Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

February 16, 2007

(I like that name, my middle name is )

Celibacy, a Roman Catholic doctrine, is not in Scripture. Yes, some men

like have a gift in which they remain unmarried to accomplish what the Lord

wanted him to do. was married. There are verses in the gospels where Jesus

heals 's mother-in-law. But NO man is forbidden in Scripture to NOT marry.

Thats false doctrine.

Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

On 2/16/07, jesusfirst369 <jesusfirst369@...> wrote:

> Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you

> protective of your own sexual orientation? But IT IS COMMON SENSE

> that sex is meant between a man and a woman. If we all went " homo " ,

> our species would die off. It is abnormal because if we all did it we

> COULDN'T REPRODUCE. One man, one woman, the perfect fit.

Our species would die out if we all became celibate priests too.

Didn't St. wish that all could be chaste, but allowed that

marriage was good, to save them from burning with passion?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

---------------------------------

Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

February 16, 2007

and Gene,

answer me one simple question, if you can without being offended or calling me a

bigot, or using my faith against me....

if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the human species,

then why are we all not the same sex? In other words. if it really doesn't

matter...why are there females and males? What is the reason for the

distinction between the two?

Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

>

> ,

> Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you

> protective of your own sexual orientation?

As I mentioned in another post in this thread, yes, I am a gay man.

> But IT IS COMMON SENSE that sex is meant between a man and a

> woman. If we all went " homo " , our species would die off. It

> is abnormal because if we all did it we COULDN'T REPRODUCE.

> One man, one woman, the perfect fit.

All you're doing there is extrapolating out to a ridiculous and

unrealistic extreme and basing your judgment on that. One can just as

easily condemn bus drivers because if everyone were a bus driver,

there'd be no one to grow our food, and humanity would starve to

death. It is therefore COMMON SENSE that bus drivers are evil!

From a rational and realistic perspective, it is clear that survival

of our species does not require that every individual human reproduce.

That a few percent of humans, for whatever reason, do not reproduce

has done absolutely nothing to hinder our success as a species.

Additionally, homosexuality does not equate sterility. There are lots

of homosexual men and women who have taken part in procreation, and

not always via heterosexual coitus.

February 16, 2007

,

Sorry, I had no idea you were gay. I thought you had some friends that

were gay or something but......anyways. I apologize. Since we're both biased, it

will do no good to argue and argue over this. I don't want us to keep bickering

at each other for no reason. Thanks for the discussion. God bless and I hope

your safe in Christ.

---------------------------------

Don't be flakey. Get for Mobile and

always stay connected to friends.

February 16, 2007

You have a point. Sex is not EXACTLY a " mental choice " ; it's more

" mental arousal " . But here's what I believe according to MY religious beliefs.

Homosexuality is a CHOICE. There telling us nowadays that people are born with a

desire for the same sex. Are people born with a desire to commit adultery or

fornication? Yes, all men are. Therefore, all men have the capability, IF THEY

GIVE IN TO THE FLESH, to commit adultery, fornication, sodomy(homosexuality),

lasciviousness, etc. We are all sinners. NONE of us are perfect by any means. A

homosexual or not, we are all equal in the eyes of God. The difference is

whether one come's to Christ or not.

Budda is in a tomb. Muhammed is in a tomb. Weston A. Price is dead.

Every primitive that ate a " perfect " diet eventually died. But Christ rose from

His tomb. Five hundred witnesses saw him alive with holes in His hands and feet.

And now that He is alive, he is offering salvation to ALL who will believe. Much

love.

---------------------------------

Never miss an email again!

Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

February 16, 2007

Gene, I don't know what mail program you use.

But I read this group on the web and your posts are unreadable

because i can't distinguish your thoughts from others'.

Just letting you know.

Connie

> >> > I think that you know what is meant, and you either think that

> >> > intolerance of women, homosexuals, blacks, Martians, whomever,

is a

> >> > very bad thing or you don¹t. It appears that you don¹t.

> >

> > ³Gene,

> >

> > Actually, I'm tolerant of just about anything that doesn't cause

harm

> > to someone else. It's OK with me if someone wants to eat their

own

> > flesh or commit suicide. Maybe I'm too tolerant ²

> >

> > Well, I must confess that I¹m constantly tempted by the former,

and not the

> > latter...perhaps that¹s abnormal.

> >

> > I believe that intolerance of people because of who they are

causes tremendous

> > harm in this world. The dehumanization of people because of their

race, their

> > sex, their sexual orientation, their beliefs, etc, has caused

tremendous harm

> > physical, cultural, psychological, and many multisyllabic words

that I¹m too

> > drunk to spell.

> >

> > I think that there is a fundamental difference between

intolerance of this,

> > and intolerance of this kind of intolerance.

> >

> > ³Just because I tolerate something doesn't mean I think it's

right or

> > that it's what I would choose to do. ³

> >

> > Well, not that you would choose to do it, but if you think it¹s

wrong, what

> > good comes of tolerating it? What if you think that it¹s very

wrong, and

> > causes tremendous harm? What good comes of tolerating it?

