exchange is about sodomites and their partners
> > in crime, who by co-opting the law in order to willfully block the most
> > fundamental anti plague health measures, ensure proliferation of the
> > AIDS plague and consequently the murder of millions of innocents.
> > And, for what?... the preservation by murderous effete thugs of the
> > AIDS cash cow.
>
> Never mind that AIDS is spread by other means. But those doesn't figure in,
> do they? They're 'irrelevant' [hey... what a great catch-all response! I
> must start using it]
I see, in your deluded mind you've achieved the
separation of cause and effect.
>
>
> But you know, don't you Roy, that all of those other ways of serving the
> AIDS cash cow were concepted and spread by those nasty old non-Christian
> fags at Gay World Domination Headquarters Central up on Capitol Hill. I've
> seen the place. It's painted in glittery pink camoflage and covered with
> jock straps and feathered boas. Disgusting.
Now you're getting it.
>
>
> My heavens, what a conspiracy! Nuke the damned place out of existence! Make
> the World safe for good heterosexual Christians! Onward [straight] Christian
> Soldiers! Do God's holy [straight] business on Earth! Rid us all of the
> insidious Gay menace! Lock up your wives and daughters...? Whoops. Sorry.
> [clears throat] Lock up your sons and yourselves! No one is safe! God save
> us from the Queers!
Now you're getting it.
>
>
> NOOOOOOoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Now you're4 backsliding.
>
>
> Well, wait... the Gay Headquarters kitchen DOES make excellent blueberry
> muffins. It's how they finance their abominable anti-heterosexual,
> non-Christian research, you know.
If you say so.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Nev wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
>
> > I should explain to you tghat the only authority as
> > far as I'm concerned is The Five Books of Moses
> > (Genesis - Deuteronomy}. It is tghe word of God.
> > All the rest of everything else ever written are the
> > words of fallible men.
>
> Are you Christian [which title describes next to nothing: there are over
> 30,800 denominations of it world-wide, so be specific if you claim it],
> Jewish, something else or 'independent'? Your 'sig' suggests Judaism. If so,
> orthodox?
>
> I've attended and served in 'mainstream' United Church of Christ, Methodist
> and Lutheran churches for some 50 years: none of which [I hastily add] were
> the "First Church of Adrenaline" or the "Assembly of Pound the Table and
> Shout Hallelujah". I would've run screaming in the opposite direction.
> Whenever I go to any church or read my Bible I don't first check my brain in
> at the door.
>
> To be a Christian [or of any other world religion, for that matter] doesn't
> relieve the individual of the responsibility of thinking, questioning and
> even doubting. Furthermore, God/Allah/Great Spirit/etc. is not a Celestial
> Bank Account for which any religion can claim Preferred Customer status.
>
> I've also taken college and church sponsored classes in comparative religion
> [during which --not knowing any different beforehand-- I was thunderstruck
> by how fundamentally similar they are in so many ways]. I was peripherally
> involved for about three years with the Washington State Interfaith Council,
> and through them had a 'bit part' with the 1992 visit of HH The Dalai Lama
> when he spoke at St Mark's cathedral in Seattle: standing room only. Good
> speaker... very intelligent and compassionate. I read one of his thoughtful
> books a few years ago "Ethics For The New Millennium" and highly recommend
> it to anyone, since it's clearly for a general audience.
>
> You?
I am a Jew with no belief in man made, organized or disorganized
religion. The Five Books of Moses is my sole guide. Curiously, I
am a "Kohan" ( descended Aaronic Priest), or so "Judaism"
stipulates. Not so curiously, the major objections to my existence
come from the practitioners of that faith.
It took me many years of hard study to overcome the confusing
mixture of traditional religious pressure, and the secular
indoctrination I received in the so called public "education" system,
before I realized that the presuppositions I was given to work with
lacked credibility.
My belief in the God of Moses did not come miraculously but
in hard won stages, in battles with the reasoning of men, past
and present. My "epiphany", so to speak, thus my freedom
finally, to test the vain proclamations of men against the sure
word of God, came when once I understood that "reason" is
not what it has us believe it is, that 'it lies, with good reason'.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> -snips-
>
> > Some examples from the discipline that show one species
> > evolving into another?
>
> You need to provide, first, your definition of "species".
>
> Numerous examples of speciation exist in the literature but
> to avoid terminology quibbles, your working definition of
> "species" is first required.
Do you have a working definition?
"Strange Problems with the Word "Species"
"One day, Plato defined humankind as the two-legged animal without
feathers.
The next day, they say, Diogenes dropped by the Academy with a plucked
chicken."
Centuries ago, no one thought that there was a problem. To decide what
an
"antelope" was, you went out and caught a handsome one, and stuffed it.
From then on, everything that looked like that was an antelope. If you
caught
one that looked a bit different, well, you had caught a defective one.
But typology doesn't work for cabbage, Brussels sprouts and kale, all of
which
can be easily crossbred with each other. These are interfertile because
they
(and cauliflower and broccoli) were all bred by humans from the weed
known
as "mustard".
Clearly, we need a definition based on reproduction, not looks. We could
say: a
species is group of creatures that breed together. But that doesn't deal
with
creatures that breed unsuccessfully, creatures that breed if painted,
and creatures
that breed only in zoos.
Another definition is that two groups of creatures are the same species
if, in the
wild, there is significant gene flow between the two gene pools. This
wording pretty
well fixes all of problems listed above. But does it address the
question of ring
species? And let's not even talk about bacteria and viruses. "
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/speciation_def.html
>
>
> > We'll discus it when you provide an example of one species
> > evolving/transforming/changing into another.
>
> Not a problem. Numerous examples can be provided. But
> first we need your definition so we might adequately judge
> whether a claimed new species meets the definitional requirements
> of being both a new and a different "species".
>
> "Species" is largely a human construct so we need to know
> how you construct it.
Actually, since you're providing the examples we'll need
to know [your] definition of species.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
