The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: formerlurker on February 06, 2011, 03:40:17 AM

Title: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: formerlurker on February 06, 2011, 03:40:17 AM
Quote
DuaneBidoux   (1000+ posts)           Sun Feb-06-11 12:18 AM
Original message
Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't forbid...
   

 
women lying with women? At least not that I've ever found.

For all these thumpers that take everything in the Bible literally, including an Earth being created in seven days, I just wonder. It's gotta' be okay right?

As a straight male it would be hard on me to deal with the thought that the sexiest lesbian couple I have ever known of, Ellen and Portia, are going to hell.

Seriously.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9615601

Um, sexiest lesbian couple?

(http://images.quickblogcast.com/89117-77813/ellen_portia_2_11.jpg)
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: BlueStateSaint on February 06, 2011, 05:07:49 AM
IIRC, Portia renounced lesbianism and took up with a guy, even having a baby with him.
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: Randy on February 06, 2011, 05:19:08 AM
IIRC, Portia renounced lesbianism and took up with a guy, even having a baby with him.

You're thinking Anne Heche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Heche) She licking Portia de Rossi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portia_de_Rossi) these days. Supposedly "married" but we all know that can't happen.  :fuelfire:
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: MrsSmith on February 06, 2011, 05:19:29 AM
Quote
Rom 1:24 - 31Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,        

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful

I'm sure they haven't asked, or they'd have gotten an answer they didn't like
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: MrsSmith on February 06, 2011, 05:23:50 AM
Quote
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sun Feb-06-11 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's all control freak bullshit.
   
I like what Lin Yutang said in "The Importance of Living" published in 1936. He was the son of Christian missionary parents in China and became a Taoist. He asked the minister, 'How can they torture me in Hell if I don't have a body?"

They had no answer for that.



"The Importance of Living" is a fabulous book, and nobody knows about it now.

   

So, not only did the son of missionary parents somehow miss the resurrection, his minister did also?   Right...  Not to mention that the "torture" of Hell is the absence of God, something that people choose for themselves.   ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: BlueStateSaint on February 06, 2011, 07:45:48 AM
So, not only did the son of missionary parents somehow miss the resurrection, his minister did also?   Right...  Not to mention that the "torture" of Hell is the absence of God, something that people choose for themselves.   ::) ::) ::)

Dead on.  H5 given.
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: AllosaursRus on February 06, 2011, 12:07:23 PM
DUmmies need to stay away from religion. If Jesus himself touched them on the shoulder, they'd just ask him for a joint!
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: Chris_ on February 06, 2011, 01:00:05 PM
In my 60+ years I've met a few "bible literalist", most of them were as spooky as OblBla's true believers.

But my vote for "sexless lesbo" couple would have to be The Munch and her special partner.

(http://images.nymag.com/news/media/maddow081110_3_560.jpg)

I don't even want to know who wears the strap-on in that happy little home.
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: GOBUCKS on February 06, 2011, 02:24:48 PM
Who's the old blonde with Tebow?
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: delilahmused on February 06, 2011, 05:55:38 PM
Well, I just assumed that God knows we're the weaker sex and can't control ourselves.

Cindie
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: delilahmused on February 06, 2011, 06:06:15 PM
While I don't have a huge frame of reference (except that Taysa Van Ree is an awesome photographer) I kinda think these two are a sexier couple:
(http://www.yourcelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/amber-heard-and-tasya-van-ree-01.jpg)
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: thundley4 on February 06, 2011, 06:13:14 PM
While I don't have a huge frame of reference (except that Taysa Van Ree is an awesome photographer) I kinda think these two are a sexier couple:
(http://www.yourcelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/amber-heard-and-tasya-van-ree-01.jpg)

Ya wanna talk about a sexy couple. How about UGP and Chaz Bono.  :whistling:
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: Freeper on February 06, 2011, 06:20:48 PM
Ya wanna talk about a sexy couple. How about UGP and Chaz Bono.  :whistling:

You are a sick man, sick, sick, sick.

 :lmao:
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: delilahmused on February 07, 2011, 12:31:02 AM
Ya wanna talk about a sexy couple. How about UGP and Chaz Bono.  :whistling:

That's twisted! Still, where does the ?

Cindie
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: GOBUCKS on February 07, 2011, 01:42:41 PM
Ya wanna talk about a sexy couple. How about UGP and Chaz Bono.

That reminds me of a limerick. I can't remember the first part, but the ending is:

"They spent all the night in a terrible fight,"
"Over who would do what and to whom."
Title: Re: Anyone ever asked a Biblical literalist what it means that the Bible doesn't for
Post by: FlaGator on February 07, 2011, 02:34:44 PM
That reminds me of a limerick. I can't remember the first part, but the ending is:

"They spent all the night in a terrible fight,"
"Over who would do what and to whom."

There once was a queer from Khartoum,
who took a lesbian up to his room,
they spent the whole night,
in a hell of a fight,
over who should do what, and to whom!