Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Homosexuality a "worse sin" than other sins?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    Of course and neither are our opinions inspired by God.
    Mine are! (but not in the same way or to the same extent)

    I thought it interesting to know what a JEWISH Study Bible would say about a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures and it confirms what the Rabbi said about it that I mentioned.
    Paul was a Jew, and a Pharisee or Pharisees. What did he say?

    The bottom line is that no verse in the Bible addresses a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same sex.
    The Book of Ruth.

    The fallout is that the opinions of some are causing people to bash homosexuals, threaten them, kill them, etc.
    Bashing homosexuals, threatening them and killing them and is a sin. So is giving in to homosexual desires. One sin does not justify another sin.

    And sadly the Gay nephew of one of the members of my church recently committed suicide because he could not take the persecution any longer and the persecutors justify what they do by interpreting the Bible the way that they do.
    As tragic as this, it does not justify the sin of homosexuality.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
      It's obvious that we are not speaking of a grown male taking advantage of children.

      A note in my Hebrew study bible says of Leviticus 18:22: "Biblical and ancient Near Eastern culture was not familiar with homosexuality in the sense of a defined sexual orientation or lifestyle. It acknowledges only the occasional act of male anal intercourse, usually as an act of force associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection."

      I've read some theories as to why people of the same sex are attracted to each other and no one seems to know for sure.

      What I am sure of is that God is the judge and we are not and that He will judge fairly.

      I am also sure that as Christians we should treat homosexuals with love and compassion.
      Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
      And your response to the note in my Study Bible?
      Adrift's post quoting Robert Gagnon addresses the Lev. passages, and it seems to *slightly* touch on that argument.

      I've not found much that mentions the "orientation" aspect w.r.t. Leviticus. Keener has an article online that makes some small mention of some of the issues you cite, but in regard to Rom. 1. The CEB Study Bible briefly mentions the "orientation" aspect in regard to Lev. 18:22, agreeing with your source, and notes that homosexual practice was "detestable," in contrast to various other sexual practices that were merely "unclean." In the NIV Cultural Background Bible, Walton does not address the "orientation" issue, but his notes imply there was typically an age- or power-imbalance between the two parties in the homosexual encounter. His notes are necessarily brief, so I am perhaps deriving more than he intends, but his mention that homosexuality and bestiality were associated with cultic practices of some of the surrounding nations suggests (to me) something along the lines that the Hebrews almost automatically associated any such perverse behavior with those pagan nations, as opposed to recognizing any natural "orientation" toward it.

      I'm not sure why this matters. The fact remains that there is no Biblical example of a "positive" homosexual encounter or relationship, and that all Biblical mentions of homosexual activity are in a negative context.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Study bibles are not created equal. We don't even know what you're using so we can evaluate its potential use as an authority. I've seen other sources assert that the same passage was referring to cultic temple prostitution, which is hardly compatible with what you've posted.
        It appears to be from The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation, which I'm sure is decent for what it is, but a study bible isn't going to offer a thorough examination on a subject, and of course, for a Christian, a Jewish Study Bible geared towards a largely Jewish audience is mostly going to forego any greater understanding or revelation on the subject we might get from the New Testament.

        At any rate, this is just moving the goalpost from "these laws were really about mixing practices associated with cultic rites, so they don't apply to us," to "Ok, well then it's actually about acts of violent homosexual practices associated with humiliation, revenge, and subjugation." Well, which is it? If it's actually in reference to cultic rites, then it's unlikely to be about revenge and subjugation. This becomes a sort of wack-a-mole defense where when one argument is hammered into the ground a new one presents itself because the person making the argument isn't comfortable, and/or really doesn't want to acknowledge the Bible's stance on the subject. I'm not completely comfortable with the Bible's stance on the subject; I have plenty of gay friends, family, and acquaintances who appear to be in tender and loving relationships, and it would make things so much easier on me as a Christian if I could simply acquiesce to our culture's current view on the subject, but I have go were the evidence leads, and I trust that God in his unlimited knowledge and wisdom knows something about why homosexual practices and behaviors are harmful and ought to be redirected.

