08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou use scripture to justify your prejudice and discrimination. Turns out the application of the scripture factors in anachronism, selectively, arbitrarily, self-servingly. Your "principle" that homosexuals must be discriminated against, and that them being protected from prejudicial treatment would "infringe" your rights, is all disgraceful anachronistic kind misanthropy. No offence intended.
what it is about the difference between a law which is no longer binding and a principle which may be derived from said law that yet evades you FMF?
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOnce again:
yes indeed, after i eat my pancakes, i plan to justify rape and murder??? and its me that doesn't have a clue?? hello!
I 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.
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?
If you have any integrity at all, you'll either retract your statement and apologize or show where I said it.
09 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFFirst of all, i do not accept your terms of prejudice and discrimination. Secondly i do not accept your terms of arbitrarily selecting elements from scripture with which to justify the alleged prejudice. Thirdly i have provided reasons as to why it is a matter of pure morality and lastly i have provided evidence of instances where it has been used to infringe upon the rights of others. You have proffered nothing but personal opinion and unsubstantiated claims. No offence intended.
You use scripture to justify your prejudice and discrimination. Turns out the application of the scripture factors in anachronism, selectively, arbitrarily, self-servingly. Your "principle" that homosexuals must be discriminated against, and that them being protected from prejudicial treatment would "infringe" your rights, is all disgraceful anachronistic kind misanthropy. No offence intended.
09 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI choose to act up my hetrosexual inclinations. I choose whether or not to have relationships with females. What i didn't choose was whether or not i was attracted to males or females, i've always been attracted to females. Are you saying this is the same for your son except he is attracted to males?
Maybe, I should have said he chooses to act
upon his homosexual inclinations.
Does that make it less confusing?
With love,
RJHinds
09 Mar 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you believe that tripe, you'd also have no trouble providing "reasons" for justifying your participation in rape, murder or anything else you might purport to be against the JW way.
Once again:
[quote]I 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.
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/imp ...[text shortened]... integrity at all, you'll either retract your statement and apologize or show where I said it.
These are your own words are they not? What do they purport to be but an insinuation that i could justify rape and murder.
No apology will be forthcoming nor a retraction made until you explain yourself, in clear and unambiguous terms.
09 Mar 11
Originally posted by DowardBut then that begs the question, why the abhorrent laws in the OT regarding homosexuality?
I believe people are born with their particular sexual orientation, and that God doesn't make mistakes.
If people are born/created (depending on your viewpoint) with their sexual orientation, it seems a trifle unfair for them to be then condemned to death for being gay?!
Why did God create gay people, and then create laws that condemned them to death?
09 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobDeath is sometimes required by the Hebrew Scriptures as the punishment for ritual transgressions. These included the worshiping of other Gods, gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32), ineligible persons acting as priests (Num 3:10). If a Sanhedrin condemd a person to death once in 75 years it was called a bloody Sanhedrin. The death penalty was almost never used.
But then that begs the question, why the abhorrent laws in the OT regarding homosexuality?
If people are born/created (depending on your viewpoint) with their sexual orientation, it seems a trifle unfair for them to be then condemned to death for being gay?!
Why did God create gay people, and then create laws that condemned them to death?
I think its important to state here that I believe the bible is the word of God, and not the words of God. It has been heavily influenced by the prejudice of the writers (especially the OT).
09 Mar 11
Originally posted by DowardWe'll never know how many people were killed for being gay as a consequence of the OT. But what can't be denied is that homosexuals have been persecuted for two millenia as a result of the Bible. It still goes on today, take the case of Christian Uganda, it was only last year the government wanted to bring in a law which would have resulted in gay people being put to death after a visit from some American Evangelical Christians.
Death is sometimes required by the Hebrew Scriptures as the punishment for ritual transgressions. These included the worshiping of other Gods, gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32), ineligible persons acting as priests (Num 3:10). If a Sanhedrin condemd a person to death once in 75 years it was ...[text shortened]... ords of God. It has been heavily influenced by the prejudice of the writers (especially the OT).
The point Robbie makes, is that, although the Mosaic Law is no longer binding the principle remains. So although gay people aren't put death (at least in the civilised world), they are still thought of a sinners. Which brings me back to my point, if their sexual inclination is something they have no control over, it still seems unfair for them to be labelled sinners when it's not within their control.
09 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobNot all Christians feel that way, its important to note that.
We'll never know how many people were killed for being gay as a consequence of the OT. But what can't be denied is that homosexuals have been persecuted for two millenia as a result of the Bible. It still goes on today, take the case of Christian Uganda, it was only last year the government wanted to bring in a law which would have resulted in gay people ...[text shortened]... r, it still seems unfair for them to be labelled sinners when it's not within their control.
09 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobMany fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I think this sets them up for some pretty heavy criticism. All of the authors of the various books were mere human beings. Even King David, a man beloved by God, screwed up royaly, as did his son Soloman, who was supposed to be the wisest man of his day. If these authors, who seemed to have a connection with God could screw up their lives so easily, then one must ask the question: Could they not have screwed up when writing the passages? Is it not possible that they were indeed inspired by God, but embelished a little? I think that is certainly the case.
I know, that's why i'm asking you.
Most Christians on this board are placed toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. It would be nice to hear/read a moderates view for a change.
Further, I differ with many fundamentalists in that I believe God has revealed Ximself to other cultures beside the Abrahamic faiths, and that no faith has a 100% monopoly on truth, but rather there is truth in all faiths.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand perfectly well what you "do not accept", robbie, and I also understand your opinions about why you think it's justified.
First of all, i do not accept your terms of prejudice and discrimination. Secondly i do not accept your terms of arbitrarily selecting elements from scripture with which to justify the alleged prejudice. Thirdly i have provided reasons as to why it is a matter of pure morality and lastly i have provided evidence of instances where it has been used to infringe upon the rights of others.