Elton john wants....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
coemgen said:
There may not be a straight gene, but the design of the penis and vagina working together for various reasons seems to be evidence of something.

(BTW, I know that sounds harsh. Not meant to be. Just trying to make a point.)



this is world-is-flat thinking.

but i do take the point -- i have nothing against heterosexuality. it's a wonderful thing. i'm the product of heterosexuality. we need heterosexuals and penises in vaginas in order to create more homosexuals. yay penises and vaginas!

but that's not *all* penises and vaginas are for, and if we want to talk design, then why did God put the male G-spot, the prostate, in the anus?

just asking is all.
 
AEON said:


Ummm - Irvine...no need to post an answer to this - you know, of how well "A" fits into "B" - but the same could be said for just about anything you want to put in "B."

If you can't see that man and woman are the natural order of things - then you'll never see it because you don't want to see it. I suppose if I were in your shoes I would feel the same way as you do. I suppose...


white people with white people, black people with black people, asians with asians ... mixed-race coupling is not the natural order of things.
 
Irvine511 said:



white people with white people, black people with black people, asians with asians ... mixed-race coupling is not the natural order of things.

That is a pretty big leap in your logic.

Comparing inter-racial unions with gay unions is not the same ball park - it's not even the same league - it's not even the same sport (to paraphrase Jules).
 
Irvine511 said:


and if we want to talk design, then why did God put the male G-spot, the prostate, in the anus?

just asking is all.

Heroine feels good, from what I've read - it feels unbelievable good - but that doesn't mean it is good for you.
 
AEON said:


Well - I don't have a problem with women teachers or preachers. If they speak in Spirit and in Truth - that is all that really matters. Many denominations disagree on this issue - I guess I am a little more "liberal" regarding this.
This is my whole point. You use Paul's words to justify your stance on homosexuality, saying he's speaking God's words, yet when it doesn't suit your beliefs you ignore his words. As a literalist you should be more consistent.

AEON said:


What do YOU think Paul means? Do you think he only wants men to teach? If so, why? Or do you think that perhaps having women teachers in these early churches would have caused too much of an uproar? But in the fullness of time - perhaps women teachers would be considered no big deal?

I believe lots of Paul's own biases and beliefs were written into his letters. Most obvious were his views on marriage, women, and homosexuality. I believe Paul was still stuck in Levitical law.


AEON said:


There is a difference between descriptive writing and prescriptive writing. I think Paul is being descriptive. Why? Because I don't see how women teachers goes against God's eternal law. Whereas homosexuality still falls under adultery.

Read it again, Paul preaches it as if it's law.

And obviously "because I don't see how women teachers goes against God's eternal law" doesn't work because you couldn't show me one once of evidence the logic behind why homosexuality goes against His law. If marriage was allowed it wouldn't be adultery. You are using backward logic and contradicting yourself. Be careful.
 
AEON said:


Heroine feels good, from what I've read - it feels unbelievable good - but that doesn't mean it is good for you.

Heroine can also kill you. Poor analogy.

Never heard of anyone dying from an orgasm.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

If marriage was allowed it wouldn't be adultery. You are using backward logic and contradicting yourself. Be careful.

I think it makes perfect sense. Adultery is any sex outside of marriage. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore, sex between two men is adultery. (ad infinitum ad nauseam). Adultery is against God’s eternal moral law. To me it is that simple.

Teaching in church was both a cultural and ceremonial “law.” They are for a specific place and time. Like wearing shorts and going barefoot to a seaside service.

I use Paul's words because I believe (as do most all other Christians) he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you feel he has put his own agenda into the letters - that is your right. Personally, I've learned to trust Paul's writings and I see why they have changed the world. He is second only to Jesus Christ in influence.

When I read Paul's letters I see a man devoting his entire life to saving others - who many times DID change customs and ceremonial laws - and a man who gave up his own life only to share the love of Christ. Please forgive me if I give the man a little credit and think that it is unfair to cast off his writings as "homophobic" and “misogynistic."
 