        At any rate, as NorrinRadd pointed out, Gagnon alluded to some of this in my previous post, but here he offers a bit more on the subject,

        Source: A FAITHFUL JOURNEY THROUGH THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY? by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D

        First, as we shall see when we comment more fully on Paul’s view of homosexual practice, it is simply not true that no one in the ancient world had any notion of an exclusive attraction to persons of the same sex or of congenital influences on such attraction. That Hultgren & Taylor could make such a statement when work done by myself, Bernadette Brooten, and William Schoedel (the last two supportive of committed homosexual unions) had already shown that such notions did exist raises serious questions about the care with which Background Essay was produced.

        To be sure, ideas regarding something akin to a sexual orientation appear for the most part in works of the Greek and Roman periods rather than prior in the ancient Near East when the Levitical Holiness Code would have taken shape. Nevertheless, if such notions made little difference to Paul’s perspective on homosexual practice—an individual for whom grace was central—then the very same notions could hardly have made a difference for the writers of Leviticus 18 and 20.

        Moreover, we do know that Mesopotamian sources regarded figures comparable to the qedeshim in the Old Testament (i.e. male cult functionaries who could serve as feminized passive partners in male-male intercourse) as persons both who had been transformed into “men-women” by the goddess Inanna or Ishtar and whose actions were held in great disdain (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 49). While not a ‘scientific’ view, it nonetheless demonstrates the obvious point that people in the ancient Near East could regard as wrong or repugnant even behavior that arose from impulses over which the perpetrator of the behavior had little or no choice in feeling.

        © Copyright Original Source



        http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ho...erCritique.pdf

        Source: Why I Could Not Recommend the Mennonite Book Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homosexuality (Herald Press, 2008), Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

        The Deuteronomistic references to the qedeshim and the Levite at Gibeah. Legal material from Deuteronomy and narrative material from Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings) disparage the homoerotic associations of the qedeshim. The word literally means “consecrated men” but refers in context to male cultic figures who sometimes served as the passive receptive sexual partners for other men (i.e. homosexual cult prostitutes: Deut 23:17-18; 1 Kgs 14:21-24; 15:12-14; 22:46; 2 Kgs 23:7; cf. Job 36:14). Even Phyllis Bird, an OT scholar who writes on behalf of homosexual unions and has done extensive work on the qedeshim, concedes that the Deuteronomistic Historian was especially repulsed by the consensual, receptive intercourse that these figures had with other men. The reference to such figures as “dogs” (Deut 23:18) matches the slur made against parallel figures in Mesopotamia (the assinnu, kurgarrű, and kulu’u), called both “dog-woman” and “man-woman” because of their consensual attempts at erasing masculinity and being penetrated by other men (compare Rev 22:15, “dogs,” to Rev 21:8, “the abominable”).

        It will not do to dismiss the references to the qedeshim as irrelevant because of the cultic associations, the exchange of money, or the absence of orientation, for several reasons. (1) The Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic description of their behavior as an “abomination” (to’evah, an abhorrent or detestable act) links these texts ideologically to Lev 18:22, where the same tag is applied absolutely to all man-male intercourse and not limited to intercourse in a cultic context for pay. (2) The disgust registered by these narrators for the qedeshim parallels the disgust registered in Mesopotamia for similar figures precisely on the grounds of their attempt to define themselves sexually as women in relation to men rather than as the men that they are. (3) Despite the revulsion with which such figures were held in the ancient Near East, this was still one of the most accepted forms of homosexual practice (not the least), because it was believed that their androgynous demeanor was beyond their control (i.e. due to a goddess figure with androgynous traits). This has links to today’s claim that homosexual attraction is beyond a person’s control.

        So although there is no exact one-to-one correspondence between the qedeshim and homosexual persons today, Deuteronomistic abhorrence of the qedeshim was not confined to men who experienced no same-sex attraction or who were affiliated with a foreign cult and received compensation. It was primarily focused on men who feminized themselves to attract male sex partners—which, incidentally, is also the focus of Paul’s term malakoi (“soft men”) in 1 Cor 6:9. All of this is relevant to a proper interpretation of the Sodom narrative.

        Since the Deuteronomistic Historian’s attitude toward the qedeshim makes it clear that he would have been repulsed by a consensual act of man-male intercourse, it is evident that in telling the story of the Levite at Gibeah the Deuteronomistic Historian was indicting man-male intercourse per se and not only coercive forms of man-male intercourse. Since too the story of a Levite at Gibeah in Judg 19:22-25 is in many respects a carbon copy of the Sodom narrative in Gen 19:4-11 (there are even some verbatim agreements in the Hebrew), how the narrator of Judg 19:22-25 interpreted the attempt of the men of the city to have intercourse with a male visitor provides our earliest commentary of how the Yahwist would have interpreted the similar event at Sodom. In other words, the Yahwist is likely to have viewed the man-male dimension of the attempted act as a compounding factor in underscoring the depravity of the inhabitants.

        © Copyright Original Source



        http://www.robgagnon.net/GrimsrudTheissenReview.htm

        Source: Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture A Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s “Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church” Part III: Scripture by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

        A. Ancient sexual orientation theories. Greco-Roman theories (Platonic, Aristotelian, Hippocratic, and even astrological) existed that posited at least some congenital basis for some forms of homosexual attraction, particularly on the part of males desiring to be penetrated. These theories included: a creation splitting of male-male or female-female binary humans; a particular mix of male and female sperm elements at conception; a chronic disease of the mind or soul influenced indirectly by biological factors and made hard to resist by socialization; an inherited disease analogous to a mutated gene; sperm ducts leading to the anus; and the particular alignment of heavenly constellations at the time of one’s birth (see my article, “Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful,” in Christian Sexuality [ed. R. Saltzman; Kirk House, 2003], pp. 140-52).

        Some of the ancient theories are obviously closer to modern theories than others. Differences, however, are beside the point for our discussion here. What matters is that many in the ancient world attributed one or more forms of homosexual practice to an interplay of nature and nurture; and, moreover, believed that homoerotic impulses could be very resistant to change. As T. K. Hubbard notes, “homosexuality in this era (viz., of the early imperial age of Rome, AD first century) may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation” (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, p. 386). He also points to a series of later texts from the second to fourth centuries that “reflect the perception that sexual orientation is something fixed and incurable” (ibid., p. 446). It is important to add here that many of the same Greco-Roman moralists and physicians who held such views could still oppose the behaviors arising from homoerotic predispositions. They could do so by distinguishing, as one Aristotelian text puts it, between behavior that is in accordance with nature and behavior that, though given “by nature,” is yet “constituted contrary to nature” as a “defect” (Problems 4.26).

        B. Why an orientation argument would have made little difference to St. Paul.

        1. Was Paul aware that at least some homosexual desire was not a matter of personal choice? As with Philo of Alexandria, Paul was probably aware of the existence of a lifelong homoerotic proclivity at least among the “soft men” (malakoi) who, even as adults, feminized their appearance to attract male sex partners (1 Cor. 6:9). In addition, nothing in the language of Romans 1:24-27 suggests that Paul viewed homosexuality solely as a chosen condition of constitutional heterosexuals. The expressions “exchanged” and “leaving behind” in 1:26-27 do not refer to a willful exchange of heterosexual desire for homosexual desire, as Peterson and Hedlund mistakenly believe (p. 4 of their part 2). Rather, they refer to a choice of gratifying innate homoerotic desires instead of complying with the evidence of male-female complementarity transparent in material creation or nature. In fact, the terms “exchanged,” “leaving behind,” “God gave them over,” “desire,” and “inflamed with their yearning” in 1:24-27 collectively suggest passions that are preexisting, controlling, and exclusive.

        2. Even exaggerated claims about “homosexual orientation,” particularly notions of congenital determinism and absolute immutability, are compatible with Paul’s view of sin in Romans 5 and 7. Sin for Paul was an innate impulse to commit actions prohibited by God—an impulse passed on by an ancestor, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control. If St. Paul could be transported into modern times and told that some homoerotic desire may be due to partial congenital causation factors (which is the most that we can say at the present time), what we know about Paul and his cultural environment suggests that he could either “I suspected as much” or at least “That fits well with my understanding of sin.”

