On the Relevancy of The Institutionalization of Sin

by Perry 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  _Morpheus

  "Child murder, Sodomy & corrupting the Human Genome are not new sins"

  correct! The god of the bible has murdered more children, in the flood alone, than all men combined. But what does child murder have to with gay marriage....? As for "corrupting the human genome... Dear Thor perry, what in the hell are you talking about...? How does legalizing gay marriage corrupt the human genome? Do you know what those words mean? Behavior cannot corrupt genes. But lets look at the rest of your sentance....

  "What is new is their institutionalization. But even that isn't totally new. It's all happened before..... before the flood and in Sodom & Gomorrah"

  Do you see what you did there, perry? You were trying to be cute and tie in sodom and gomorrah to current events... But it was so clumsy you showed your CD. See it...? Let me help. You state "whats new is their institutionalization". Then you immediately state "but even that isnt totally new". Which is it perry? Is it new or is not new? The referance from the bible claims to be from about 4,000 years ago, not new new by any stretch of imagination. You are also appealing to the ancient example of sodom and gomorrah as an appeal to history, implying that the same way the desert god to action against them he will take action today... But you cant have it both ways. It cant be new and old. Thats text book cognitive dissonance.

  I agree with OTWO that this type of thing is your cry for help. Your mind knows something wrong and you want help sorting it out. You come here knowing you will get help. Its really ok perry. Continue to think and reason. It only gets better.

  I wont pick apart your whole post as it would take all day but there is one other statment that i feel personally compelled to comment on:

  "I am against practicing homosexuality for one reason only, God says no. I am certainly against the institutionalization of it for the same reason, and no other. God also says no to adultery and a number of other things that some people find pleasurable."

  😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
  

  I cant even begin to address this without my rins hurting... Dont worry perry it will all make more sense as you slowly reason and accept the obviousness of the truth.

  Ironically in the end i agree with your premise. Gay marriage shouldnt have been legalized.. But then i dont think ANY marriage should be legalized. Nobody needs the states approval to love and live together, to decide to raise children or not, to buy property together or not etc etc. A different thread though, i suppose....
  
  
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Sticking with the Bible, "in the beginning" God trotted out all the animals for Adam to find a suitable helper or companion or partner, because Adam was all alone. God already tested out goats and sheep and the like for Adam. So, if a man today doesn't find a suitable woman, it seems that God has already given the green light to try something else.

  If you want to use the statements of Leviticus as God's Laws against gay marriage, then the same book condemns eating shrimp and rabbit and raw meat, crop co-mingling, wearing linen and wool together. I am sure I could list a hundred other things, but you should get the point.

  While the writer(s) don't directly say it, it is clear that one of God's favorite humans (God doesn't kill him for murder and adultery and disobedience and all kinds of mischief) is David, and David had a gay love affair with Jonathon.

  The words of Paul against homosexuality are there, but today's translations of the Bible overstate much of what is said with a different tone than Paul intended. It seems that Paul was condemning lusts and fulfilling selfish desires much more than denouncing homosexuality. He was against sexual exploitations such as prostitution and meaningless fornication. Allowing gay marriage should alleviate much of that. I don't deny that there is some homophobia in the writings. I just suggest that before using those words to focus on homosexuals, you better consider the larger context of sexual encounters in general that Paul spoke against.

  My biggest problem with GOD SAYS SO as a reason to blast homosexual marriage is that the Bible has been used to justify oppressing women and blacks, justify slavery and the taking of child-brides. Deny it all you want, but if you want to say that the passages about Jesus make you a better person, okay then. But if you want to use the Bible as a whole to determine what is moral and upright, then know this- "People have used the Bible to subjugate women, support slavery, and spread homophobia."

  In order to survive, Christianity has had to grow and change. According to many Christians, Jesus said so.
  At Matt. 5:7, he said "Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

  If you keep using old points of view in the church, when society condemned things such as mixing of races and equality of women and gay marriage, then your church is doomed. Just over 150 years ago, a black man was counted in America as three-fifths of a white man (or as almost a human being). Ask yourself if you want your grandchildren to look at your old point of view against gays the same way you looked at your grandparents old point of view against African American children attending school with their children or even marrying their child. Or try to think about what Jesus said, and grow with society.

  If the Bible has truth to it, did Paul go beyond Jesus' thoughts here?

  Matt. 19: 11-12:

  “Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it'.”

  Did Jesus just there say that some people are "born that way" and it's okay? Did Jesus just say that some become that way, and regardless of how they got that way, others should accept it?" Say I am spinning this and I will say you are spinning what you say about gay marriage leading to child-victims and animal marriage to humans. It is clear that Jesus said that people who are not attracted to the opposite sex should not marry people of the opposite sex.

  Personally, I think the Bible has become something that any group can spin any way to excuse their hatred of others. But if you don't see it that way, I wanted you to see how the issue is not as clear as GOD SAID SO.
• 

  freemindfade

  You know its interesting... I agree that according to nature, yes man and man and woman and woman aren't going to accomplish a natural procreation.

  that being said, I really don't care what anyone else wants to do in or out of their bedroom. More power to them. I have an interesting thought though, maybe perry can shed insight on this, the majority of us have Neanderthal DNA. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember than those that do not are generally in the continent of Africa. Humans came out of Africa, yes we all originate there, and the Neanderthals were another species in Europe. Human bred with Neanderthals, so most of the world carries some Neanderthal DNA, even though they were bread out. It can all be found here in the bible perry Error 404: Scripture not found. oops maybe not.

  My point is this, evolution of modern human is not some pure family tree down from f&%$ing adam. Many of us are an unnatural product of Human and Neanderthal breeding (maybe even marriage lol). So you say God says no to Homosexuals? and to Polygamist lesbians? What did he say to the Humans and Neanderthals???

  I guess my whole point with all this is no matter how well evolved and intelligent of a human you are our dear Perry, your religion is the adulthood equivalent to believing in the tooth ferry. Religion is crap. So just relax and stop obsession about who and what everyone is f%$#ing and try to take the best care of yourself you can.
• 

  DJS

  Perry,

  The bigger question is why do you have so much hatred in your heart for those doing no wrong and harming no one. Why do you wish to tell a woman what she should do with her body? Why do you want to make and enforce rules about what a woman does with her own body? Why do you care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms - or the glass elevator on the outside of the Westin (ok, maybe that's a bit much, I will promise not to do that again)?

  Why do you care what society eventually determines to be a legal marriage arrangement? If a man with many wives was ok in your cherished bible, why wouldn't a woman with many wives be just as acceptable? Aren't you being more than a bit hypocritical? And really, if polygamy is eventually legalized, why would you care?

  Why do you continue to use loaded, pejorative, sinister sounding nouns and adjectives to describe what society views as either normal, personal and none of your business and for which the courts and legal system have decided is none of your business? You love using words like sodomy due to its biblical and judgmental authority you think it gives you. That is an old, antiquated, meaningless word.

  Why do you have so much hatred? Live your life and keep to the laws and rules you wish to follow. If you believe that we heathens and cretans are going to die at the Big A or be punished by your mean-spirited, petty little god because of how we view our private parts then fine. Believe with your whole heart, soul, mind and spirit. But keep quiet about it.
• 

  cantleave

  freemindfade - Neanderthals??? Interbreeding??? It isn't in the bible so it can't true.........

  
  

  
  
• 

  Vidiot

  OnTheWayOut - "...Paul was condemning lusts and fulfilling selfish desires much more than denouncing homosexuality. He was against sexual exploitation such as prostitution..."

  Pretty sure the sexual victimization of young people (i.e. child abuse) would fall under that, too.

  Makes a lot more sense, after all, given the context.
• 

  Vidiot

  freemindfade - "...Error 404: Scripture not found..."
• 

  flipper

  PERRY- Just out of sheer morbid curiosity - how do you feel about a Sasquatch and human females procreating ? Is THIS a sin ? It actually HAS happened and been documented in Canada and the state of Washington. It produced a hairier form of hybrid offspring who ( understandably ) had a hard time in society due to prejudices from knuckleheads. What if two male Sasquatches got together ? Would it bother you ? What about two female Sasquatches ? Would you be offended ? Granted they both might cough up hairballs- but that's for another thread entirely.

  But the fact remains that you have a group of scientists right there in Texas who proved the Sasquatch DNA was human and a mix of other " unidentifiable " nature. So don't sweat it- if there is a God I'm sure that he's down with human and Sasquatches having sex. Sasquatches have kidnapped Native American girls for centuries and incorporated them into their tribes. Perhaps Sasquatches descend from the Bible character " Esau " - wasn't he called the" HAIRIER " of the two brothers between him and Jacob ? Thought I'd throw an interesting twist into this discussion . LOL
• 

  freemindfade

  Anyone else want to see FusionTheism and Perry get into a bible slap fight as much as me?
• 

  Vidiot

  flipper - "...how do you feel about a Sasquatch and human females procreating?... It actually HAS happened and been documented..."

  Well, you know what they say about guys with big feet...

  x

  BTW, I've always suspected Dan Hedaya was a really short Sasquatch (or descended from Esau, now that you mention it).