- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29596
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour predisposition to waffle, and so use more than the specified 38 words, has been the direct causation of you losing this argument.
You have demonstrated nothing of the sort except an enviable propensity for talking unadulterated balderdash! all you have done is make a claim, a ludicrous claim that predisposition is a causation which I have ably and admirably demonstrated is nonsense. If it were the case then any rapist could make the claim that 'it woz is genes wot made him do ...[text shortened]... Is that what you are saying? Is it? Go on I dare you to say it!
I reject all such quackery!
I thank you.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOne problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in the Bible that is condemned should be condemned. Yet they condemn homosexuality purely on that basis. They pick and choose to support their prejudice whether they want to admit it or not.
One problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in the ...[text shortened]... sippi remains a backward state should come as no surprise to anyone given their ongoing history.
What you are stating is primarily Old Covenant law and there for reasons too lengthy to explore in this format, but the New Covenant states "We are no longer under law. "
For that matter, in general they pick and choose what teachings to believe and not to believe. As an example I cited the belief that "women should be silent in the church."
I do not pick and choose. The part about woman, I have trouble with as well. That is why I share this commentary.
These verses are in brackets because there is good evidence that they were not part of the original text, but were an early textual note that was copied into the text. It is more accurate to the original text to omit these verses when reading. As much as we dislike omitting a verse or verses that have been accepted as part of the text, it is honest to recognize that occasionally the biblical text was changed, and in this case there is good evidence that these two verses are an early addition to the text. [For more information and full commentary on these verses, see Appendix 12: “The Role of Women In The Church”.]..http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/commentary/1-Corinthians/14#vers34
Fortunately there are many Christians who have come to understand the bigotry that underlies such a position and are fighting against it - just as many Christians have come to understand the immorality of slavery even though the Bible has God explicitly condoning it in the Bible. That Mississippi remains a backward state should come as no surprise to anyone given their ongoing history.
I am not a bigot, nor do I condemn homosexuals. I place the blame squarely on the god of this world who is Satan. Homosexuals are victims of rejecting God and being deceived by the world. I have family who are homosexuals, and I love them enough to help them understand that God loves them too. They simply do not understand spiritual matters and fall prey to deceptive "feelings" and world opinion.
Slavery is not the same today as it was then. It is rarely understood and was never God's intention.
Slavery during bible times was very common and many of the slaves were happy being slaves, especially if they had kind Master's.
Originally posted by checkbaiterThat is so much bullshyte. There are gays who are faithful religious followers just as well as gay atheists.
[b]One problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in ...[text shortened]... ery common and many of the slaves were happy being slaves, especially if they had kind Master's.
You cannot get around the fact that a few percent of every population on Earth as far back as records go and further, are going to be gay no matter what gnashing of teeth against them is spoken or laws making them criminals.
It is all in the effort of the religious for control pure and simple.
Religious people want to control OTHER people's lives and that is a fact.
They want control of people's destinies, their sex lives, their money.
It is none of your business who other adults sleep with. Period.
But the religious set always sites the bible or Koran or whatever, which, btw are books written by men, no deity involved.
The whole moral code thing is written by men thinking what would a god do in X situation, not knowing jack about what a real god would do since even granting the existence of a god or gods, it is clearly not interested in dealing with humans.
Like Dasa said, if that talk is true, Muslims killed over 200 million people and at least 100 million died at the hands of despots in century 20 and 19 in wars and pogroms and not a peep from your oh so gracious god.
That tells me it would not matter if the entire race died off, there would be no help coming from a deity so if it exists at all it is totally hands off, we live or die by our own petards and so WE are the one making up the morals of the race and we have to live with the consequences.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29596
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by checkbaiter'As much as we dislike omitting a verse or verses that have been accepted as part of the text, it is honest to recognize that occasionally the biblical text was changed, and in this case there is good evidence that these two verses are an early addition to the text.'
[b]One problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in ...[text shortened]... ery common and many of the slaves were happy being slaves, especially if they had kind Master's.
I think you are straying dangerously close to Dasa territory here in questioning the validity of biblical verses that you don't like, unless of course you are open to the same being done to verses that you do like. In either case, the claim that the bible is the word of God and has authority is seriously compromised if corruptions have occurred.
And by saying 'homosexuals are victims of rejecting God and being deceived by the world,' are you saying it is not possible to accept God and be gay? - Even to a straight atheist that sounds pretty harsh.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeLol as i said an enviable propensity for pure unadulterated cods walloping seasoned with balderdash and lashings of twaddle!
Your predisposition to waffle, and so use more than the specified 38 words, has been the direct causation of you losing this argument.
I thank you.
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonhouseSo when someone goes to school and the people are told not to pray because it offends
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/us/mississippi-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill/index.html?adkey=bn
Gives the legal right for people to refuse to serve or service LGBT people, like weddings, funerals, boy scouts, whatever.
Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with discrimination.
