In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>
> >In article <rthegvo7d6uc1pnrebdrst6jqamduokqs8[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> >>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> >>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> >>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> >>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> >
> >>How would you interpret that?
> >
> >Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> >"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
> >"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
> >
> >But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
> >has to be taken literally?
>
> Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
> he wants...there's an idea....
>
> >How do you know every passage still has
> >merit today?
>
> How do you know it doesn't?

Ok, what does this have to do with the G4 or G5? :)

Yes the Old and New Testaments both say homosexuality is wrong but they
take an entirely different approach to the matter. In the New Testament,
gay men are encouraged to be chaste if they can manage to whereas in the
Old Testaments gays were to be stoned to death.

Now before someone gets up on their high horse calling all this bigoted
here me out. Back then, our understanding of medicine and biology was
quite limited and many of these rules were meant to keep people healthy
physically. Everyone knows that anal sex, be it between males or a man
and woman carries many health risks. These risks were even more serious
back then because of a lack of medical knowledge and sanitation. My take
on it, in the New Testament sexual sin was sexual sin and God does not
discriminate between types of sin.

Now if God was going to condem all gay people to hell, then straight
people like me would be going to hell too. I think those passages were
put there to keep people from hurting themselves and they are as true
today as they were back then.

If you look at all those cleanliness and dietary laws from the Old
Testament, they were there to help keep the nation of Israel healthy.
They were avoiding unhealthy high fat foods such as pork before people
understood anything about dietary science.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you are going to live that
lifestyle, you are putting your own life and the life of your partners
in danger. Chastity would actually be a more healthy choice.

--
Ari Ukkonen

In article
<aukkonen-723213.13360106072003[at]shawnews.gv.shawcable.net>,
Ari Ukkonen <aukkonen[at]shaw.ca> wrote:

>If you look at all those cleanliness and dietary laws from the Old
>Testament, they were there to help keep the nation of Israel healthy.
>They were avoiding unhealthy high fat foods such as pork before people
>understood anything about dietary science.

Fat has nothing to do with it (besides animals weren't raised in boxes
back then so they simply wouldn't have been so full of fat as modern
day battery pigs). I've heard three explanations for the ban on pigs;
1) Trichina. 2) Pigs eat anything - including feces - and are
therefore unclean. 3) Pigs didn't fit into the animal classification
systems of the times. They had hooves yet weren't ruminants or some
such thing. Ditto for lobsters and so on.

>I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you are going to live that
>lifestyle, you are putting your own life and the life of your partners
>in danger.

Eh? How so?

> Chastity would actually be a more healthy choice.

I doubt it.

>--
>Ari Ukkonen

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:35:45 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article
><aukkonen-723213.13360106072003[at]shawnews.gv.shawcable.net>,
> Ari Ukkonen <aukkonen[at]shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>If you look at all those cleanliness and dietary laws from the Old
>>Testament, they were there to help keep the nation of Israel healthy.
>>They were avoiding unhealthy high fat foods such as pork before people
>>understood anything about dietary science.
>
>Fat has nothing to do with it (besides animals weren't raised in boxes
>back then so they simply wouldn't have been so full of fat as modern
>day battery pigs). I've heard three explanations for the ban on pigs;
>1) Trichina. 2) Pigs eat anything - including feces - and are
>therefore unclean. 3) Pigs didn't fit into the animal classification
>systems of the times. They had hooves yet weren't ruminants or some
>such thing. Ditto for lobsters and so on.
>
>>I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you are going to live that
>>lifestyle, you are putting your own life and the life of your partners
>>in danger.
>
>Eh? How so?
>
>> Chastity would actually be a more healthy choice.
>
>I doubt it.

You're being deliberately stupid here. But then, for someone that
thinks sleeping with animals is OK, I guess that's what we should
expect.

In article <woofbert.spam-1D61E1.01315508072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>Eskimos, for instance, live
>quite healthy lives off a high-fat diet. The Vikings who settled
>Greenland did not adapt their diets to the climate and died.

It wasn't that simple. The vikings settled Greenland in a warm period
where their lifestyles were just fine. When the Little Ice Age started
their lifestyle was no longer suited for Greenland's new climate. So
they died or were forced to leave. Food was only part of it.

