|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 9:32:53 GMT -5
Someone born with both sexual organs, which is certainly not common, but has been shown in several cases...well.... What would one do in this case? Sure, hecklers, shoot your throughts out... However, I'm looking for a Biblically based answer
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on May 1, 2006 10:03:54 GMT -5
I've been wondering when this was going to come up. "Several cases?" SEVERAL? "About one in every 4,500 babies are born this way, according to Associate Professor Garry Warne, an endocrinologist and hormone specialist at Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne." Quoted from this website: www.kindredspiritlakeside.homestead.com/Intersexuality.htmlNow then. Um... what about them? They're people too... and they should be allowed to pursue their lives and happiness just like everyone else. Do you disagree? I sincerely hope you aren't going to suggest that we should "fix" these people.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 1, 2006 10:12:57 GMT -5
I think they're going to hell.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam/Eve and Eve/Adam.
They simply don't fit inside my narrow worldview.
If God had wanted me to accept things beyond my own simple mind, he wouldn't have given me these blinders.
Morluna, REPENT!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 11:23:28 GMT -5
No Morluna, I don;t think they are not "people"... not at all. I asked a question; I didn't state a comment of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on May 1, 2006 14:16:19 GMT -5
If they're attracted to men, they should go for a man. If a woman, they should go for a woman. As long as they've cleared their hearts and it's truly the natural way they are, then they're fine. But whatever they do, they shouldn't give up their natural orientation for another, no matter the reason.
(paraphrased) "For the men gave up their natural relations with women for other men, and they burned in their lust."
In other words, don't try to be something you weren't meant to be... it's like telling God that he made a mistake...
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 14:31:48 GMT -5
Very good point, hopeful! That's Biblical food to chew on!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 1, 2006 14:32:45 GMT -5
Amen. No man should give up their natural relations with a woman for a man. It is telling God that He made a mistake when a man has sex with another man.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 15:46:36 GMT -5
Josh, a hermaphrodite is neither male nor female; they have both sexual organs. So, who is it that "decides" which sex the individual is? Another question would be: What is the Hermaphrodite himself/herself had no idea? I mean, this is real life and these are valid questions.
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on May 1, 2006 16:10:55 GMT -5
I think this applies (the hecklers will have a field day with this one). I hope this helps.
Mat 19:11-12 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
There are two defferent words for eunuch here... eunouchos Thayer Definition: 1) a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain 1a) in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives the superintendent of the women’s apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs 1b) an emasculated man, a eunuch 1b1) eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Act_8:27-39. 1c) one naturally incapacitated 1c1) for marriage 1c2) begetting children 1d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage Part of Speech: noun masculine
eunouchizō Thayer Definition: 1) to castrate, to neuter a man 2) metaphorically to make one’s self a eunuch, i.e. by abstaining Part of Speech: verb
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on May 1, 2006 16:56:11 GMT -5
Well, I'm going to take your advice and "have a field day with this one."
*cracks knuckles*
Ejuliot, none of what you have just said applies to this situation in the slightest. I am inclined to ignore you on account of your assumption that eunuch = hermaphrodite. Seriously. If you don't know the difference between the two please go Google it. I have better things to do than feed you definitions for such simple terms.
Thumper said:
Do you not realize what you have agreed with? Hopeful said:
Again... just to clarify... "If they're attracted to men, they should go for a man. If a woman, they should go for a woman." Now... I realize we're talking about hermaphrodites here... but I'm pretty sure Hopeful applies that philosophy to all people no matter what their physical sex. As he says here:
So! If heterosexuality comes naturally to you, do it. If homosexuality is natural, do it. If you feel equally or somewhat equally attracted to both sexes, go for either one... are you really telling me you agree with this? Have all of your anti-homosexuality posts prior to this one been a mere joke? Oh... I get it.. you were kidding right? Playing along with the silly fundies? You're not ACTUALLY a bible thumper? Aw, that's cute, good times. *pats on back*
... somehow I think you were just too dense to understand what he was saying here. Yeah. That seems much more likely.
Thumper also said:
What do you mean, who decides? They do, of course! Who else has the right to decide? And in truth I wouldn't say it is a "decision" any more than "choosing" one's orientation is a decision. It's just what comes naturally to you. If they feel like they are female, they can call themselves "she." Likewise, if they identify with maleness, they can call themselves "he." I wouldn't say it's a decision as much as a natural inclination.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 17:16:59 GMT -5
hummmmmm.........homosexuality is "natural"? I don't think so, bubba www.narth.com
|
|
|
Post by valentine on May 1, 2006 17:41:44 GMT -5
To all the "non-hecklers" who just agreed with HopefulHeart: I'm wondering a bit where your intelligence has gone to, unless you've decided to change your minds. Otherwise, you need to REPENT for the sin of inability-to-understand-a-point immediately!
Biblethumper...what was it you said to me and Trekker about using "too many sources"? At least we take the time to actually copy/past relevant information rather than link-and-run. Your circuitous arguments, avoidant behavior and hypocritical debating continue to amaze me.
Repent, Thumper. REPENT.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 17:51:18 GMT -5
Ok, Valentine... it's on Review Of Study: 'Sexual Behavior And Selected Health Measures' By James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD, Psy.D September 19, 2005 - The National Center for Health Statistics released, on September 15, 2005, the results of the study, "Sexual behavior and selected health measures." The data comes from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. The survey contractor was the University Of Michigan's Institute For Social Research and the sample size included 12,517 men and women between the ages of 15-44. The survey was last used back in 1992, so some comparisons and additions were added, particularly sexual activity among teens. The New York Times highlighted the findings in their September 16, 2005, "National Report" section, "Nationwide survey includes data on teenager sex habits: Surprising numbers for same-sex activity. (Pg. A12). The Times highlighted that: "Attitudes on sex are changing, especially among women." The study found: About 4 percent of men and women describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Surprising to the researchers was that 14% of the women ages 18-29 reported having sexual experience with members of the same sex within the past year of the study. They were surprised since the older group, ages 30-44, reported about 10%. The lead researcher, Dr, William Mosher, said that it was significant because usually questions about lifetime experiences are generally higher for the older subjects then younger ones. Among the women, 86% said they were attracted "only to men" and 10% said they were attracted "mostly to men." When they did this survey back in 1992, only 3% said they were "mostly" attracted to men. Over their lifetime, 6% of the men, and 10% of the women reported having sexual experience with a member of the same sex. Nearly 4% of the male study reported having anal sex with another man and 6% admitted to having oral sex with another man at some time in their lives. The study merely shows what we have been discussing for years - that is, sexual behavior is fluid and changeable. This is clearly seen by the study's results on female sexuality. While 14% of the women ages 18-29 reported having sexual experience with members of the same sex within the past year of the study, older women in their lifetime reported the behavior less. The researchers commented that it is more common for women to have same-sex behavior in college (hence, the younger samples). But then after graduation from college, they report the behaviors are less frequent. Additionally, those that had sexual activity with members of the same sex, do not necessary identity as "homosexual."
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on May 1, 2006 18:08:58 GMT -5
Morluna is absolutely correct. I'm sorry that some people's bias on the passage causes them to only see one interpretation.
Biblethumper, it seems you like to believe whatever you read without question.
There's a very big difference between physical attraction to another person and simple attraction to 'getting your rocks off.' A lot of the women in that study would probably fall into what a lot of people refer to as "lesbians until graduation.' Basically, if you drink enough, you'd use a stick if it adequately mimicked intercourse. Or, you could refer to it as 'experimenting.'
Your study does point to the Kensey scale, however. Thanks =)
I would like to point out, however, that the given statistic of %10 for the percentage of homosexuals there are is generally inaccurate - further studies show it's more like 4-6 or so *shrugs*
Try again
Edit: Oh, and btw, that Bible verse doesn't approve of 'experimenting,' nor does it approve of attempting to 'recruit' or 'convert' someone's orientation. This gets interesting when you start taking bisexual people into account... =)
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 18:15:38 GMT -5
No need to try again; NARTH isn't something I type in Google and then just post it's stuff.... I've been following NARTH and it's awesome findings, all verified, many times from the homosexuals and queers *strange people* themselves. NARTH is reputable; possibly not to some, but of course homosexuals and homosexual lovers would never agree with such an awesome organization
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on May 1, 2006 19:04:34 GMT -5
I'm sure you have. Understand, though, that I'm looking at this one report you've posted - if you expected me to magically know more, then... well, you're a witch and we'll burn you ^_- j/k
Looking at this objetively, at best it shows a correlation
*blinks* *looks it over again, then smiles* Well bless your heart, Thumper. Read this part again.
Allow me to phrase it simply: no duh. I can change my Behavior however I want. Like I said, though, that doesn't mean squat for physical attraction. And besides that, just because I Can change my behavior doesn't mean I should. Like the verse says, people shouldn't strive to have unnatural relations. Stick to your orientation, please. For the sake of your soul in this Christian context.
Edit: PS - try again ^_- Your point is moot
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 1, 2006 19:14:51 GMT -5
Yes, sexual behaviour CAN be changed, either in line with Biblical Truth or against. The against part is what makes you burn Remember that. Why? The Bible says so, science says so, medicine says so.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on May 1, 2006 20:07:02 GMT -5
Just because you Can do something doesn't mean you should. We've covered that, though you're ignoring it.
The whole point is to identify what is the Truth. I'd ask you to try to be more constructive
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 1, 2006 22:26:53 GMT -5
Amen. No man should give up their natural relations with a woman for a man. It is telling God that He made a mistake when a man has sex with another man. And what does a hermaphrodite say about God? Are they God's mistakes too? And I concur with Morluna and Hopeful. No need to restate it all. REPENT!
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 1, 2006 22:30:02 GMT -5
Yes, sexual behaviour CAN be changed, either in line with Biblical Truth or against. The against part is what makes you burn Remember that. Why? The Bible says so, science says so, medicine says so. Behavior is not the same as an orientation. You can be homosexual regardless of the fact that you never had homosexual intercourse. You can even be homosexual if you've had heterosexual intercourse. On that track, however, you can be heterosexual and have homosexual intercourse too. If one is still attracted to men, then one is still homosexual, one just doesn't (or doesn't admit to) engage(ing) in homosexual intercourse. If you are unable to differentiate between the orientation and the acts, I don't know how to explain it. If he doesn't do homosexual intercourse, and he goes to heaven, he's still homosexual and has therefore inherited the kingdom of God, yes? Besides which, didn't Jesus say something about lusting in your heart (being tempted) as being just as bad as doing the deed? REPENT!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 2, 2006 8:01:48 GMT -5
I know. Thanks though. I'm from Arkansas but have had my sex education before. I was mentioning that about homosexuals. Some people interpret that verse to mean something else. That some men 'naturally' want to sleep with other men. I guess I should have been more clear.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 2, 2006 8:36:26 GMT -5
Treky, lust and temptation are obviously two concepts which are foreign to you, as you equate them as being one and the same, by saying, "Besides which, didn't Jesus say something about lusting in your heart (being tempted) as being just as bad as doing the deed?"
Lust and temptation are not at all the same, as Scripture makes clear.
Apparently, you've not read mych Scripture, have you?
You may want to turn from your sin and turn TO Jesus Christ; then, and only then, will you have the knowledge of Scriptures that God desires for all of His Children, because then, and only then, you'll have the Holy Spirit to help you understand the Word.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 2, 2006 13:35:48 GMT -5
Treky, lust and temptation are obviously two concepts which are foreign to you, as you equate them as being one and the same, by saying, "Besides which, didn't Jesus say something about lusting in your heart (being tempted) as being just as bad as doing the deed?" Lust and temptation are not at all the same, as Scripture makes clear. Apparently, you've not read mych Scripture, have you? You may want to turn from your sin and turn TO Jesus Christ; then, and only then, will you have the knowledge of Scriptures that God desires for all of His Children, because then, and only then, you'll have the Holy Spirit to help you understand the Word. Ok Bambi, I thought I was being clear enough, but apparently I need to dumb it down some more. I was not saying that lust and temptation were the same thing. Lust is a form of temptation, but temptation is not always associated with lust. Of course, lust is not always sexual. For instance, a lust for power, a lust for life. In this case, however I was using the two to draw a connection between your last arguement and the one of Jesus of Nazareth. You said that your homosexual friend, who does not engage in homosexual intercourse anymore, still felt attraction to persons of the same gender. I quote (from News > Christian T-Shirt Illegal): Yesterday at 3:38PM, reply number 10. That means that he looks with lust at other men. He may not act upon those feelings, but he looks at other men and thinks "dirty" thoughts. From the Bible (NIV), Matthew 5:27-28: Jesus didn't believe that there was a distinction between lusting and doing. That's something to chew on. REPENT!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 2, 2006 14:52:23 GMT -5
Treky, you did so: "lusting in your heart (being tempted)"
Anyway....I'm not about to debate on temptation and lust.
The Bible's view is clear enough; not debateable.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 2, 2006 21:50:43 GMT -5
Treky, you did so: "lusting in your heart (being tempted)" Anyway....I'm not about to debate on temptation and lust. The Bible's view is clear enough; not debateable. How far did you get in elementary school Bambi? As I explained in a painstakingly simple manner, lust is a form of temptation. They are not the same thing. That's sort of like me saying, I went to Seattle by flying (travelling). Flying is a type of travelling, but they aren't the same thing, because you can also travel by boat, train, car, foot, bicycle, subway, helicopter...you get my drift (well, I'm going to assume that this is simple enough for you to grasp, it probably isn't). This isn't about a discussion over lust versus temptation. This is about an orientation versus a behavior, which you brought up above. You have a tell, you know... Whenever you think you are going to lose a debate, everybody can see it. You just withdraw from the debate. End of story. You'll probably start a new thread for this in a day or two, but you'll lose there too. Anyway, you shouldn't do that. By the way, I think you never answered my question: Where are your seven degrees from? What subjects are they in? Don't be modest, degrees are something to be proud of Dr. Bambi. REPENT!
|
|