To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

a reply to: infolurker

Thanks for sharing.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Let's look at it this way, shall we?

As atheists tend to accept evolution, then let's see if evolution has the answer....

For any species to continue it must do so through the biological process of breeding. Some species of plants are intersexed, therefore capable of producing within itself another plant of its own kind. Intersexed people cannot do that because they simply can't breed with themselves.

Mammals are a species that continue through breeding with other mammals of the same kind. (notice something interesting here?)

So from an evolutionary and biological perspective, for humans to continue as a species, humans must follow the same biological processes, because (according to evolutionists) they were evolved with the sexual and reproductive organs for that very purpose.

In the struggle for survival, evolutionists teach that the stronger survive (meaning that the ones who produce the most offspring are the strongest). Therefore, it must stand to reason then that those who are gay must not be the strongest samples of the evolved Homo Sapien species.

If that is the case, then they are not going to contribute to the biological continuance of the Homo Sapien, and therefore, their lines will die out while the rest of the species will continue on.

So maybe evolution messed them up? Maybe they are evolved to be gay and ordained then by nature to limit the population of Homo Sapien?

The species that produces the most offspring...if a member of a species doesn't produce offspring, then they are weaker than the rest of the species group.

True or not?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
As atheists tend to accept evolution, then let's see if evolution has the answer....

When did I ask a question about homosexuality?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: WarminIndy
As atheists tend to accept evolution, then let's see if evolution has the answer....

When did I ask a question about homosexuality?

In your title

To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Really? Come on Indy... the question is clear!

Where are your tassels?

The question is for those that believe Old Testament laws are supposed to be obeyed. The only reason I mentioned homosexuality was because it's one of the things some (but not all) Christians condemn as a sin, and are very outspoken about it. Some of the verses I've seen them quote come from the OT.

Regardless though, the thread technically has nothing to do with homosexuality! I am partly to blame for the confusion, I readily admit that. But I have cleared it up in following posts and ultimately it's clear in the OP.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I realize not all Christians are the same. Some argue that the Old Testament laws were done away with in the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus. This thread specifically addresses those that believe otherwise. The ones that believe the Old Testament laws are still to be followed. The ones that use verses such as Leviticus 20:13 to condemn homosexuals as sinners.

To you I ask, where in God's name are your tassels!?

Hiding behind their religion to disguise their bigotory.
give it ten years it will be such a none story.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Really? Come on Indy... the question is clear!

Where are your tassels?

The question is for those that believe Old Testament laws are supposed to be obeyed. The only reason I mentioned homosexuality was because it's one of the things some (but not all) Christians condemn as a sin, and are very outspoken about it. Some of the verses I've seen them quote come from the OT.

Regardless though, the thread technically has nothing to do with homosexuality! I am partly to blame for the confusion, I readily admit that. But I have cleared it up in following posts and ultimately it's clear in the OP.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I realize not all Christians are the same. Some argue that the Old Testament laws were done away with in the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus. This thread specifically addresses those that believe otherwise. The ones that believe the Old Testament laws are still to be followed. The ones that use verses such as Leviticus 20:13 to condemn homosexuals as sinners.

To you I ask, where in God's name are your tassels!?

In that same quote you offered just now...

The ones that use verses such as Leviticus 20:13 to condemn homosexuals as sinners.

You should maybe have asked about stoning instead if you didn't want it to be about homosexuality, but I suppose it is too late to edit now.

Perhaps maybe you could ask why Christians eat pork and not wear tassles?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Hiding behind their religion to disguise their bigotory.
give it ten years it will be such a none story.

Give it 100 years then the population will be smaller if the gay population increases now.

Evolution, funny thing, isn't it?

But the rest of the species group who were not gay will continue to breed and make babies and religion will continue.

a reply to: WarminIndy

You assume that evolution has a purpose and that things NEED to evolve.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, I mentioned homosexuality. I asked ZERO questions about it.

It's not my fault people have latched onto homosexuality and turned my thread into a debate about it. Am I to blame for those that can't clearly read my OP and understand what point I was getting at? Christian hypocrisy, fyi.

Jesus save me...

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The standard answer to your concern in the OP is that the NT has passages that speak against homosexuality while quoting that passage from Jesus that says he came to replace the old laws. This of course despite the fact that Jesus also explicitly says to uphold traditional Jewish law elsewhere in the bible and never explicitly comes out against homosexuality. Contradictions abound!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

You assume that evolution has a purpose and that things NEED to evolve.

And you assume that science has explained that efficiently to you.

Is it true or not, that within the definition of evolution, that any member of a species group that does not breed is therefore not strong?

Survival of the fittest, that's what evolutionist tell us.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, I mentioned homosexuality. I asked ZERO questions about it.

It's not my fault people have latched onto homosexuality and turned my thread into a debate about it. Am I to blame for those that can't clearly read my OP and understand what point I was getting at? Christian hypocrisy, fyi.

Jesus save me...

The damage is done, you can say it is about Christian hypocrisy all you want, but the one thing you wanted to expose was not hypocrisy about pork or stoning, you specifically mentioned homosexuality.

Unless you didn't intend to consciously, then it is a Freudian Slip.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The standard answer to your concern in the OP is that the NT has passages that speak against homosexuality while quoting that passage from Jesus that says he came to replace the old laws. This of course despite the fact that Jesus also explicitly says to uphold traditional Jewish law elsewhere in the bible and never explicitly comes out against homosexuality. Contradictions abound!

What do you need to be explicit?

Jesus never said anything about driving cars or using the internet either. He never mentioned porn or popcorn or even genocide either.

When He said "and for this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife" means that He was explicitly upholding the OT definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

And there was no NT that Jesus could refer to.

a reply to: WarminIndy

How is ot going to increase? .
The amount of gay folks is around 5% it has been forever And we have a population problem.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I want to know why gay bashing homophobic Christians that passionately condemn homosexuality as something sick and disgusting to God, don't give a rat's ass about other things that their god finds detestable. No Freudian slip. It was absolutely clear. I want to know why they come on here and quote verse after verse trying to share their point of view but never once condemn a single person for not listening to god's other rules.

The ONLY reason I brought homosexuality into it was because it's such a hot button topic to people.

To say, "hey guys, you care so much about homosexuals but don't care about these other, obviously stupid rules, such as wearing tassels."

To drive the point home about cherry picking double standard hypocrisy.

Maybe even make some realize just how dumb some of the things in the Bible are.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

I want to know why gay bashing homophobic Christians that passionately condemn homosexuality as something sick and disgusting to God, don't give a rat's ass about other things that their god finds detestable. No Freudian slip. It was absolutely clear. I want to know why they come on here and quote verse after verse trying to share their point of view but never once condemn a single person for listening to god's other rules.

The ONLY reason I brought homosexuality into it was because it's such a hot button topic to people.

To say, "hey guys, you care so much about homosexuals but don't care about these other, obviously stupid rules, such as wearing tassels."

To drive the point home about cherry picking double standard hypocrisy.

Maybe even make some realize just how dumb some of the things in the Bible are.

Then you shouldn't mind if we discuss it, right?

Cherry picking much yourself?

You cherry picked one "hot button" subject then got upset when we addressed it.

BTW, I am a woman. I am a Christian. I am under no obligation under Jewish law to wear the tzi-tzis because I am a woman. Now, care to discuss that part with me?

BTW, I am also part ethnic Sephardi, care to discuss that one with me also?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The standard answer to your concern in the OP is that the NT has passages that speak against homosexuality while quoting that passage from Jesus that says he came to replace the old laws. This of course despite the fact that Jesus also explicitly says to uphold traditional Jewish law elsewhere in the bible and never explicitly comes out against homosexuality. Contradictions abound!

What do you need to be explicit?

Jesus never said anything about driving cars or using the internet either. He never mentioned porn or popcorn or even genocide either.

When He said "and for this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife" means that He was explicitly upholding the OT definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

And there was no NT that Jesus could refer to.

There is no OT definition of marriage. If there was, then why aren't 30 year old men marrying preteen girls still? Did your husband pay a dowry to marry you? I hope you don't mind a having a few sister wives, because that was ok as well.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Sure I guess since I said in my OP there are Christians who bash homosexuals my thread is a back up the homophobia fest.

Have at it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The standard answer to your concern in the OP is that the NT has passages that speak against homosexuality while quoting that passage from Jesus that says he came to replace the old laws. This of course despite the fact that Jesus also explicitly says to uphold traditional Jewish law elsewhere in the bible and never explicitly comes out against homosexuality. Contradictions abound!

What do you need to be explicit?

Jesus never said anything about driving cars or using the internet either. He never mentioned porn or popcorn or even genocide either.

When He said "and for this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife" means that He was explicitly upholding the OT definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

And there was no NT that Jesus could refer to.

There is no OT definition of marriage. If there was, then why aren't 30 year old men marrying preteen girls still? Did your husband pay a dowry to marry you? I hope you don't mind a having a few sister wives, because that was ok as well.

umm, yes there is a definition.

Have you not read it?

And are you invoking Torah or Talmud?