08 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCouldn't one say then that the principle a JW shouldn't participate in pagan festivals is still binding (i.e. to do so is wrong)? If not why not? and why cannot you apply the same reasoning to other "prohibitted acts" (such as blood transfusions - based on a somewhat dubious interpretation of one or a couple of lines in the Bible)?
The ordinances are gone, we no longer sacrifice animals, stone people to death for adultery, need to run to a city of refuge if we accidentally kill someone etc, the principles are still binding though, we offer a different type of sacrifice, one with our lips (a sacrifice of praise), adultery is still wrong, the circumstances of unintentional manslaughter still need to be investigated etc.
08 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergyes of course you could, clearly a Christians form of worship is to be clean and undefiled (this is actually the meaning of the term Holy), however, is eating pancakes on Pancake Tuesday really engaging in a pagan rite? Blood transfusions are of course not specifically mentioned, but other principles are which have a bearing on the Christians decision. Christians have only two laws, to love God and to love ones fellow man as oneself, apart from these, we have hundreds of principles which have a bearing on specific circumstances, some of which at first seem totally unrelated, but when examined really do have a bearing. This i think is the true beauty of Christianity as opposed to Islam and Judaism, for we are concerned with the exercise of conscience, not Laws which govern every aspect of ones life.
Couldn't one say then that the principle a JW shouldn't participate in pagan festivals is still binding (i.e. to do so is wrong)? If not why not? and why cannot you apply the same reasoning to other "prohibitted acts" (such as blood transfusions - based on a somewhat dubious interpretation of one or a couple of lines in the Bible)?
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell I do not acknowledge or submit to the "authority" of Mosaic law, so unlike you, I cannot claim some sort of 'scriptural' justification for prejudice or for discriminating against a minority - such as homosexuals. But you just pick and choose from the OT, as almost all Christians do, so why should anyone subscribe to the same pattern of picking and choosing that you happen to?
On what basis are you willing to disregard the principles of the Mosaic law?
08 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAs i have stated to Agers, the law is no longer binding although the principles are still extant, as for your assertion of discrimination, well its pants, unadulterated pants, for the Bible condemns the act, not the person. We as Christians are under duress to demonstrate love to all types of persons. As for your other assertion of picking and choosing, I say its also pants, for i regard the entire Bible to be inspired. You really should research your topic FMF before launching into these tirades.
Well I do not acknowledge or submit to the "authority" of Mosaic law, so unlike you, I cannot claim some sort of 'scriptural' justification for prejudice or for discriminating against a minority - such as homosexuals. But you just pick and choose from the OT, as almost all Christians do, so why should anyone subscribe to the same pattern of picking and choosing that you happen to?
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh? Well, not so long ago, on the Debates Forum, you sought to blame homosexual people for the prejudice that straight soldiers felt towards them, that resulted in poor morale (among the majority straight soldiers), that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war. Seems to me in that instance you went out of your way to frame the prejudice in just such a way so that you could discriminate against the homosexual "persons" involved - whilst not talking about any "acts" whatsoever. So there is a certain inconsistency with your "condemn the act, not the person" principle there, surely.
As i have stated to Agers, the law is no longer binding although the principles are still extant, as for your assertion of discrimination, well its pants, unadulterated pants, for the Bible condemns the act, not the person.
08 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFi never sought anything of the sort, i was merely echoing general (forget his name) experience when giving testimony in front of a congressional hearing on the dont ask dont tell policy of the United States military. Whether it was contrived at the time to reflect your allegations, i cannot say, never the less, my stance is well known for I have long argued that those who are determined to politicise their morality through decree (a scientific basis having been ruthlessly pursued with inconclusive and often erroneous assertions being utilised) are both infringing on the rights of others to oppose that morality (just ask those who have been sacked from places of employment for daring to question its legitimacy or those hoteliers who have been fined because they did not want practising homosexuals in their establishments, as it directly contravenes the exercise of their own morality and conscience) and we can readily determine that its a subversive and manipulative entity. It has attempted to hijack the civil liberty movement of the nineteen fifties, as if sexual preference is synonymous with race, which it is not and one can hardly turn on ones tv without a completely disproportionate representation of gayness telling us just how normal it really is. If people want to spray themselves gold and parade about the streets with angels wings saying look at me Im gay, good for them, but dont ask me to accept its legitimacy as anything other than an expressed morality.
Oh? Well, not so long ago, on the Debates Forum, you sought to blame homosexual people for the prejudice that straight soldiers felt towards them, that resulted in poor morale (among the majority straight soldiers), that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war. Seems to me in that instance you went out of your way to frame th certain inconsistency with your "condemn the act, not the person" principle there, surely.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYou remind me of "Emmy" from the Christian forums back in the days they had the courage to debate with atheists. Drive-by proselytizing was also her thing too.
The 10 commandments are the laws that all men
must keep. We can't do it. That's why we need
the Christ. We must believe on him to be saved
from eternal damnation.
With love,
RJHinds
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you ever had a conversation with a gay person about their sexuality?
i never sought anything of the sort, i was merely echoing general (forget his name) experience when giving testimony in front of a congressional hearing on the dont ask dont tell policy of the United States military. Whether it was contrived at the time to reflect your allegations, i cannot say, never the less, my stance is well known for I have lon ...[text shortened]... for them, but dont ask me to accept its legitimacy as anything other than an expressed morality.
08 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI never said that you "plan to justify rape and murder" and you know it. Yet you try to imply I did. Either retract your implication and apologize or show where I said it.
yes indeed, after i eat my pancakes, i plan to justify rape and murder??? and its me that doesn't have a clue?? hello!
Why do you so often choose this type of tactic? You take absurd positions and then start making absurd denials/justifications and/or making false accusations/implications and/or telling outright lies in an attempt to disparage. Why do you choose to be a person of such low character? Do you not realize that this is much of the reason to so many have such a low opinion of you?
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Dutch General seeking excuses for the unwillingness of the straight men under his charge to do their military duty properly, sought to blame homosexual soldiers... to blame THEM for the prejudice that they were subjected to by those straight soldiers... which resulted in failure of the unit, and which resulted in the death of thousands of civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.
i never sought anything of the sort, i was merely echoing general (forget his name) experience when giving testimony in front of a congressional hearing on the dont ask dont tell policy of the United States military.
The General was trying to blame homosexual persons for the failure of heterosexuals to do their job, and thus - by extension - his failure to do his job. Prejudice caused the unit's failure. But the General sought to scapegoat homosexuals. And, as you freely admit, you were "merely echoing the General".
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou pick and choose the principles. Let me quote President Bartlett citing the OT:
i have picked and chosen nothing FMF, the principles remain, the ordinances themselves have been abolished.
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important ’cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?
The condemnations in the OT that are cited in the above piece are positively shuddering with "principles" which you presumably choose not to pick or choose. It's high time whatever prejudiced or anachronistic ordinance or prohibition pertaining to sexual orientation be abolished too.