Last edited:
verte76 said:


Is this a reference to AIDS?

BVS said he never heard of anyone dying from an orgasm. I think it is safe to say that many people have.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

I believe Paul was still stuck in Levitical law.


No offense, but this statement shows how little you know the New Testament. Paul was RADICAL in his defiance of Levitical Law.

Seriously BVS - you have made some sweeping statements that could easily be understood by skimming through the Book of Acts or by actually (I dare say) reading Paul's letters.

I am just curious - Since I know you are not the biggest fan of Christianity - which moral view do you actually support?
 
AEON said:


BVS said he never heard of anyone dying from an orgasm. I think it is safe to say that many people have.

This answer is such bullshit. Was it the orgasm that killed them? No.

Man, do some research...:|
 
AEON said:


I think it makes perfect sense. Adultery is any sex outside of marriage. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore, sex between two men is adultery. (ad infinitum ad nauseam). Adultery is against God’s eternal moral law. To me it is that simple.
That's the most backward logic. It's only adultery because they can't marry. YOUR definition of marriage is man and woman. So you are forcing any homosexual relationship to be adultery. It's that simple.

AEON said:

Teaching in church was both a cultural and ceremonial “law.” They are for a specific place and time. Like wearing shorts and going barefoot to a seaside service.
Where does Paul say that? Why would Paul even mention it? Why would Paul speaking about cultural law make it into the Bible. Obviously many many theologians disagree with you.


AEON said:

I use Paul's words because I believe (as do most all other Christians) he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you feel he has put his own agenda into the letters - that is your right. Personally, I've learned to trust Paul's writings and I see why they have changed the world. He is second only to Jesus Christ in influence.

Inspired doesn't mean infallible.
AEON said:

When I read Paul's letters I see a man devoting his entire life to saving others - who many times DID change customs and ceremonial laws - and a man who gave up his own life only to share the love of Christ. Please forgive me if I give the man a little credit and think that it is unfair to cast off his writings as "homophobic" and “misogynistic."

I admire Paul, but I know he was human and his own beliefs may have affected his writing. This is part of human nature. No reason for this tone.
 
AEON said:


No offense, but this statement shows how little you know the New Testament. Paul was RADICAL in his defiance of Levitical Law.
Not all of it. I believe Paul quotes Levitical law more than anyone else in the NT, I'd have to check on that, for it's been awhile since I did that study. I'm not saying he believed you had to still uphold it, but he carried over some of it's thinking. Are you really a third year seminary student?

AEON said:


Seriously BVS - you have made some sweeping statements that could easily be understood by skimming through the Book of Acts or by actually (I dare say) reading Paul's letters.

I am just curious - Since I know you are not the biggest fan of Christianity - which moral view do you actually support?

Speaking of generalizations, when did I say I'm not a fan of Christianinity? I have studied the Bible a lot longer than you. I just don't happen to be a literalist. I think the Bible was inspired but by no means infallible. You may find this shocking but many Christians feel the same way.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm confused, how does Paul's battle prove he was only referring to upholding a cultural law?

Did you read the link? I know it is only wikipedia but it does provide a decent summary.
 
AEON said:


Did you read the link? I know it is only wikipedia but it does provide a decent summary.

Yes, that's why I asked the question. How does that website prove that Paul knew he was only upholding cultrual law and not God's law by saying that?:huh:
 
AEON said:
Paul was RADICAL in his defiance of Levitical Law.

I quite agree. That's why I hate it when people selectively start quoting from Mosaic Law to denigrate gays.
 
AEON said:
Comparing inter-racial unions with gay unions is not the same ball park - it's not even the same league - it's not even the same sport (to paraphrase Jules).

And, yet, 40 years ago, interracial marriage was as taboo as the idea of gay marriage. It's most certainly in the same league.

What kills me is that people don't quite appreciate how many longstanding cultural traditions were broken in the 20th century regarding civil rights. Too many people now just read a history book and take it for granted. That aside, I still see much of the monolithic "this is how it has always been, so it cannot change" kind of thinking that racists and anti-Semites held back then in many of the posts here.
 