Hmm.. Computers -> Gay-bashing -> Bible-school -> Dietary rules ->
Viking settlements in Greenland -> ???

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:53:23 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <381jgvs36arijl7tfdv7ol0qrqq2903ei4[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Chastity would actually be a more healthy choice.
>>>I doubt it.
>>You're being deliberately stupid here.
>
>No I am not.
>
>Yes, I am aware of VD, but they affect heterosexuals just as often as
>homosexuals.

But that's not chastity, so you're being deliberately stupid.

>So why should homosexuals choose chastity? Why should the same not be
>expected of heterosexuals. Put aside your preconceptions for once and
>try to provide an answer.

You said, in context, that chastity would not be a healthier choice.
Obviously that's wrong.

>> But then, for someone that
>>thinks sleeping with animals is OK, I guess that's what we should
>>expect.
>
>Dolt.

You certainly are acting like one.

In article <4acogv02o5amo2nb86vhh37u79ada0dq55[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:35:58 +0200, C Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >>>>>> Chastity would actually be a more healthy choice.
> >>>>>I doubt it.
> >>>>You're being deliberately stupid here.
> >>>No I am not.
> >>>Yes, I am aware of VD, but they affect heterosexuals just as often as
> >>>homosexuals.
> >>But that's not chastity, so you're being deliberately stupid.
> >So you advocate chastity for heterosexuals as well?
> Do you understand what chastity is? From your usage above the answer
> is obviously no.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chastity

That works fine for me.

> As far as your next question - what does the Bible say?

I don't care what that old book says.

Now answer my question; should heterosexuals (in your opinion) also
prefer chastity?

> >>>So why should homosexuals choose chastity? Why should the same not be
> >>>expected of heterosexuals. Put aside your preconceptions for once and
> >>>try to provide an answer.
> >>You said, in context, that chastity would not be a healthier choice.
> >>Obviously that's wrong.
> >Answer the question. Why should homosexuals be chaste while
> >heterosexuals should not?
> Obviously it's wrong that chastity would not be a healthier choice?
> You're kidding right? Ever hear of AIDS? Even a 1% chance of getting
> it is worse than a 0% chance of getting it. I can't believe I need to
> explain this to you.

Ever heard of making babies? Hard to do that when chaste.

Am I to take this to mean that you only have sex in order to produce
offspring? Or that you have never heard of safe sex?

--
C Lund

In article <t5mogv0pdo521jj5nu055adpjef0pgqpk4[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> I see. So you, too, believe that chastity is riskier than other
> alternatives? Tell me - how have you managed to reduce risk to zero?

Life is dangerous. There's always a risk of something bad happening. If
it's not AIDS, it's being hit by a drunk driver. The only way to can
reduce all risks to zero is by dying.

Welcome to reality.

--
C Lund

In article <n89pgv8gtra3p7mv80cpqc07t69hbfv9ed[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> defines 'chaste' for us:

> 1:innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse

Who gets to decide what "unlawful sexual intercourse" is?

> 2:CELIBATE

What fun is that?

> 3:pure in thought and act :MODEST

Want to tell us what 'modest' means in your world now?

> 4 a :severely simple in design or execution :A

--
C Lund

In article <tnbpgv8r4osr8q801qsl9ldpep8mglbkn1[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> I'd really like to know why it's so critical to you that *Jesus*
> actually said something.

Isn't it more important than what Jesus said than what his disciples
said?

> Anyway, if there's a text you'd like to talk about, quote it. Asking
> me to quote something (like what Jesus said) is silly - you can easily
> look in any Bible to see that.

But we want *you* to look in the bible. 8)

--
C Lund

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:01:38 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]chello.no> wrote:

>In article <t5mogv0pdo521jj5nu055adpjef0pgqpk4[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> I see. So you, too, believe that chastity is riskier than other
>> alternatives? Tell me - how have you managed to reduce risk to zero?
>
>Life is dangerous. There's always a risk of something bad happening. If
>it's not AIDS, it's being hit by a drunk driver. The only way to can
>reduce all risks to zero is by dying.
>
>Welcome to reality.

So you admit you were wrong to state what you did then. Thank you.

In article
<christopher.lund-04CAB3.09013811072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
Christopher Lund <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> wrote:

> In article <t5mogv0pdo521jj5nu055adpjef0pgqpk4[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
> > I see. So you, too, believe that chastity is riskier than other
> > alternatives? Tell me - how have you managed to reduce risk to zero?
>
> Life is dangerous. There's always a risk of something bad happening. If
> it's not AIDS, it's being hit by a drunk driver. The only way to can
> reduce all risks to zero is by dying.
>
> Welcome to reality.

"There is a difference between living and just breathing."

I iwll continue to use my Macintosh despite the dangers I face from
fanatical Windroids. }; )

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <395ugvs44f0kppmf27u182tuljvkuci768[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:07:31 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> wrote:
> >> I'd really like to know why it's so critical to you that *Jesus*
> >> actually said something.
> >Isn't it more important than what Jesus said than what his disciples
> >said?
> Do the two contradict?

Well, he is the main character of the book, isn't he? And if he's "God
made flesh" (or whatever it was they told me in bible class) then what
he said should outweigh everything else in the bible - certainly
anything his disciples said. And if he never said anything about
homosexuality...

> >> Anyway, if there's a text you'd like to talk about, quote it. Asking
> >> me to quote something (like what Jesus said) is silly - you can easily
> >> look in any Bible to see that.
> >But we want *you* to look in the bible. 8)
> You're the one that questions it.

You're the one who's thumping it.

--
C Lund

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:31:35 -0500, Mayor of R'lyeh
<ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:25:00 GMT, foo <foo[at]bar.com> chose to bless us
>with the following wisdom:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:40:24 +0200, Christopher Lund
>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <395ugvs44f0kppmf27u182tuljvkuci768[at]4ax.com>,
>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:07:31 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>>> <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> wrote:
>>>> >> I'd really like to know why it's so critical to you that *Jesus*
>>>> >> actually said something.
>>>> >Isn't it more important than what Jesus said than what his disciples
>>>> >said?
>>>> Do the two contradict?
>>>
>>>Well, he is the main character of the book, isn't he? And if he's "God
>>>made flesh" (or whatever it was they told me in bible class) then what
>>>he said should outweigh everything else in the bible - certainly
>>>anything his disciples said. And if he never said anything about
>>>homosexuality...
>>
>>He never said anything about heroin injections either. That's
>>incredibly foolish logic, even for you, C.
>
>It seems to be the best they can do though. It simply amazes me how
>willing these guys are to show off their ignorance of both the Bible
>and Christianity in general all the while acting like they were
>experts in both.

Bible knowledge is very, very low in here. Most, but not all, of the
arguments presented in here against it are horribly weak.

>>>> >> Anyway, if there's a text you'd like to talk about, quote it. Asking
>>>> >> me to quote something (like what Jesus said) is silly - you can easily
>>>> >> look in any Bible to see that.
>>>> >But we want *you* to look in the bible. 8)
>>>> You're the one that questions it.
>>>
>>>You're the one who's thumping it.
>>
>>If you mean 'stating what it says', that I am doing.
>
>What can you say about people who cite the Bible incorrectly and then
>accuse you of 'Bible thumping' when you correct their ignorance? You'd
>think that if they were so adverse to the Bible they wouldn't bring it
>up themselves in the first place wouldn't you?

Obviously the Bible is very important to many people, but I just can't
figure out, if they hate the words of it so much, why it is so
important to these guys... Obviously it is, or they wouldn't waste
their breath debating it and claiming it doesn't say things it clearly
does.

In article <lnd0hvc1ran2b26f2ssacg0cueg5p9ujl8[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> >He never said anything about heroin injections either. That's
> >incredibly foolish logic, even for you, C.
>
> It seems to be the best they can do though. It simply amazes me how
> willing these guys are to show off their ignorance of both the Bible
> and Christianity in general all the while acting like they were
> experts in both.

Who's "they"?

--
C Lund

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:38:58 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <3hd0hv06kro80u4kmvb9rgg1q03f198raf[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:40:24 +0200, Christopher Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >> I'd really like to know why it's so critical to you that *Jesus*
>> >> >> actually said something.
>> >> >Isn't it more important than what Jesus said than what his disciples
>> >> >said?
>> >> Do the two contradict?
>> >Well, he is the main character of the book, isn't he? And if he's "God
>> >made flesh" (or whatever it was they told me in bible class) then what
>> >he said should outweigh everything else in the bible - certainly
>> >anything his disciples said. And if he never said anything about
>> >homosexuality...
>> He never said anything about heroin injections either.
>
>Nor did he say anything about violent computer games or gun ownership.
>
>(note: I'm not saying they are anything like heroin)
>

Depends on the game. I'd say more on the subject but I need to get a
fix.

>> That's
>> incredibly foolish logic, even for you, C.
>
>The "logic" is all yours, foo.
>
>> >> >> Anyway, if there's a text you'd like to talk about, quote it. Asking
>> >> >> me to quote something (like what Jesus said) is silly - you can easily
>> >> >> look in any Bible to see that.
>> >> >But we want *you* to look in the bible. 8)
>> >> You're the one that questions it.
>> >You're the one who's thumping it.
>> If you mean 'stating what it says', that I am doing.
>
>Stating what it says is one thing. Waving it in our faces is another.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:38:58 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <3hd0hv06kro80u4kmvb9rgg1q03f198raf[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:40:24 +0200, Christopher Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >> I'd really like to know why it's so critical to you that *Jesus*
>> >> >> actually said something.
>> >> >Isn't it more important than what Jesus said than what his disciples
>> >> >said?
>> >> Do the two contradict?
>> >Well, he is the main character of the book, isn't he? And if he's "God
>> >made flesh" (or whatever it was they told me in bible class) then what
>> >he said should outweigh everything else in the bible - certainly
>> >anything his disciples said. And if he never said anything about
>> >homosexuality...
>> He never said anything about heroin injections either.
>
>Nor did he say anything about violent computer games or gun ownership.
>(note: I'm not saying they are anything like heroin)

So what is your point then?

>> That's
>> incredibly foolish logic, even for you, C.
>
>The "logic" is all yours, foo.

The logic you're presenting is badly flawed.

>> >> >> Anyway, if there's a text you'd like to talk about, quote it. Asking
>> >> >> me to quote something (like what Jesus said) is silly - you can easily
>> >> >> look in any Bible to see that.
>> >> >But we want *you* to look in the bible. 8)
>> >> You're the one that questions it.
>> >You're the one who's thumping it.
>> If you mean 'stating what it says', that I am doing.
>
>Stating what it says is one thing. Waving it in our faces is another.

Who's waving? You asked, I answered.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:43:01 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <dje0hvchksmv08h47q64s7s8l3p5t6l66l[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote to faux:
>
>> >It seems to be the best they can do though. It simply amazes me how
>> >willing these guys are to show off their ignorance of both the Bible
>> >and Christianity in general all the while acting like they were
>> >experts in both.
>
>> Bible knowledge is very, very low in here. Most, but not all, of the
>> arguments presented in here against it are horribly weak.
>
>Which "weak" arguments? The "it is irrelevant to somebody who does not
>believe in that stuff" argument?

No, I mean the - "The Bible clearly says that, but I'm going to argue
with you that it doesn't" style of argumentation. Or the "Let's
ignore everything the Bible says and point out perceived flaws in it
that are clearly answered in it as long as you read the entire thing"
style of argumentation. Or, of course, the "I know nothing about it
other than a few web pages I read, and here's what they said against
it" style of argumentation.

>> >What can you say about people who cite the Bible incorrectly and then
>> >accuse you of 'Bible thumping' when you correct their ignorance? You'd
>> >think that if they were so adverse to the Bible they wouldn't bring it
>> >up themselves in the first place wouldn't you?
>> Obviously the Bible is very important to many people,
>
>Obviously...
>
>> but I just can't
>> figure out, if they hate the words of it so much, why it is so
>> important to these guys... Obviously it is, or they wouldn't waste
>> their breath debating it and claiming it doesn't say things it clearly
>> does.
>
>You guys have fun beating that strawman to death.

Obviously it's important to you, C.

> In article <n89pgv8gtra3p7mv80cpqc07t69hbfv9ed[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> defines 'chaste' for us:
>
> > 4 a :severely simple in design or execution :A

Foo is chaste alright.

Lars T.
--
Zuse ruleZ