> >

> > ³ Sexual preferences among

> > consenting adults or even sexual abstinence certainly causes no

harm.

> > In fact, I see a benefit from more sex that does not result in

> > procreation, because there's getting to be way too many of us on

this

> > planet to support a sustainable healthy lifestyle and environment

for

> > the masses. To avoid more pollution, pestilence, famine, murder,

and

> > war, we definitely need to find more civil ways to limit

population.

> > Reducing procreation is a big plus here.²

> >

> > Well, coincidentally, my desire to eat my own flesh is a half

hearted attempt

> > to limit the population. Not in the sense that it¹s suicidal, but

since I¹m

> > not married and procreating, and don¹t feel like suicide or

murder, eating my

> > own flesh is the best I can do.

> >

> > ³Tolerance helps to minimize the murder and war parts too!²

> >

> > Well, practically, being intolerant of bigotry doesn¹t do

anything to increase

> > murder and war if you are not inciting people to violence and

war. So, I get

> > to have my flesh and eat it too.

> >

> > ³As far as the original topic of diet and sexual preference, my

own

> > uneducated GUESS is that diet might at most have a minor

influence.

> > But I have no evidence. Perhaps some individuals might want to

seek

> > out a diet that enhances their sexual preference - if there is

such a

> > diet. I see no harm in trying to determine which type of dietary

> > factors might favor which type of sexual preference, if this is

even

> > possible.²

> >

> > Well, this obviously falls into the general category of diet

enhancing one¹s

> > health, which is a good way to think of it.

> >

> > ³My preference is to find a diet that leads to optimal health.²

> >

> > ah didn¹t I just say that? Well, I guess you hadn¹t read my

reply yet...

> >

> > ³And I think just about everyone would agree that optimal health

> > includes enhanced libido. Especially at my age

> >

> > Well, yes. I think that we generally know when we feel good....

> >

> > I think that the original topic was that you essentially called

me a hypocrite

> > for calling someone who dehumanized homsexuals a bigot. I respect

what you say

> > in this post, but I don¹t see anything to really back up the

previous post.

> >

> > Gene

> >

>

February 16, 2007

--------- Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

>

> >

> > ,

> > Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you

> > protective of your own sexual orientation?

>

> As I mentioned in another post in this thread, yes, I am a gay man.

>

> > But IT IS COMMON SENSE that sex is meant between a man and a

> > woman. If we all went " homo " , our species would die off. It

> > is abnormal because if we all did it we COULDN'T REPRODUCE.

> > One man, one woman, the perfect fit.

>

> All you're doing there is extrapolating out to a ridiculous and

> unrealistic extreme and basing your judgment on that. One can just as

> easily condemn bus drivers because if everyone were a bus driver,

> there'd be no one to grow our food, and humanity would starve to

> death. It is therefore COMMON SENSE that bus drivers are evil!

>

> From a rational and realistic perspective, it is clear that survival

> of our species does not require that every individual human reproduce.

> That a few percent of humans, for whatever reason, do not reproduce

> has done absolutely nothing to hinder our success as a species.

> Additionally, homosexuality does not equate sterility. There are lots

> of homosexual men and women who have taken part in procreation, and

> not always via heterosexual coitus.

>

February 16, 2007

>

> and Gene,

> answer me one simple question, if you can without being

> offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me....

> if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the

> human species, then why are we all not the same sex?

> In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there

> females and males? What is the reason for the distinction

> between the two?

We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce

asexually.

February 16, 2007

lol.....you blow my mind Gene...if there is no God...there can possibly be no

satan...still waiting on your answer for my question

Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hail Satan!

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <jesusfirst369@...>

> ,

> The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God. It says in

> Romans 1:28, " And according as they did not like to retain God in their

> knowledge(homosexuals), God gave them up to a reprobate mind. " Reprobate can

be

> defined as ' a mind void of moral discernment.' I'm not trying to be

> controversial. Homosexuals are equal to fornicators, adulterers, ect. If

someone

> is doing that, they need to come to Christ. It's sexual sin. They need to

come

> to Christ. No matter how " intelligent " someone may be; they are not immune

to

> the flesh(sinful desires). I believe what Weston A. Price found was an

> excellent discovery but I'm sure he didn't want his work to come between

> people's spiritual needs. I know some of those missionaries in his day were

> bringing processed foods to the primitives( and that was stupid) but I'm

sure

> those primitives will be thankful for all eternity for the prized Treasure

that

> the missionaries brought them, Christ.

>

> Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > I don't believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but

> > SPRITUALLY and MENTALLY malnourished.

>

> I can understand how your belief in primitive tribal superstition

> would lead to the belief that homosexuals are spiritually

> malnourished, but what evidence do you have that homosexuals are

> mentally malnourished? After all, some of humankind's greatest

> thinkers and creative giants have been homosexuals.

