Quote:

Pariah said:
This wasn't revision. It was enlightenment. As far as this situation suggests, God had seen that his words were misconstrued, then made a correction. He didn’t re-word the Bible or change its principles.



Wait, what? You say it's not revisionment, but then you say God "made a correction". If the situation changes, then so does the interpretation of that situation.

Quote:

If you can't adopt conceptive argument, then we can't get any further with this line of response. My (and pretty much all of Catholicism's) beliefs are that the Bible is entirely God’s word and that Christ, himself, is God. The apostles wrote it with something beyond divine inspiration.



Eh, I think you're a little off here, Pariah. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, yes, but it's far from a universally Catholic belief.

I, myself, am not religious, but I've attended Catholic schools my entire life, and studied them just as long. I'm currently studying it as part of my philosophy minor. While I wouldn't call myself an "expert", I've been around Catholics/Christians long enough to have a fairly good idea of their religious ideologies.


Quote:

Animalman, those two quotes don’t actually change anything in the Ten Commandments and they don’t "prioritize" either. If you outline the mutual importance and goals between each of the commandments and the certain sins that are listed under each individual commandment



....and how would you "outline the mutual importance and goals between each of the commandments and the certain sins that are listed under each individual commandment"?

Quote:

Another thing Animalman. Because I believe that Christ is God, I wouldn’t find it blasphemous at all if he ever changed the Commandments.



You misread, I said "for any man to place one above another in importance would be not only pretentious but blasphemous as well". Jesus, according to Christian belief, is all man, but also all God, so it doesn't apply to him.

Quote:

I wasn’t making it exclusive to gay sex, I was listing sexual ignorance under both hetero and homosexual acts.



Ah, ok. That was a little unclear to me from your post.

Quote:

Dude. The vagina was designed for stretching and the uterus was as well. The sphincter, however, was not. And does not heal as well as the vulva.



Sure, but damage is still done.

Quote:

Furthermore, the asshole wasn’t meant to evolve at all.



This is way off topic, but I'd love to hear how exactly you can prove what is and what isn't meant to evolve. The Bible says that gay sex is wrong, but it doesn't say that it's wrong because anal sex tears the rectal issue. The argument most commonly constructed by theologians(though not directly evidenced by scripture), is that gay sex is wrong because procreation cannot be achieved through it.

Quote:

With sodomy, you have lasting pain and tenuousness with each sexual session.



No, not necessarily. Some enjoy it, and don't find it to be an eternally painful experience. I've even met a few girls that love anal sex.

Quote:

This doesn’t really change anything. It’s devoid the fact that Sodomy is a procedure that has a high risk factor for diseases—And while I, myself do consider pregnancy a disease that the world can’t seem to kick, it’s in no way, validly comparable to Aids or HIV.. That was the whole point of my argument. The greater amount of fragility in the colon than the vagina is the increase in danger of not only physical negative effects but also biological ones.



Gay sexual promiscuity has a high risk factor for diseases(as does heterosexual promiscuity), but if the two gay individuals are monogamous, and are tested, there is no risk.

Quote:

Also, while we’re on this, there’s a REALLY good reason for going through so much pain Animalman, this isn’t so for sodomy. There’s no pleasure or greater outcome involved for the catcher. It, more often than not, just creates problems.



A statement of love? Consummation of a deeply intimate relationship? I'd imagine most gay couples would call that a positive outcome.

Besides, your original statement was that "the physical differences between the sphincter and the vagina is the biggest factor here." You make no mention of the positive outcomes of intercourse, or of the purpose of the activity.

Quote:

Somwhere along the lne my message had been lost when you made this response Animalman. But because I got so mixed up, I just decided to roll with it.



Not lost, changed.

Quote:

One small comment here: I don't buy this at all. I'm not looking for a lasting discussion on this Animalman, but you made things pretty damn clear in their unthoroughness when you used your wording. If your refute was as technical as you make out, I'm confident that you would have explained a bit more in depth in the first place. I mean, you've done it a bunch of times.



I did explain it. I explained it quite clearly. I use the word "prioritizing" several times in my explanation. If you interpret that as suggesting one should be practiced in exclusion of the others, then I'm afraid the fault is yours, not mine.

Perhaps you read what you wanted to read into what I said, simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you.

MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.