        3. If some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians, operating within a culture that tolerated and at times endorsed at least some homosexual practice, could reject forms of homosexual practice committed by those with a biological predisposition, it is virtually impossible that Paul, operating out of a Jewish subculture, would have embraced homosexual unions entered into by homosexually oriented persons. Nor could one charge Paul with logical inconsistency if he, aware of something akin to homosexual orientation, did not acknowledge homosexual desire as “natural” in the best sense. For, as noted above, the ancients rightly recognized that not everything that has an origination in nature is natural in the sense of conforming to nature’s well-working processes. Persons’ deeply ingrained sexual desires can be at odds with their embodied sexuality. (A pedophilic orientation would be an instance that all could agree on today.) For Paul, too, nature meant something structurally broader than innate desires: the transparent structures of creation, including essential maleness and femaleness in their anatomical, physiological, and interpersonal complementarity.

        Even Bernadette Brooten, a New Testament scholar who has identified herself publicly as lesbian and has written extensively on lesbianism in antiquity, admits that knowledge of homosexual orientation would have made little difference to Paul’s absolute views on homosexual practice (and, by extension, the views of Jews everywhere in the ancient world): 25

        Paul could have believed that tribades, the ancient kinaidoi, and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word ‘exchanged’ to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago, 1996], p. 244).

        © Copyright Original Source



        http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ho...mRespPart3.pdf

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Study bibles are not created equal. We don't even know what you're using so we can evaluate its potential use as an authority. I've seen other sources assert that the same passage was referring to cultic temple prostitution, which is hardly compatible with what you've posted.
          I use The Jewish Study Bible, featuring The Jewish Publication Society. Which one do you use?

          I also like Rashi's comments. He did not have one for Leviticus 18:22.

          I found this:

          Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
          "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

          In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

          The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

          The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

          An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Mine are! (but not in the same way or to the same extent)



            Paul was a Jew, and a Pharisee or Pharisees. What did he say?



            The Book of Ruth.



            Bashing homosexuals, threatening them and killing them and is a sin. So is giving in to homosexual desires. One sin does not justify another sin.



            As tragic as this, it does not justify the sin of homosexuality.
            About Ruth.

            https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45594

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
              That's argument by weblink, my friend, and is not allowed.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                I use The Jewish Study Bible, featuring The Jewish Publication Society. Which one do you use?

                I also like Rashi's comments. He did not have one for Leviticus 18:22.

                I found this:

                Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
                "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

                In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

                The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

                The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

                An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.
                C3, Might I suggest, since we are "New Testament Christians", that you spend a little more time with the New Testament view on this?
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                  I use The Jewish Study Bible, featuring The Jewish Publication Society.
                  Ah. That its first edition seems to have borrowed extensively from the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible tells me all I need to know about the gist of its notes.
                  Which one do you use?
                  I have a Stone Artscroll Tanakh.
                  I also like Rashi's comments. He did not have one for Leviticus 18:22.
                  Okay?
                  I found this:

                  Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
                  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

                  In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

                  The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

                  The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

                  An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.
                  By an internet search, presumably. Using something without attribution is called plagiarism, and is not proper. The "alternative translation" proffered by your source is patently absurd; I'm sorta impressed anyone can assert it with a straight face.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                    He said a committed loving relationship, not a sexual one.

                    Comment


                    • It's irritating how modern people read sex into everything. David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth (daughter and mother-in-law, even), and Ruth sleeping at the feet of Boaz. It says something about their own warped sex drives. It's like the people who write "shipping" fan fiction where they write sexual scenarios involving characters from shows. The implicit assumption is that any person is a potential sex partner.
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        It's irritating how modern people read sex into everything. David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth (daughter and mother-in-law, even), and Ruth sleeping at the feet of Boaz. It says something about their own warped sex drives. It's like the people who write "shipping" fan fiction where they write sexual scenarios involving characters from shows. The implicit assumption is that any person is a potential sex partner.
                        You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theater by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us? CS Lewis
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theater by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us? CS Lewis
                          bacon.jpg


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]38450[/ATTACH]

                            OK, it would work for bacon!
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              OK, it would work for bacon!
                              But I think that's illegal in 47 states.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                But I think that's illegal in 47 states.
                                No doubt, it is too much for a good man to resist!
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                58 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X