>

> ---------------------------------

> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> in the Answers Food & Drink Q & A.

>

February 16, 2007

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...>

> Gene, I don't know what mail program you use.

> But I read this group on the web and your posts are unreadable

> because i can't distinguish your thoughts from others'.

>

> Just letting you know.

>

> Connie

Thanks - I often have the same difficulty, especially when drinking.

Yeah - I don't know what the issue is - the posts often come in without this

differentiation, and I put quote marks in...but apparently that doesn't do any

good.

February 16, 2007

,

isn't an asexual person one who has no sex organs?

Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

>

> and Gene,

> answer me one simple question, if you can without being

> offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me....

> if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the

> human species, then why are we all not the same sex?

> In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there

> females and males? What is the reason for the distinction

> between the two?

We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce

asexually.

February 16, 2007

--------- Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

>

> yeah, yeah, yeah.

>

> Hail Satan!

>

> -------------- Original message ----------------------

> From: <jesusfirst369@...>

> > ,

> > The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God. It says in

> > Romans 1:28, " And according as they did not like to retain God in their

> > knowledge(homosexuals), God gave them up to a reprobate mind. " Reprobate

can

> be

> > defined as ' a mind void of moral discernment.' I'm not trying to be

> > controversial. Homosexuals are equal to fornicators, adulterers, ect. If

> someone

> > is doing that, they need to come to Christ. It's sexual sin. They need to

> come

> > to Christ. No matter how " intelligent " someone may be; they are not immune

> to

> > the flesh(sinful desires). I believe what Weston A. Price found was an

> > excellent discovery but I'm sure he didn't want his work to come between

> > people's spiritual needs. I know some of those missionaries in his day

were

> > bringing processed foods to the primitives( and that was stupid) but I'm

> sure

> > those primitives will be thankful for all eternity for the prized Treasure

> that

> > the missionaries brought them, Christ.

> >

> > Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > I don't believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but

> > > SPRITUALLY and MENTALLY malnourished.

> >

> > I can understand how your belief in primitive tribal superstition

> > would lead to the belief that homosexuals are spiritually

> > malnourished, but what evidence do you have that homosexuals are

> > mentally malnourished? After all, some of humankind's greatest

> > thinkers and creative giants have been homosexuals.

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> > in the Answers Food & Drink Q & A.

> >

February 16, 2007

> >

> > and Gene,

> > answer me one simple question, if you can without being

> > offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me....

> > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the

> > human species, then why are we all not the same sex?

> > In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there

> > females and males? What is the reason for the distinction

> > between the two?

>

> We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce

> asexually.

>

February 16, 2007

gotcha..and thanks

Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

> >

> > and Gene,

> > answer me one simple question, if you can without being

> > offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me....

> > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the

> > human species, then why are we all not the same sex?

> > In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there

> > females and males? What is the reason for the distinction

> > between the two?

>

> We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce

> asexually.

>

February 16, 2007

,

> answer me one simple question, if you can without being offended or calling

> me a bigot, or using my faith against me....

> if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the human

> species, then why are we all not the same sex? In other words. if it really

> doesn't matter...why are there females and males? What is the reason for

> the distinction between the two?

From a strictly biological perspective, sexuality allows for a greater

degree of genetic diversity within the population, which allows it to

accomodate changes in the environment in a way that will ensure at

least some of the members of the population survive those changes.

The drawback to sexuality is that it is more resource-intensive

(finding and attracting a mate for example) and tends to take longer

than asexual reproduction. Because there are benefits and drawbacks,

there are species that produce sexually and others that reproduce

sexually.

God meant us to live in communities, not as individuals, and evolution

occurs at the population level, not the level of the individual or of

the mating pair. From either perspective or from one that integrates

both, there are niches within the community besides reproduction that

further the survival of the species and community. Many of those are

social. The most obvious physiological evidence that God designed it

this way and evolution proved it adaptive is menopause -- humans and

whales are the only two species to my knowledge that have a stage of

life that involves purposeful reproductive incapacitation. This

allows the grandmas to play a supportive and important role in the

community that is different from the role mothers play. Societies,

whether they encourage or discourage homosexuality or remain neutral

to it, have always produced and always will produce certain

professions for non-reproducing members that allow them to contribute

to the good of the society and its success. Such roles include

shamans, eunuchs and priests. In our society, we have a great

diversity of roles that allows many people to contribute to the

survival of the society regardless of reproduction. Rulers,

technocrats, business people, doctors, scientists, artists and so on

can be reproducers or non-reproducers. If they reproduce, they play

an additional role but the role that they play in support of the

survival and quality of the society is independent.

If every single member of the society filled a non-reproducing role,

the society would collapse. Likewise, if women were menopausal from

birth, the society would collapse. However, we still benefit from

having celibate priests and grandmothers because there is a natural

balance that precludes the non-reproducing stages of life or community

niches from becoming dominant over the reproducing niches.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

February 16, 2007

you have a way of explaining things that makes it very easy to understand.

thank you