So what else is new in Mississippi? same ole same ole.
others how is this different? If you force someone to do or not to do anything due to one's
beliefs over another you've set up the law just for this purpose. If you want everyone to
accept everything, then you need to setup the laws so that everyone is treated the same
way. We have already said we will not promote being exposed to something others find
offensive in the schools, why should others be forced to not only be exposed to practices
they dislike, but are made to join them?
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't know the situation in the US, but here in SA, prayer in school is not banned. Some of the parent/teacher meetings I have been to have had prayer from bother Christians and Muslims. My understanding would be that a particular religion should not be actively promoted by a publicly funded school. That doesn't mean that prayer should be banned, it means the school itself should not be trying to convert students.
So when someone goes to school and the people are told not to pray because it offends
others how is this different?
The school I went to in Zambia was partly funded by the Christian Brothers and the Catholic Church. We had prayers. We were however not forced to take part nor actively encouraged to convert.
If you want everyone to accept everything, then you need to setup the laws so that everyone is treated the same
way.
Including the way they are served in a shop.
We have already said we will not promote being exposed to something others find offensive in the schools, why should others be forced to not only be exposed to practices they dislike, but are made to join them?
Serving a gay person in a shop is not 'being made to join them'.
I am guessing that you are therefore referring to a case such as a wedding planner being asked to assist with a gay wedding.
Would you support a wedding planner refusing to serve Jehovah's Witnesses because he might find the JW's prayers offensive? Should a wedding planner also be free to refuse to serve Muslims because he doesn't agree with the Muslim marriage customs? What exactly is it you are objecting to being made to take part in and where would you draw the line?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI think you are straying dangerously close to Dasa territory here in questioning the validity of biblical verses that you don't like, unless of course you are open to the same being done to verses that you do like. In either case, the claim that the bible is the word of God and has authority is seriously compromised if corruptions have occurred.
'As much as we dislike omitting a verse or verses that have been accepted as part of the text, it is honest to recognize that occasionally the biblical text was changed, and in this case there is good evidence that these two verses are an early addition to the text.'
I think you are straying dangerously close to Dasa territory here in questioning ...[text shortened]... s not possible to accept God and be gay? - Even to a straight atheist that sounds pretty harsh.
Ghost, there is much you do not seem to grasp on how we got the bible. If you go back to manuscript copies, there are footnotes inserted by scribes. In many cases scribes erroneously inserted footnotes into verses by mistake and some times with bias.
Dangerously close to Dasa territories??? Ouch, low blow man..
Not only are these errors found, but did you also know that in the originals there were no chapter headings, no verse numbers? They looked something like this...
FORGODSOLOVEDTHEWORLDTHAT.... exept in Greek and Hebrew and throw in some Aramaic.
And by saying 'homosexuals are victims of rejecting God and being deceived by the world,' are you saying it is not possible to accept God and be gay? - Even to a straight atheist that sounds pretty harsh.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. Homosexuality is sin, just like adultery, anger, stealing, etc. Just like there are sinners who are born again, it is no different for a homosexual.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by checkbaiterwhen you say 'homosexuality is a sin' could you define what you specifically mean by homosexuality.
[b]I think you are straying dangerously close to Dasa territory here in questioning the validity of biblical verses that you don't like, unless of course you are open to the same being done to verses that you do like. In either case, the claim that the bible is the word of God and has authority is seriously compromised if corruptions have occurred.
...[text shortened]... aling, etc. Just like there are sinners who are born again, it is no different for a homosexual.[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOnly Christians? Why not "No one should be discriminated against nor compelled to act against their beliefs nor the the dictates of their conscience"?
Christians should not be discriminated against nor compelled to act against their beliefs nor the the dictates of their conscience. If people who practice homosexuality want to get married then they are free to find someone to do so. Provision should simply be made to allow those who do not wish to provide goods or services which transgress their r ...[text shortened]... r of prosecution. So no I don't see how this can't and doesn't work in a heterogeneous society.
Such a pretty world you imagine this to be, where those discriminated against are always able to find someone who won't discriminate. Those of us who grew up in the segregated south know what sympathetic whites sometimes went through.
The discriminators can band together and intimidate more tolerant service providers to discriminate or get out of town. That's one of the ways the KKK operated against what they called "sympathizers." The community can be "cleansed" of such people.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan
"Started during Reconstruction at the end of the Civil War, the Klan quickly mobilized as a vigilante group to intimidate Southern blacks - and any whites who would help them - "
06 Apr 16
Originally posted by JS357Good question, why should anyone be compelled to act against their beliefs?
Only Christians? Why not "No one should be discriminated against nor compelled to act against their beliefs nor the the dictates of their conscience"?
Such a pretty world you imagine this to be, where those discriminated against are always able to find someone who won't discriminate. Those of us who grew up in the segregated south know what sympathetic whit ...[text shortened]... ized as a vigilante group to intimidate Southern blacks - and any whites who would help them - "
Schools don't let prayer happen in them because of those that want to be exposed to prayer!
So why should anyone be forced to do things against their conscience if they do not want
to be a part of someone else' private personal events that they disagree with?