AEON said:
Heroine feels good, from what I've read - it feels unbelievable good - but that doesn't mean it is good for you.

Riiiiight. To borrow a quote from you...

"It's not even the same league - it's not even the same sport."

I am quite sick and tired of all these implications equating homosexuality with mental illness or addiction. That may fly with the Christian Taliban convention, but it doesn't fly with me or with science.
 
And just to refer to the first post...

If Elton John could read the totality of this discussion, he would most certainly reassert that religion should be banned. None of you are helping your case.
 
coemgen said:
I could care less what Elton John thinks. He writes crap music. :wink:

And most homosexuals could give a flying fuck about Christianity and their flat-earth view of the world.

That's what a sad state that Christianity is in. The entire concept of "Christian love" has become synonymous with a self-masturbatory heterosexual supremacist right-wing hate group.

You might not see it, but that's what outsiders see.
 
Ormus said:


And most homosexuals could give a flying fuck about Christianity and their flat-earth view of the world.

That's what a sad state that Christianity is in. The entire concept of "Christian love" has become synonymous with a self-masturbatory heterosexual supremacist right-wing hate group.

You might not see it, but that's what outsiders see.

It was a joke, Ormus. Lighten up. :|
 
AEON said:
Funny - I thought it had something to do with a sword and severed heads...

And I bet you think that Christianity was nothing but happiness and smiles in the Dark/Middle Ages. In actuality, the Christianization of Europe spilled plenty of blood. Ask anyone labelled a "heretic."

Iceland was one of the notable exceptions. Wishing to avoid the violent bloodshed that struck the Christianization of Norway and Sweden, they brought it to a vote. The old Norse priestly class certainly would attest to that bloodshed if they could; they were all murdered in an incredibly violent manner.

Of course, this violence is certainly glossed over by most cursory mentions of Christian history. But, after all, only chieftains were generally converted directly. Getting their tribe to go along with it wasn't always so easy, which led to civil war, and neighboring tribes either refused completely or joined a "heretical" denomination, which also led to war between tribes.

But hey...go right ahead and think Christianity is inherently better than Islam in history.
 
Christianity's made plenty of mistakes in history. That doesn't negate the faith of both of its most devoted followers. Just because certain people do certain things in the name of Christ, doesn't mean their Christian.
 
Ormus said:


My apologies, but I don't find this thread to be all that funny.

I don't either. It's tough to talk about. I know it's probably more tough for you, and I do appoligize if you've been hurt. I think some of us try to slip in a couple jokes to take the sting out of it a bit. No harm meant.

I'm actually all for ending this thread. We could go in circles forever. Believe me. We see this issue from two different perspectives -- our own. We're in debate mode, instead of understanding mode.

There's two things that aren't being represented in this thread. First, you, Irvine and others who may be gay are more valuable than your sexuality. Those of us who are talking about all of this are more valuable than our perspectives. It's easy to get caught up in these big issues and forget the people behind it. I think we've all hurt each other, intentional or not. (I, for one, am tired of being called hateful for simply having an opposing view.)

Also, you're right. I agree with you on something! There's more to Chrisitanity than talking about what God's against. It's easy to forget that when talking about a single topic.

I'm fine with being the first to lay down my guns. (Is this a sin in FYM?)

love and peace,

coemgen :hug:
 
AEON said:


BVS said he never heard of anyone dying from an orgasm. I think it is safe to say that many people have.

Michael Hutchence died attempting auto erotic asphyxiation, in which choking to the point of unconsciousness heightens sexual pleasure.

In addition, the combination of Viagra or other potency enhancing drugs with nitrates (most commonly amyl nitrate or "poppers") can cause severe hypotension and sudden death.

But most commonly, it's not all that unusual for men to suffer fatal heart attacks during or immediately after sexual intercourse. Especially if the relationship is extramarital or involves prostitutes. The cardiac events can be attributed to increased stress combined with an underlying etiology of uncontrolled hypertension or heart disease.


The professor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom