[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Being a faggot is a choice
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/ ... raight-here-are-5-reasons-why/
Published: Feb 12, 2018
Author: ejaneward
Post Date: 2018-02-12 11:57:20 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 26354
Comments: 212

1. Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true: A couple of years ago, the Human Rights Campaign, arguably the country’s most powerful lesbian and gay organization, responded to politician Herman Cain’s assertion that being gay is a choice. They asked their members to “Tell Herman Cain to get with the times! Being gay is not a choice!” They reasoned that Cain’s remarks were “dangerous.” Why? “Because implying that homosexuality is a choice gives unwarranted credence to roundly disproven practices such as ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy. The risks associated with attempts to consciously change one’s sexual orientation include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.” Image

The problem with such statements is that they infuse biological accounts with an obligatory and nearly coercive force, suggesting that anyone who describes homosexual desire as a choice or social construction is playing into the hands of the enemy. In 2012, the extent to which gay biology had become a moral and political imperative came into full view when actress Cynthia Nixon, after commenting to a New York Times Magazine reporter that she “chose” to pursue a lesbian relationship after many years as a content heterosexual, was met with outrage by lesbian and gay activists. As one horrified gay male writer proclaimed, “[Nixon] just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. …Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.” Under considerable pressure from lesbian and gay advocacy groups, Nixon recanted her statement a few weeks later, stating instead that she must have been born with bisexual potential.

Yes, it’s true that straight people are more tolerant when they believe that lesbian and gay people have no choice in the matter. If homosexual desire is hardwired, then we cannot change it; we must live with this condition, and it would be unfair to judge us for that which we cannot change. By implication, if we could choose, of course we would choose to be heterosexual. Any sane person would choose heterosexuality (not so. see here). And when homophobic people come to the opposite conclusion—that homosexual desire is something we can choose—then they want to help us make the right choice, the heterosexual choice. And they are willing to offer this help in the form of violent shock therapy and other “conversion” techniques. In light of all this, I can absolutely understand why it feels much safer to believe that we are born this way, and then to circulate this idea like our lives depend on it (because, for some people, this truly is a matter of life and death). Indeed, most progressive straight people and most gay and bi people–including Lady Gaga herself–hold the conviction that our sexual orientation is innate. They have taken their lead from the mainstream gay and lesbian movement, which has powerfully advocated for this view.

But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic. That would be interesting. But still, it wouldn’t make the idea true.

The science is wrong: People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design. Let’s take one example: In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a “masculine” hand structure. Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length). Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call “male-pattern hands.” The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a “fetal androgyn wash” in the womb—that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: male-pattern hands and… attraction to women. But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality). Simply put, the fact that a woman is “masculine” (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women. We would only assume this if we had already accepted the heteronormative premise that masculine people (or men) are naturally attracted to femaleness and that normal (i.e., feminine) women are naturally attracted to men. Herein lies the bias. Many “masculine” women who are heterosexual (have you been to the rural South?) would like us to know that their gender does not line up with their sexual desire in any predictable way. And many very feminine lesbians would like us to know this too. The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature’s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way. For a comprehensive examination of the flaws in the most widely cited research on sexual orientation, see Rebecca Jordan-Young’s brilliant book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011).

3. The science is wrong: An even greater problem with the science of sexual orientation is that it seeks to find the genetic causes of gayness, as if we all agree about what gayness is. To say that “being gay” is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. In Ancient Greece, sex between elite men and adolescent boys was a common and normative cultural practice. According to historians Michel Foucault and Jonathan Ned Katz, these relationships were considered the most praise-worthy, substantive and Godly forms of love (whereas sex between a man and a woman was, for all intents and purposes, sex between a man and his slave). If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by “gay,” then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato’s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? Do we imagine that we could identify some genetic evidence of propensity to ingest sperm as part of a cultural initiation into manhood? What about all of the cultures around the globe in which male homosexual sex does not signal gayness except for under certain specific circumstances (e.g., you are only gay if you are the receptive sexual partner, or if you are feminine)? And while I am on this subject, what about the fact the United States is precisely one of those cultures? When young college women lick each other’s boobs at frat parties, or when young college men stick their fingers in each other’s butts while being hazed by their frat brothers, we don’t call this gay—we call this “girls gone wild” or “hazing.” My point here is that a lot of people engage in homosexual behavior, but somehow we talk about the genetic origins of homosexuality as if we are clear about who is gay and who is not, and as if it’s also clear that “gay genes” are possessed only by people who are culturally and politically gay (you know, the people who are seriously gay). This is a bit arbitrary, don’t you think?

Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical. Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman’s uterus had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble—like feminism, and other matters of grave concern. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. They also looked for and found the evidence that all people of African and Asian ancestry were intellectually and morally inferior to people of European Ancestry. Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts. Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and “bad blood.” Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains.

Is it possible that people who identify themselves as “gay” in the United States (again, keep in mind that “gay” is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology? Perhaps. But even if this is so, do we really know why? Indeed, we may find (as Simon LeVay did) that men who identify as gay share a certain trait—a larger VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus, for instance. But how do we know that this “enlargement” is a symptom or cause of their homosexuality, and not, say, a symptom or cause of their general propensity for bravery, creativity, or rebellion? In a homophobic culture, you need some bravery (and other awesome traits) to be queer. Perhaps these personality traits are what are actually being observed under the microscope.

And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren’t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality? Or masturbation? Or interest in oral sex? The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations. But this was not always true. In the 19th century, scientists were interested in the biological origins of the “masturbation perversion.” They were interested because they believed it was pathological, and because they wanted to know whether it could be repaired.

At the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination. This research will report that women are innately more sexually fluid than men, capable of being turned-on by almost anything and everything (hmmm…. other than in Lisa Diamond’s research, where have I seen that idea before? Ah yes, heterosexual pornography.) It will report that men are sexually rigid, their desires impermeable. It will tell us that straight men simply cannot be aroused by men and that gay men are virtually hardwired to be repulsed by the thought of sex with women. Regardless of what else we might say about the soundness of these studies, what is evident to me is that they have been used to authorize many a straight man’s homophobia, and many a gay man’s misogyny.

4. Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual. There are many things I have felt or done for as long as I can remember. I have always liked to argue. I have always loved drawing feet and shoes. I have always craved cheddar cheese. I have always felt a strong connection with happy, trashy pop music. These have been aspects of myself for as long as I can remember, and each represents a very strong impulse in me. But was I born with a desire to eat cheddar cheese or make drawings of feet? Are these desires that can be identified somewhere in my body, like on one of my genes? It would be hard to make these claims, because I could have been born and raised in China, let’s say, where cheddar cheese is basically non-existent and would not have been part of my life. And while I may have been born with some general artistic potential, surely our genetic material is not so specific as to determine that I would love to draw platform shoes. The point here is that what we desire in childhood is far more complex and multifaceted than the biological sciences can account for, and this goes for our sexual desires as well. Some basic raw material is in place (like a general potential for creativity), but the details—well, those are ours to discover.

5. Secretly, you already know that people’s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context. Lots of adults worry that if we allow little boys to wear princess dresses and paint their nails with polish, they might later be more inclined to be gay. Even some liberal parents (including gay and lesbian parents) worry that if they introduce their child to “too much” in the way of queer material, this could be a way of “pushing” homosexuality on them. Similarly, many people worry that if young women are introduced to feminism in college, and if they become too angry or independent, they may just decide to be lesbians. But if we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital—or present at birth—then no one would ever worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces. We know that if the world today were a different place, a place where homosexuality was culturally normative (like, say, Ancient Greece), we would see far more people embracing their homosexual desires. And if this were the case, it would have nothing to do with genetics.

The concept of “sexual orientation” is itself less than 150 years old, and almost equally recent is the notion that people should partner based on romantic attraction. Most of what feels so natural and unchangeable about our desires—including the bodies and personalities we are attracted to—is conditioned by our respective cultures. The majority of straight American men, for instance, will tell you that they have a strong, visceral aversion to women with bushy armpit hair. But this aversion, no matter how deep it may now run in men’s psyches and no matter how nonnegotiable it may feel, is hardly genetic. Up until the last century, the entire world’s female population had armpit hair, and somehow, heterosexual sex survived.

People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate. First of all, these conversions do not always fail; if you make someone feel disgusted enough by their desires, you can change their desires. Call it a tragedy of repression, or call it a religious awakening—regardless, the point is that we can and do change. For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism. I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew. But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man. And if he wasn’t a complete asshole, I’d probably be happy enough. But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [Does this mean that your daughter may decide to be a lesbian if she takes some women’s studies courses? Yes. Whatcha gonna do now?!]

Perhaps most importantly, the fact that we might cultivate or “choose” something doesn’t mean that it is a trivial, temporary, or less a vital part of who we are. For instance, is religion a choice? Certainly it is if we define “choice” as anything that isn’t an immutable part of our physiology. But many religious people would feel profoundly misunderstood and offended if I suggested that their religious beliefs were a phase, an experiment, or a less significant part of who they are then, say, their hair color. Choices are complex. Choices run deep. And yes, choices are both constrained and fluid–just like our bodies.

Post script: Ultimately, the terms set forward in the public debate about this subject–biology versus “choice”–are quite limited, mainly because “choice” is not the most useful term for describing all of the possibilities that sit apart from biology. Several social, cultural, and structural factors can shape our embodied desires and erotic possibilities. The fact that these factors are not physiological in origin does not mean that they aren’t coercive or subjectifying, resulting in a real or perceived condition of fixity or “no choice.” We know that social factors also become embodied over time. And yet, I remain somewhat committed to the concept of “choice”–or something like it–to describe the possibility of a critical and reflexive relationship to our sexual desires. Personally, the idea that I don’t have control over who or what I desire is a big turn-off to me, so I am constantly pushing back on what feel like the limits of my own desires. For instance, I went through a period of pushing myself to date femmes because I had some good reasons for being suspicious about why I had ruled them out from my dating pool. When it felt like I could never be nonmonogamous, I made it a goal to at least try. Then when I realized I only really felt attracted to alcoholic rebels, I nipped that in the bud too. Just when I thought I’d never think hairy men were hot, I allowed myself to face my attraction to Javier Bardem. When my tastes and proclivities start to feel like they are solidifying, I get suspicious and disappointed. So, in the interests of full disclosure, I am writing from the perspective of someone who finds sexual fixity pretty uninteresting, and who believes that there are really good feminist and queer reasons to take regular, critical inventory of the parts of our sexuality that we believe we cannot or will not change.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-84) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#85. To: Tooconservative (#62)

The bible says all were destroyed except those on the ark. All means all. Period.

our claimed favorite book in the Bible, a baldfaced lie. Which means your claims of "Nephalim" ancestry have to be bogus as well. Kinda self-defeating when you're trying to spruce up the family tree with some sparkling bible garland.

Except of course that the Bible tells us that they also were begotten by the angels again AFTER the flood, that the Anakim were their descendants, etc.

You Christians - you, VxH - you all talk alike: abusive, nasty, arrogant. I have learned to detest Christians by the way that Christians speak to me here and elsewhere.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-12   23:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
(Edited)

Which aircraft, exactly, did you sucker the American tax-payers into paying for you to qualify on, Comrade?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   0:01:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: VxH (#86)

Which aircraft, exactly, did you sucker the American tax-payers into paying for you to qualify on, Comrade?

Are you a Christian?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   0:16:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Vicomte13 (#87) (Edited)

I don't feel any need to classify my spiritual life with any particular semantic label for your convenience, Comrade.

It is what it is, between me and the Architect of the Universe.

Which aircraft are you expecting us to believe the Navy qualified you on?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   0:21:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Vicomte13 (#85) (Edited)

Except of course that the Bible tells us that they also were begotten by the angels again AFTER the flood, that the Anakim were their descendants, etc.

Where in scripture (no apocrypha) is it plainly stated that angels fathered the Anakim?

As you look at the descriptions of them, vague as they are, it seems they were merely descendants of tall people who had lived at Hebron and Arba.

So, can you tell me just how often God fell asleep and let angels come down to earth to have a lot of sex with women? Is it just the regular nice angels like the Archangel Gabriel (who brought good tidings to Mary, oops) who get to cat around with women or do the fallen angels also get to screw all the women they want? Do you believe that angels (either in good standing or fallen angels in hell) are still coming to earth and screwing all the broads they want and that God does nothing to stop any of them? Or do you think God is in on the sex thing, like maybe God is pimping out these women for the horny angels? Could an angel show up at any time and have sex with your secretary or a nun or Mother Theresa or Joan of Arc or whoever strikes their horny fancy? After all, these are angels and apparently you're telling us that they get to screw all the women they want, whenever they want, and God either doesn't care or is powerless to stop them.

Please explain.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   0:24:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Tooconservative (#89)

Please explain.

Catholic/Christian dialogue is a dead letter. There is no respect between the parties. Pass.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   0:28:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: VxH (#88)

I don't feel any need to classify my spiritual life with any particular semantic label for your convenience, Comrade.

I see, too important to be a mere Christian. Got it. Too Conservative and A K A Stone are one thing, and you are a very different thing, believe in a different God, one whose name you will not deign to mention. Does Jesus embarrass you?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   0:31:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Vicomte13 (#90) (Edited)

Pass

Finally learning the "nobody is smart enough to lie" lesson, ehh your Worshipfulness?. LOL. Better late than never.

And an admission that Catholics are not Christian. A Twofer!

{ shrug } Then again, maybe you're not as "Catholic" as you pretend to be, either:

The Church has no official teaching on this passage, although some ancient writers have speculated that the “sons of God” may have been fallen angels, given that Nephilim, a Hebrew word often rendered as “giants,” may also mean “fallen ones.” However, given that angels do not have bodies, which are needed for the procreation of human children...
https://www.catholic.com/qa/explaining-the-nephilim-of-genesis

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   0:40:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Vicomte13 (#91) (Edited)

Does Jesus embarrass you?

Nope.

Which aircraft are you expecting us to believe the Navy qualified you on, Comrade?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   0:43:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#90)

Catholic/Christian dialogue is a dead letter. There is no respect between the parties. Pass.

Yeah, I thought so.

Too bad, I had a very long series of questions I was hoping you could explain about these horny angels and their offspring. Starting with: why did God destroy all of mankind except Noah's family when (in your view) the cause of that destruction was these angels having children with human women? Would God destroy the human race for something that He allowed His angels to do to weak human women?

I would also want to know much more about the Book of Enoch (and Jubilees) and their account of history. These two books were written during the inter-testamental period, around the same time as the two traditional Jewish targums that I quoted above. Enoch 6-7 is quite descriptive. I'll quote it here for Stone to read since I don't think he's looked at it much.

VI

1And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3and beget us children.' And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, 8Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.

VII

1And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed 4all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

So these 200 horny rebel Watcher angels, with the leaders' names listed, made a pact to sex it up with some hot women here on Earth and have babies with them. God was powerless to stop them or just didn't care enough to stop them. Then the Nephalim were born and were monstrous giants who ate their parents out of house and home. And then they ate their parents and everybody else within reach and were eating everything on earth (including each other), utterly destroying God's creation. So sleepy old God finally woke up from His nap and saw what had happened and got mad and destroyed what remained of the human race and the evil Nephalim giants in the Flood. The book of Jubilees supports this view that God destroyed mankind in the Flood for the evil of these hungry giants and their horny angel papas.

I am willing to learn more if you want to explain how all that worked. I'm sure I missed some of the fine points. Including why you would even want to claim any genetic relationship to these vile Nephalim giants which does puzzle me quite a bit.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   1:36:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: VxH (#92)

I was satisfied with this portion from your link to Catholic.com. I thought that this was very much in agreement with my previous post.
The early Church Fathers generally understood the “sons of God” to be the offspring of Seth, the righteous son of Adam, whereas “daughters of men” are understood be the offspring of Cain, the immoral son of Adam. Thus, “fallen ones” could be understood as the fruit of succumbing to the corrupt Cainite culture.
Of course, it doesn't include 200 horny Watcher angels having evil giant babies to devour the earth. So that's kind of a literary letdown.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   2:04:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Vicomte13 (#84)

And of course the Father begat Jesus via Mary.

So you think the Father actually has genitals, that He was Mary's secret lover at least that one time?

Ever consider that the God who created the universe could just say "Let there be a zygote" and caused Mary's pregnancy in that way? Then God doesn't have to carry around an otherwise useless penis for all eternity. God is a pure spirit and does not possess a human body after all.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   2:11:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: Tooconservative (#94)

why did God destroy all of mankind except Noah's family when (in your view) the cause of that destruction was these angels having children with human women?

I am willing to learn more if you want to explain how all that worked.

This is why conversations with Christians is useless.

In the first sentence you assumed facts not in evidence. I never wrote, and it is not my view, that God destroyed the world because of those angels. I never said that, and I don't believe it.

So before I even come out of the gate in any conversation, you have already asserted what I allegedly believe, based on what you don't believe.

Then you say you're willing to learn more "if I want to explain..." So, If I want to explain why what you said at the beginning is not right, deconstruct everything you wrote and put it back together so that I am stating what I DO think, and then proceed forward against a gradient of constant resistance from you based on things I never said.

Yeah, that sounds pleasant. I don't care what you believe. Think what you want to think. Religious conversation between Catholics and Christians - I use Christians' language in that regard - is unrewarding and useless. Christians simply make up straw men and scream at Catholics. It's not worth Catholics' time to bother with it.

Truth is, your mind isn't open to anything. you're sure you have all of the answers, and you're arrogant and abusive in language, to the point of abusing me already for things I never said. What's in this conversation for me?

Nothing.

Pass.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   6:23:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Tooconservative (#95)

I was satisfied with this portion from your link to Catholic.com. I thought that this was very much in agreement with my previous post.

Two peas in a pod.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   6:23:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Tooconservative (#96)

God is a pure spirit and does not possess a human body after all.

So you're not a Trinitarian.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   6:25:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: VxH (#93)

You won't state you're a Christian because you're too good for Christianity?

Where and when did YOU serve?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   6:25:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: Vicomte13, VxH (#100)

You won't state you're a Christian because you're too good for Christianity?

No.

Because VxH is not a Christian. Not that this necessarily makes him a bad man; just a bit...vague.

Liberator  posted on  2018-02-13   7:06:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Liberator (#101)

No.

Because VxH is not a Christian. Not that this necessarily makes him a bad man; just a bit...vague.

He quotes Scripture a lot, and accuses people of not obeying it, but he's not a Christian?

This doesn't make him a bad man, I agree. It's the other things he does that make him a bad man.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   7:21:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: Vicomte13, TooConservatives, A K A Stone (#97)

This is why conversations with Christians is useless.

In the first sentence you assumed facts not in evidence. I never wrote, and it is not my view, that God destroyed the world because of those angels. I never said that, and I don't believe it.

So before I even come out of the gate in any conversation, you have already asserted what I allegedly believe, based on what you don't believe.

Oh, I don't know about that, Vic.

On the main platforms, any actual Christian is going to agree.

I don't think we can just off-handedly disregard convos simply because of interpretational disagreement.

As I saw it, both of you state and stated a presumption that may be open to debate.

Genesis is one of those chapters of the Bible that is open to different interpretations, assumptions/presumptions.

I will say that there IS solid tangible evidence of giants in man's past; of 10'+ skeletal remains. And not just one here and there. Plenty.

Now that could lead to further conversations/debates/disagreements about the nature of "Nephilim" as well as a pre-Flood past, History AND Science.

The evidence strongly suggests that the Antediluvian World was one where ALL life was much larger than after the Great Flood (the giant human remains, dinosaur bones, larger plant/insect/animal fossils.) All life lived longer as well. The Bible -- if the 600+ year ages of Adam, Methuselah, Noah, etal are to be believed -- would seem to back that theory up.

There are theories that after the Great Flood man's DNA was altered (as well as all other life) as lifespan and size of life was reduced greatly (the Bible states God re-calibrated man to live to be "120 years.")

Can you imagine the evil today were people (and dictators) to live to age 600+ as in the days of yore?

Liberator  posted on  2018-02-13   7:27:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Vicomte13 (#90)

Please explain. Catholic/Christian dialogue is a dead letter. There is no respect between the parties. Pass.

Catholics claim to be followers of Christ. Now you are saying they aren't. Also you Catholics don't like to debate scripture because you lack the scripture to back up your tradittions.

I'm not saying every Catholic is going to hell. I don't believe that.

Now answer tcs question please. I've heard your position before in a Protestant church I used to attend. Please explain your view more. Thank you.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   7:28:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Vicomte13, VxH (#102)

He quotes Scripture a lot, and accuses people of not obeying it, but he's not a Christian?

True. Quotes Scripture, is NOT a Christian. Seems a bit...ODD.

This doesn't make him a bad man, I agree. It's the other things he does that make him a bad man.

Maybe he's a Wizard who lives on the bad side of town in Oz.

Liberator  posted on  2018-02-13   7:30:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: Vicomte13 (#97)

This is why conversations with Christians is useless.

Wow conversations with followers of Christ are worthless. Since followers of Christ are saying what Jesus said for the most part. That must mean by extrapolation that conversations with Jesus is also a waste of ti!me.

You could found a new religion on that if the Catholic didn't already start one.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   7:31:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Tooconservative, vicomte13 (#96)

Ever consider that the God who created the universe could just say "Let there be a zygote" and caused Mary's pregnancy in that way? Then God doesn't have to carry around an otherwise useless penis for all eternity. God is a pure spirit and does not possess a human body after all.

I think I agree with Vic here. If God created man in his image wouldn't that mean we look like him kind of?

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   7:37:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: VxH, vicomte13 (#88)

This is the wrong comment I'm responding to but I will put this out there.

What vxh put out about Vic's father was a low skumbag move. It had little to do with the thread and it was just meant to hurt him. While I disagree with Vic on some things. Ok a lot of things. Vic posts with class and he doesn't t come here to try to hurt people. I like him.

So cut out all the following Vic around and bringing up shit that is irrelevant and mean spirited. Another example. Who trusted you with that plane or however you put it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   7:44:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Liberator (#103)

I don't think we can just off-handedly disregard convos simply because of interpretational disagreement.

When my interlocutor writes things I never wrote nor said, and that I don't think, and then proceeds to write a screed demolishing the straw man, I'm not off-handedly disregarding the conversation. I am purposely avoiding a rigged trial before a court that has already found me guilty before I even had a chance to speak!

I am willing to discuss the Nephilim from both a Western Biblical and an Eastern Canon (the Ethiopian Orthodox include the book of Enoch in their canon). I'm willing to have sober conversation about anything.

What I am getting here is not sober, it's baiting, full of invective, asserting that I am dishonest. People here act like crap, then expect to be treated with respect and to have conversations.

It's getting real old, and not very enjoyable.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   7:50:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Vicomte13 (#109)

When my interlocutor writes things I never wrote nor said, and that I don't think, and then proceeds to write a screed demolishing the straw man, I'm not off-handedly disregarding the conversation. I am purposely avoiding a rigged trial before a court that has already found me guilty before I even had a chance to speak!

Point taken.

What I am getting here is not sober, it's baiting, full of invective, asserting that I am dishonest. People here act like crap, then expect to be treated with respect and to have conversations.

I hear ya.

I think that speaks to others regard and expectations for you meeting their challenge -- justifiable or not ;-)

Liberator  posted on  2018-02-13   8:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: Liberator (#103)

I will say that there IS solid tangible evidence of giants in man's past; of 10'+ skeletal remains. And not just one here and there. Plenty.

Where are all of these giant skeletons then? The ones we know of were phonies cooked up by charlatans to try to create a tourist trap or a sideshow exhibit in some sleazy circus. The height of the Nephalim were, according to this pernicious myth, 300 ells. And 300 ells = 300 cubits. (An ell being the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger or about 1.5 feet.) That would make the average height of the Nephalim 450 feet tall.

Certain very famous rabbis pronounced a curse on anyone teaching this nonsense about angels having sex with women and producing these giants and that that was why God destroyed the world with the Flood.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   9:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: Vicomte13 (#99)

So you're not a Trinitarian.

I am and generally a pretty orthodox one.

That means, among other things, that I do not believe that God was a created being and that He therefore possessed the sex organs of a created being.

You, OTOH, seem to be stating that the Father produced sperm and used His penis to impregnate Mary.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   9:10:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: A K A Stone, Liberator (#107)

I think I agree with Vic here. If God created man in his image wouldn't that mean we look like him kind of?

Well, exactly how we were created in the image of God is debatable. The Father is not your daddy, Adam was. And Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and his body, like our own, bore the design patterns of other life created previously on earth. We are not an alien species to this planet after all. Our digestion, our organs, the various systems of our bodies are all analogous to various similar characteristics of the animal kingdom.

So we are created in the image of God in that we have a spiritual component which the animals like. The old sense of the word 'soul' is that of 'body + spirit'. Animals possess bodies but not spirits. Only man, alone of all God's creation on earth, possesses both body and spirit. And that body will die, every single time. It is only the spirit that can survive death.

By another measure, while we possess brains similar to those of some of the higher mammals, only we possess true reason. The bible was not written for gorillas and chimpanzees. It was written by us, for us. So we possess reason and intelligence. And we possess hands capable of creation, the hands of a toolmaker. And we have, as a result of Eve's disobedience in eating from the forbidden tree, the ability to know the difference between good and evil, to know if we are naked or clothed, etc.

So, no, we do not resemble the Father physically. We do not appear as a cloud or as a pillar of fire, for instance. His appearance is so fierce that to view Him fully in our flesh would destroy our bodies.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   9:26:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: A K A Stone (#104)

Catholics claim to be followers of Christ. Now you are saying they aren't. Also you Catholics don't like to debate scripture because you lack the scripture to back up your tradittions.

I'm not saying every Catholic is going to hell. I don't believe that.

Now answer tcs question please. I've heard your position before in a Protestant church I used to attend. Please explain your view more. Thank you.

Shit on my religion. Shit on me. Then tell me to answer a "question" of somebody who already built a strawman of what I never said and then knocked it down calling it me.

Pass.

My answer is: read the text. It tells you that the sons of heaven looked down, saw the daughters of men were fair, and had relations with them, producing giants and great heroes, both before and after the Flood.

In the Ethiopian canon is the book of Enoch, to which Jude referred directly, Peter referred not by name, and that Jesus outright quoted or paraphrased several times (because Enoch isn't in the Western bible, Jesus' quotations of it are not footnoted). Enoch speaks directly of the very incident that Genesis refers to: the angels taking earthly wives and bearing children by them.

I didn't make this up out of thin air, and don't deserve one scintilla of abuse, reference to hell, glancing attack on my religion - none of it for recounting a well-known and long-discussed subject.

But it is impossible to talk to Christians without having to put up with all of the verbal crap you all feel obliged to hurl at any Catholic.

It is unpleasant, and it makes communication simply not worth it.

Pass.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   9:32:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: A K A Stone, vicomte13 (#108) (Edited)

Who trusted you with that plane or however you put it.

Planes AND helicopters, according to the pathological liar whose whose fortune was supposedly stolen by the "nurse" associated with his daddys elite HIV infested blood.

Multiple aircraft with months or years of training on each... $$ spent by the American tax payer to educate a communist POS who thinks trying to understand the educational history of Pol Pot in his beloved France is "humorous".

Or, maybe Comrade Nephilim's entire shpeeel and bloodline are bullshyte.

Nobody is smart enough to lie.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   9:35:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: A K A Stone (#106)

Wow conversations with followers of Christ are worthless.

You're "Christians", you're not followers of Christ. You know a tree by its fruit. I've been eating your bitter fruit, and Too Conservatives, and VxH's, and several other "Christians" fruit here and over at Christian Forums for awhile.

I see Christ in many. I don't hear anything that sounds remotely like Christ from any of you. You're nasty, hypocritical, vengeful, spiteful, dark souls.

You love to preach and criticize, and to attack, and you do it from a presumed position of power and moral authority.

I don't see anything Christlike about any of you.

It is you people who have decided that Catholics are not Christian. I am happy to cede to the word "Christian" to you since that what you call yourselves. What you are, I do not desire to be, in any way. Bitter fruit, ugly dialogue.

Follow Christ, yeah, I do that. You've polluted the word Christian by claiming it, so you're welcome to keep it. You're Christians. I follow Christ. We do not walk the same path in this life. Whether we will walk the same paths in the life to come, I don't know. If either you or I are not changed, I don't see how, nor do I see why we would want to.

You people frankly disgust me. I don't care who you SAY you follow. I listen to your words and hear what you say and how you treat people. You are vile, mean spirited and undiscerning. The lack of discernment is not a terrible fault, but being as nasty about it as you people are, and then claiming it to be "love" - if THAT is "Christian love", then you can keep it. I want none of it. I'll stick with Catholic love. It's better.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   9:38:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: Tooconservative (#111)

The height of the Nephalim were, according to this pernicious myth, 300 ells.

You said to stick to the Bible. Now you're quoting the book of Enoch.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   9:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: Vicomte13 (#116) (Edited)

I'll stick with Catholic love.

Yah you Jesuit commies sure LOVED Viet Nam into an awesome body collective cluster frack, Comrade.

Tell us again how "humorous" Pol Pot's French Jesuit Commie education was when he was living that out in Cambodia.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   9:41:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: VxH (#115)

Planes AND helicopters, according to the pathological liar

Yes, that is correct, planes AND heliocopters, because that is the way that Navy Flight School works, you little monkey.

See, you start in flight basic. There, you learn to fly by flying turboprop airplanes. Back them it was the T-34C. Had a little bit of training command time in the T-2 also, but that was purely for fun and not part of the curriculum.

Then comes service assignment and you are sent out to fly what you will fly in the fleet. I was assigned to helicopters, which means I then went through helo training, learning on TH-57Cs.

Then in the fleet I flew H-3 Sea Kings, specifically for HS-14, specifically off of the USS Ranger, CV-61, based in Naval Air Station North Island, Coronado, California.

You call me a liar. I'm not. But you never served at all, did you. Who are you to be judging me?

You quote Scripture, but you are ashamed to say you believe in Christ, that you're a Christian, or a Catholic, or anything. Either that or you don't, but you cuddle right up with the Christians to spit bile at me. You're a cockroach, a lying little cockroach, and a cunt. Fuck you. Go die in a hole.

Goodbye, and to hell with you.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   9:45:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: Tooconservative (#66)

So if you went to the DMV to get license plates and a drivers license and some Mormon DMV clerk decided she didn't want you to have those because it was contrary to God's will for non-Mormons to drive, that would be fine with you?

Why would a Mormon take a job where their sole duty was to issue driver's licenses contrary to God's will?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-13   9:49:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: Vicomte13 (#119) (Edited)

But you never served at all, did you.

South Carolina, GA, Nebraska, California, Kansas. 1985 to 92.

Enjoyed serving with the folks in the LRSD of the 167th Cav 35th ID the most.

Big red rock star like you wouldn't have fit in very well, Comrade.

ESAD / FOAD. The apple and the tree.

Did your passengers know about your commie "elite" HIV infested blood line?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   9:52:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: Vicomte13 (#119) (Edited)

you are ashamed to say you believe in Christ

Nope. I just don't bark like a dog when commanded by a commie, manipulative, game playing, narcissistic, pathological liar like you.

I call it like I see it. If that bruises your ego, I don't give a shyte.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   9:53:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Tooconservative (#68)

Obviously, others believe differently. You should publish a book containing the one definitive and true interpretation of the Bible.

You're as bad as t-pain-in-the-ass -- the only interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is his interpretation. Everyone else is wrong.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-13   9:54:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: Tooconservative (#111)

That would make the average height of the Nephalim 450 feet tall.

Winter is coming.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-13   9:55:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: Vicomte13 (#116)

I'll stick with Catholic love. It's better.

I've always thought that I could support any denomination that believed Christ was the savior, even though I didn't agree with every aspect of what they taught.

However, I can't support anything to do with the current Pope.

He is just a far left secularist.

The 7th Day Adventist Church has always said the Papacy was the antichrist.

With this Pope, I'm thinking they may be on to something.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-13   9:56:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (126 - 212) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com