Homosexual Discussion ForumGod and gays"Irrelevant." Aineo, the Gospel is completely relevant to society and, when appropriately used, to most discussions. We can prooftext all day long if we so desire; but it is to exhibit fidelity to biblical tradition to actually sit down and examine those prooftexts. I don't feel it does justice to that prooftext to fling it around without reading what it says. Actually, it seems from the biblical text that the reverse is true..God presented yet another option to man, and man chose what was acceptable. Read these lines again: See the green and red parallels? In both texts, God formed a potential partner/helper, and brought it/her to the man. The presentations of both are identical, save their substance is different (which is arguably identical as well since the man was formed from dust from the ground as well ). In both texts, man did not make the potential partner/helper, God did, and presented them to the man. And man named them, but chose woman as his partner/helper. The point is that one thing is strikingly clear: in the Creation story, humanity chose who they wanted to be partnered with. God makes no declarations who they are to be partnered with. Who is to say that if, in these days, Man chooses to be with Man and not Woman. Does that mean they are violating a divine mandate? Not according to the creation story: the only "not good" thing that was created was human loneliness, and only Man could solve that "not good" thing and make it "good." Your statement is quite correct; however, it does not apply to this interaction. The study was a study on the genetic probability of the survival of a "gay gene" because in men it would be a possibility for homosexuality, but in women it would result in increased fertility. Nature always finds a way to find balance for what it creates; therefore, there was no misquoting in this interaction. Quite right, that was my point also. The possible genetic reasons for homosexuality are only 21% via that study, which is still 21% higher than 10 years ago. I'm glad we pick up on the same points. Ah yes, armchair psychologists are particularily obnoxious, and it is my personal preference that psychology can only best be done in a clinical setting by a professional. I'm glad there are none of those in our interactions. And I too like to leave personalities out of conversations; it makes persons much less susceptible to ad hominems and mischaracterizations. I'm hopeful that you feel the same way. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame