| Pages:
1
2
3 |
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8012
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
@Mixell: I fully agree with you. It was not my intent at all to say that e.g. the use of Nazi icons or calling for murder/deportation of whole ethnic
groups should be allowed. Those things simply are hatred and should be avoided on sciencemadness (and everywehere else ;-) ).
@Blogfast: Well, in that case we disagree. I understand your case of the supermarket, but it is not a good comparison with the issue I raised. If I
fill my shopping cart and have beers in it, then I expect that I can pay and exit the supermarket with my beer, regardless of which queue I select.
With marriage, however (at least in NL), the couple to be married has contact with the servant who does the marriage and things can be discussed
beforehand. Only for small cities with only one or two servants, authorized to do marriages, I agree, but common sense tells me that in a large city
with 10+ servants it should be possible to arrange things without problems. So in theory I might agree with you, but in practice, what irks me is the
strict black and white formal thinking. This kind of black and white thinking certainly exists in churches, but the same mistake made by some churches
in the past now more and more is made by the "secular church". I even believe that it is this political correctness which leads to extreme thoughts
more and more in our society. Whole groups of people who are not extremists but are standing for something which is not mainstream secular thought are
pursued more and more and then some of those groups may react in a more extreme way. Just think of ourselves as home chemists. We are not the
mainstream people, but more and more we are demonized, simply because we are not mainstream (last weekend again there was a case in Belgium, a 52 year
old person who had arsenic, KCN and some other toxic chemicals, who is put in jail for the time being while his motivations for having such chemicals
are researched: comments on forums and newssites are REALLY harsh).
The new social paradigm is that we only should be tolerant to the "tolerant". In practice this means that only the average Joe with average beliefs
and average hobbies is accepted and all those "tolerant" people scream and yell as soon as someone in public shows other beliefs or has other hobbies.
This goes very far. It is about one's religion, about one's style of living, about one's hobbies and in the future I am afraid even about one's idea
of how to raise children.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by woelen  | | If I fill my shopping cart and have beers in it, then I expect that I can pay and exit the supermarket with my beer, regardless of which queue I
select. |
Homosexual couples who expect to enter into a civil union (not the same as marriage in the UK) expect to show up at the registry and be served by a
loyal servant of the state, who does what he/she is paid to do. If a gay couple has those entirely normal expectations and they are thwarted, then
what about their sensitivities?
BTW, while gay people can now get ‘married’ at a civil registry, try and get officiated as a gay religious couple in ANY church: bar a few notable
exceptions that simple never happens. Think about that…
No, I’m firmly on the side the secular state on this. What you seem to advocate is a society where laws that have been democratically voted in
should be applied bearing in mind each individual’s ‘sensitivities’, which in itself is a recipe for people battling out every little grudge
they may bear by means of political positions and through the courts.
Muslims that feel they can’t ‘serve’ beer or pork, Jews that can’t bear to sell things that aren’t kosher and registrars that can’t bring
themselves to officiate at gay civil unions should not be applying for such jobs.
Your beer analogy makes me laugh: you seem to attach more importance to having easy access to beer than a couple’s right to be married without a
fuss!
My wife, who manages a nursing home, recently had a conflict with a Christian employee who refused to serve residents with… tobacco products, on the
basis of his religious beliefs. Never mind the fact that Christian tenets say little, if anything about tobacco, but he was willing to go to court
over this. Eventually he left. Otherwise we’d have seen him in court and won comfortably.
Another case involved a British Hindu family who wanted to ritually cremate granddad in the back garden. Well, that kind of cremation is prohibited by
Law in this country for obvious reasons. Why on Earth should we make an exception for this? Where does it end?
In the case of the Belgian who was found in possession of toxic chemicals, was that the ONLY reason or was there probable cause of actual wrong doing?
People get arrested all the time and get released w/o charge or trial very often. What happened in this particular case?
Lukasz from Keten Chemicals got raided for selling chems to Breivik. Computers and records seized. Not funny at all. But he was quickly released and
is now a material witness in the case. It was inevitable that police wanted to investigate the connection between Keten and Breivik. They found none.
Going back to gay civil unions, the logic of registrars refusing to officiate these is also clearly flawed: a civil union (gay or straight) is not a
religious ceremony. You can’t help but think that those who refuse simply want to demonstrate their disapproval of homosexuality. Well, that’s not
their job and none of their business…
[Edited on 29-8-2011 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
Attention, please
I have split this thread from the holmes1880 thread because it is conceptually distinct, though similar in tone. 5 years ago I decided that political
discussion could not co-exist with technical discussion on this site. It drove too many people away and was a constant chore to moderate. Since this
thread has been surprisingly civil so far, I am going to prove that I have forgotten what I learned before and leave it open for a while. Do not drag
politics into other threads.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
@woelen What the bible has to say about homosexuality is that it is confusion and the bible has some other things to say about homosexuality also.
Any Christian who believes what the bible says about homosexuality is not a "fundamentalist Christian" set apart as some sort of extremist....they are
simply an ordinary Christian.
A Christian should not be seeking guidance about anything from people who are confused, and I don't count it for being tolerant and wise to seek the
counsel of persons who are confused, nor would I seek the counsel of others who would try to effectively nullify the significance of what the bible
teaches about homosexuality. Even if the bible had nothing to say about homosexuality, reasonable persons would likely arrive at the same
conclusions, apart from any religious influence having bearing upon the perspective. An inherent aspect of marriage relates to the foundation of
family which by nature requires a viable pairing of opposite sexes as a biological reality that is a part of the larger reality that is nature and the
natural scheme of things. With regards to human sexuality nature itself is "gender biased" with respect to fertility and the required "orientation"
for matings to have reproductive viability.
Just because some people may deceive themselves and try to redefine reality for their own convenience and comfort doesn't make it the "enlightened"
view to indulge and buy into such nonsense, and call that dishonesty "tolerance".
Persons having the traditional and reality based view of things about what is and what is not marriage are not "bigots" guilty somehow of any
extremist view or
prejudice which has any moral equivalency with racism.
The problem with indulging political correctness is that there will never be any end to the indulgences required of "tolerance and diversity" to
placate what some "oppressed minority" chooses to be acceptable. So where will the decadence ever end once the turn down that road has begun. There
is nothing inherently bad about the answer "No" to things which ought to be rejected.
The answer "no" is every bit as valid an answer as the answer "yes" and things ought to accepted or rejected by some sort of intelligent standard.
The issue
I see here is there exists a confusion which cannot make distinction between what is reason and what is rationalizing masquerading as "agreeability"
and
"tolerance". People are afraid to say "No" to things which should be rejected, because they don't want to offend anybody having a different view.
There is a difference between right and wrong , and pretending the distinction doesn't exist doesn't make the reality disappear. But having values
requires that distinctions be made. Trying to reconcile having solid values with tolerance where anything goes, is quite impossible. Some things are
acceptable and some things are unacceptable. That is the absolute reality. And probably it is the absolutism about politically sensitive issues
which is disturbing to some people who are much happier straddling the fence, choosing not to choose.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sheez, Rosco. Where previously I agreed with you, here there’s hardly a syllable of common ground. Where to start?
”A Christian should not be seeking guidance about anything from people who are confused, and I don't count it for being tolerant and wise to
seek the counsel of persons who are confused, nor would I seek the counsel of others who would try to effectively nullify the significance of what the
bible teaches about homosexuality.”
You have of course the right to be deeply offensive but calling me and others ‘confused’ is precisely that: you might as well call them
‘clinically insane’ and be done with. Off to the gulag with you, confused people!
”An inherent aspect of marriage relates to the foundation of family which by nature requires a viable pairing of opposite sexes as a biological
reality that is a part of the larger reality that is nature and the natural scheme of things”
Kvetch. We don’t live natural lives. We live cultured lives. You wouldn’t survive five minutes in the jungle w/o technological gizmos. Your whole
stance here smacks of cultural influence by the right wing body politic of a certain large country, the laughing stock in many circles because of it.
”Just because some people may deceive themselves and try to redefine reality for their own convenience and comfort doesn't make it the
"enlightened" view to indulge and buy into such nonsense, and call that dishonesty "tolerance".”
Confused AND dishonest, eh? True criminals, indeed!
”Persons having the traditional and reality based view of things about what is and what is not marriage are not "bigots" guilty somehow of any
extremist view or prejudice which has any moral equivalency with racism.”
Even reality seems relative now: Paleoconservatives like you seem to want to place themselves outside of reality. Or at least outside of my reality.
”There is nothing inherently bad about the answer "No" to things which ought to be rejected.”
And you’re the Absolute Arbiter of this?
”People are afraid to say "No" to things which should be rejected, because they don't want to offend anybody having a different view.”
Get it through your thick skull, Rosco: the vast majority of people that consider themselves tolerant do so because they’ve arrived at that position
through reason and experience. Throw in with that a good dollop of historical experience. I’ll make exception for a small subclass of ‘sheople’
that exists also on your side.
”And probably it is the absolutism about politically sensitive issues which is disturbing to some people who are much happier straddling the
fence, choosing not to choose.”
What’s disturbing about your ‘absolutist’ (not far away from totalitarian views at all) view of homosexuality is that isn’t based on anything
rational at all. Instead it’s based on the same arch-Conservative stinky views on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular that manifest
itself in the West mainly in the rightwing political underbelly of the United States. And in Iran or the Taleban. But they’re not part of the
West…
”The problem with indulging political correctness is that there will never be any end to the indulgences required of "tolerance and diversity"
to placate what some "oppressed minority" chooses to be acceptable.”
Goddammit, those pesky minorities, eh? Always asking for the same rights as the ‘majority’ and appealing to the ‘confused’ to get their
underhand ways and ‘unnatural’ sexual deviances…
Analytical? My *rse…
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The case of the AndersHoveland signature underlines this decision. The proper reason to remove the signature is not, in the end,
that its message is noxious. Instead, the reason to remove it is because it is a form of political discussion. A signature block of this kind is a
political statement, put out there, begging to be rebutted or approved. Simply because the form of the statement is in a signature doesn't mean that
it's not a kind of rudimentary political discussion, even if it's similar to a crazy guy on a milk crate shouting slogans at the crowd. Nevertheless,
if the policy is that no political discussion is permitted, then that should entail that no political statements in signatures are permitted.
This is good policy because while it's rare for all to agree where to draw a line, any line, about the content of political assertions, it's
correspondingly easy for all to agree what is and what is not a political statement. There's much less room for bickering about where the line
political vs. non-political lies.
It's always said that bad facts make bad laws, and the present AndersHoveland case is one in point. I doubt there's much disagreement that his
signature is worthy of disrespect, regardless of where that disrespect is grounded. On the other hand, this is an egregious case. The member here who
quoted Baldur von Schirach is, to my mind, also making a political statement, although I must admit that that case is far more nuanced. Thankfully,
there's not much propensity here to grandstand in signature blocks.
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Stupid claim. Were *all* Southern slaveholders stupid? How about the Nazi high command? Rhodesia's elite, South Africa's (during apartheid), that of
Ancient Rome? Founding Fathers of America? Abraham Lincoln? These people were, overall, racist or very racist, at least by modern standards.
Maybe you mean, though, that by *now* every intelligent person on earth has gotten the memo and realizes that you can't tell anything about someone
from their race. I think that setting modern political correctness (a phenomenon of the past forty years) against the previously established opinions
of humanity in these matters is quite faddish. It would be one thing if there were sound science to back the blank-slate position that people are
genetically much the same (in ways that matter), and environment alone determines the important differences between, say, a Somali and a Finn. But on
looking for such a scientific foundation I instead find an unbroken record of misrepresentation and distortion, in service of an ideology that already
knows what it wants the answer to the question to be.
You can, of course, find plenty of stupid racists, if confirmation bias is your thing. Most people are stupid, most racists are stupid, and it may
well be that racists are more likely to be stupid than others (at least in the West... but in China and Japan racism never really went out of
fashion...).
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | You have of course the right to be deeply offensive but calling me and others ‘confused’ is precisely that: you might as well call them
‘clinically insane’ and be done with. Off to the gulag with you, confused people! |
If you would like to escalate the delusion that a homosexual union is a marriage to being a psychosis instead of confusion, there would not be any
protest from bona fide married couples who are actually male and female married couples, instead of those who would pretend reality is something other
than what it is.
| Quote: |
”An inherent aspect of marriage relates to the foundation of family which by nature requires a viable pairing of opposite sexes as a biological
reality that is a part of the larger reality that is nature and the natural scheme of things”
Kvetch. We don’t live natural lives. We live cultured lives. You wouldn’t survive five minutes in the jungle w/o technological gizmos. Your whole
stance here smacks of cultural influence by the right wing body politic of a certain large country, the laughing stock in many circles because of it.
|
No human homosexual "mating" in known history ever created a child by means of natural procreation and reproduction. The biological plumbing and
nature has defined things in a unique way where a distinction is operative for what is possible and what is not possible. That may not be a kind
reality for some to accept, but lame rationalizations about what it means don't get too much mileage with folks who are sane, or are otherwise not
confused by a simple fact of life. People confused about a simple fact of life also tend to be confused about a lot of other things, huge surprise
there huh. It isn't "intolerance" or "bigotry" to not buy into nor patronize another human being's neuroses or psychoses, but in an age of enforced
political correctness where distinction between right and wrong gets blurred, it just isn't stylish.
| Quote: | ”Just because some people may deceive themselves and try to redefine reality for their own convenience and comfort doesn't make it the
"enlightened" view to indulge and buy into such nonsense, and call that dishonesty "tolerance".”
Confused AND dishonest, eh? True criminals, indeed! |
Criminal is a whole 'nother matter. For the consummation of homosexual unions what manner of sodomy is considered to be most appropriate by the
state?
Where there is a Mr. & Mrs. as husband and wife there can be a marriage ....all the alternatives is a state sponsored fraud and a redefining of
reality by fiat as much as calling paper currency "real money". Look closely now for old fashioned truth, and when you recognize it .....then it is
easier to recognize also what is shuck and jive propaganda.
| Quote: |
”Persons having the traditional and reality based view of things about what is and what is not marriage are not "bigots" guilty somehow of any
extremist view or prejudice which has any moral equivalency with racism.”
Even reality seems relative now: Paleoconservatives like you seem to want to place themselves outside of reality. Or at least outside of my reality.
|
Your "reality" is not reality ...it is a speculative and rationalized construct, a world you see as suits your comfort instead of believing your eyes.
You tell it like you want it to be instead of telling it like it is.
| Quote: |
”There is nothing inherently bad about the answer "No" to things which ought to be rejected.”
And you’re the Absolute Arbiter of this? |
No I am not the absolute arbiter. I believe God is.
And unlike a lot of other people, I don't believe I am
smarter than God.
| Quote: |
”People are afraid to say "No" to things which should be rejected, because they don't want to offend anybody having a different view.”
Get it through your thick skull, Rosco: the vast majority of people that consider themselves tolerant do so because they’ve arrived at that position
through reason and experience. Throw in with that a good dollop of historical experience. I’ll make exception for a small subclass of ‘sheople’
that exists also on your side. |
A. There's no "thick skull" a problem here other than yours.
B. When I want the opinion of an expert on the world and reality it won't be you I ask about anything.
| Quote: |
”And probably it is the absolutism about politically sensitive issues which is disturbing to some people who are much happier straddling the
fence, choosing not to choose.”
What’s disturbing about your ‘absolutist’ (not far away from totalitarian views at all) view of homosexuality is that isn’t based on anything
rational at all. Instead it’s based on the same arch-Conservative stinky views on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular that manifest
itself in the West mainly in the rightwing political underbelly of the United States. And in Iran or the Taleban. But they’re not part of the
West… |
It is not the political underbelly of the United States which
said that homosexuality is an abomination before God,
it was the apostle Paul and others. Maybe you read a different bible, subscribe to a different idea of right and wrong. That would make things more
convenient for arguments based on not knowing the difference, such as this one.
| Quote: |
”The problem with indulging political correctness is that there will never be any end to the indulgences required of "tolerance and diversity"
to placate what some "oppressed minority" chooses to be acceptable.”
Goddammit, those pesky minorities, eh? Always asking for the same rights as the ‘majority’ and appealing to the ‘confused’ to get their
underhand ways and ‘unnatural’ sexual deviances…
Analytical? My *rse…
|
C. Taking the name of the Lord in vain won't put any stars in your crown in heaven. Maybe you should work on that.
The straight and narrow is something you don't get.
A problem with the alternative path is the destination.
You might be headed for way too warm weather if you don't change course.
But hey ...you're the expert.
|
|
|
Rogeryermaw
National Hazard
Posts: 656
Registered: 18-8-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
religion is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind. because of religion, we have entire civilizations of people who refuse to associate with
each another. some of these "associations" that will never occur could hold the keys to the scientific progression of the human race.
second, be it racist, politically radical, anti-intolerance(i love that! the self-contradictory nature of this phrase is like the decadent frosting on
a cake!) left wing, right wing, chicken wing, cock ring what the hell ever, the real problem is not the broad spectrum of conflicting views, even the
far out and insane, the problem is not the views or the people who have them. the problem<b>S</b> are the retraction of freedom of speech
for the sake of political correctness, the extreme over sensitivity that is causing this retraction and when the wild extreme views turn violent.
honestly, why should anyone care who hates who as long as people do their jobs, avoid violence and practice a little self control. it's not that hard.
if you let the fact that there is hatred in our imperfect world affect your life that much then the hater wins. you just gave them the power.
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | why should anyone care who hates who as long as people do their jobs, avoid violence and practice a little self control. |
Well, if people avoided violence, then the world would be a much different place. Since, instead, we live in a world forged by and controlled through
violence, I would say that your advice is irrelevant. I unfortunately *do* have to care on some level who hates whom, and why, and what they're
planning to do about it; to say nothing of the fact that much violence is not committed for reasons of hatred anyway.
|
|
|
Mixell
Hazard to Others
Posts: 449
Registered: 27-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | | Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | You have of course the right to be deeply offensive but calling me and others ‘confused’ is precisely that: you might as well call them
‘clinically insane’ and be done with. Off to the gulag with you, confused people! |
If you would like to escalate the delusion that a homosexual union is a marriage to being a psychosis instead of confusion, there would not be any
protest from bona fide married couples who are actually male and female married couples, instead of those who would pretend reality is something other
than what it is.
| Quote: |
”An inherent aspect of marriage relates to the foundation of family which by nature requires a viable pairing of opposite sexes as a biological
reality that is a part of the larger reality that is nature and the natural scheme of things”
Kvetch. We don’t live natural lives. We live cultured lives. You wouldn’t survive five minutes in the jungle w/o technological gizmos. Your whole
stance here smacks of cultural influence by the right wing body politic of a certain large country, the laughing stock in many circles because of it.
|
No human homosexual "mating" in known history ever created a child by means of natural procreation and reproduction. The biological plumbing and
nature has defined things in a unique way where a distinction is operative for what is possible and what is not possible. That may not be a kind
reality for some to accept, but lame rationalizations about what it means don't get too much mileage with folks who are sane, or are otherwise not
confused by a simple fact of life. People confused about a simple fact of life also tend to be confused about a lot of other things, huge surprise
there huh. It isn't "intolerance" or "bigotry" to not buy into nor patronize another human being's neuroses or psychoses, but in an age of enforced
political correctness where distinction between right and wrong gets blurred, it just isn't stylish.
| Quote: | ”Just because some people may deceive themselves and try to redefine reality for their own convenience and comfort doesn't make it the
"enlightened" view to indulge and buy into such nonsense, and call that dishonesty "tolerance".”
Confused AND dishonest, eh? True criminals, indeed! |
Criminal is a whole 'nother matter. For the consummation of homosexual unions what manner of sodomy is considered to be most appropriate by the
state?
Where there is a Mr. & Mrs. as husband and wife there can be a marriage ....all the alternatives is a state sponsored fraud and a redefining of
reality by fiat as much as calling paper currency "real money". Look closely now for old fashioned truth, and when you recognize it .....then it is
easier to recognize also what is shuck and jive propaganda.
| Quote: |
”Persons having the traditional and reality based view of things about what is and what is not marriage are not "bigots" guilty somehow of any
extremist view or prejudice which has any moral equivalency with racism.”
Even reality seems relative now: Paleoconservatives like you seem to want to place themselves outside of reality. Or at least outside of my reality.
|
Your "reality" is not reality ...it is a speculative and rationalized construct, a world you see as suits your comfort instead of believing your eyes.
You tell it like you want it to be instead of telling it like it is.
| Quote: |
”There is nothing inherently bad about the answer "No" to things which ought to be rejected.”
And you’re the Absolute Arbiter of this? |
No I am not the absolute arbiter. I believe God is.
And unlike a lot of other people, I don't believe I am
smarter than God.
| Quote: |
”People are afraid to say "No" to things which should be rejected, because they don't want to offend anybody having a different view.”
Get it through your thick skull, Rosco: the vast majority of people that consider themselves tolerant do so because they’ve arrived at that position
through reason and experience. Throw in with that a good dollop of historical experience. I’ll make exception for a small subclass of ‘sheople’
that exists also on your side. |
A. There's no "thick skull" a problem here other than yours.
B. When I want the opinion of an expert on the world and reality it won't be you I ask about anything.
| Quote: |
”And probably it is the absolutism about politically sensitive issues which is disturbing to some people who are much happier straddling the
fence, choosing not to choose.”
What’s disturbing about your ‘absolutist’ (not far away from totalitarian views at all) view of homosexuality is that isn’t based on anything
rational at all. Instead it’s based on the same arch-Conservative stinky views on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular that manifest
itself in the West mainly in the rightwing political underbelly of the United States. And in Iran or the Taleban. But they’re not part of the
West… |
It is not the political underbelly of the United States which
said that homosexuality is an abomination before God,
it was the apostle Paul and others. Maybe you read a different bible, subscribe to a different idea of right and wrong. That would make things more
convenient for arguments based on not knowing the difference, such as this one.
| Quote: |
”The problem with indulging political correctness is that there will never be any end to the indulgences required of "tolerance and diversity"
to placate what some "oppressed minority" chooses to be acceptable.”
Goddammit, those pesky minorities, eh? Always asking for the same rights as the ‘majority’ and appealing to the ‘confused’ to get their
underhand ways and ‘unnatural’ sexual deviances…
Analytical? My *rse…
|
C. Taking the name of the Lord in vain won't put any stars in your crown in heaven. Maybe you should work on that.
The straight and narrow is something you don't get.
A problem with the alternative path is the destination.
You might be headed for way too warm weather if you don't change course.
But hey ...you're the expert. |
People have the right to do what they please, as long as it does not directly harms another person. Tell me, how exactly same sex marriage harms you?
Or it just doesn't settle with your religious beliefs? If the answer to the last question is yes, then though luck, its your problem, not theirs. And
about the nature of homosexuality, did you know that a lot of animals practice same gender intercourse?
Of-course you have the freedom belief what you want (even fairy tails, for example little red hoodie, although I don't really see the difference
between this and...umm... religion). But you don't have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their life. Oh, and threatening
people that they will go to hell, how typical...
And about the "A problem with the alternative path is the destination." I'm pretty sure there is no destination, more precisely: I did not encounter
any evidence that support its existence, and the source of this idea is not the most reliable around (between reliability and it, there is a huge gap
filled with modern scientific discoveries and just plain logic). So I could say a thing with a similar note to it: If the destination is out of the
equation (and probably is) then only the path matters.
And to another topic: The problem with hatred it is not the existence of the hatred itself, but the actions that some people take in the name of
hatred. If everybody could just hate other people deep inside and that will be all, it would be a lot better world. But unfortunately, people tend to
try and offend/hurt/kill (sometimes even using extreme violence) other people/groups because of their hatred towards them. And that it why we need to
minimize the spread of hatred, or at least keep it behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | People have the right to do what they please, as long as it does not directly harms another person. Tell me, how exactly same sex marriage harms you?
Or it just doesn't settle with your religious beliefs? If the answer to the last question is yes, then though luck, its your problem, not theirs. And
about the nature of homosexuality, did you know that a lot of animals practice same gender intercourse?
Of-course you have the freedom belief what you want (even fairy tails, for example little red hoodie, although I don't really see the difference
between this and...umm... religion). But you don't have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their life. Oh, and threatening
people that they will go to hell, how typical...
And about the "A problem with the alternative path is the destination." I'm pretty sure there is no destination, more precisely: I did not encounter
any evidence that support its existence, and the source of this idea is not the most reliable around (between reliability and it, there is a huge gap
filled with modern scientific discoveries and just plain logic). So I could say a thing with a similar note to it: If the destination is out of the
equation (and probably is) then only the path matters.
And to another topic: The problem with hatred it is not the existence of the hatred itself, but the actions that some people take in the name of
hatred. If everybody could just hate other people deep inside and that will be all, it would be a lot better world. But unfortunately, people tend to
try and offend/hurt/kill (sometimes even using extreme violence) other people/groups because of their hatred towards them. And that it why we need to
minimize the spread of hatred, or at least keep it behind closed doors. |
I am a husband to a wife and a father to children. I know what a marriage is, as a respectable and legitimate status and an honorable and unique
relationship which for millenia has been by definition the formal committed relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife .....
no others need apply or pretend it is otherwise. Activist judges with their heretical lie and counterfeit can burn in hell with their proponents.
So a hundred million homosexuals and their partners can't be wrong huh to redefine their "committed relationships" as being marriage? It is a
preposterous joke in poor taste which seeks to devalue something legitimately unique and honorable to equate it with something that is definitely not
marriage. It is a counterfeiting and subverting the word marriage and the exclusive generally correctly accepted and established idea and reality of
what it means. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a lie.
This is more evidence of the "confusion" about which I have spoken already which is a credential of persons for which there is nothing sacred,
including more probably than not the very definition of the status of the parents whose marriage was the reason for their birth. Enter the fruit loop
activists who are seeking legitimacy for what isn't legitimate.
No, people do not "have the right" (fill in the blank) to do as they damn well please (not in any qualified nor unqualified sense)
whatsoever.....
not just because they say so nor because any government on earth says so.
You confuse a "right" with what is a privilege, an entitlement defined and guaranteed by the state. Rights are an endowment from God not a
dispensation from the state or society.
Neither the state nor society invented the sacrament of marriage, or the natural families that resulted from marriages of men and women.
Holy Matrimony, or sacramerntal marriage has for millenia been synonymous with "marriage" in the common use of language.
As for redefining the reality of what is marriage, that is simply another subversive activist agenda to subvert what is good to what is evil and blur
any distinction by deception and rationalizations which are not valid. And atheists think they are so clever at dismissal of anything having
religious origin by their ridicule and fearlessness of the "supernatural" ....
Yes, don't they all have their rap down pat, complete with
all the literature and philosophies which embolden them to live sinful lives fearing no accountability of course, since they don't really believe any
judgement awaits them. Of course they are their own judge of everything whatever,
and necessarily according to their belief nothing is sacred so there will be no consequences for error. Having no real code for values or morality,
no real basis for any distinction between what is right and wrong, they then live their lives accordingly. It's tough to correct those who in their
own minds can do no wrong. No conscience, no values, no ethics, ....
no shame or guilt ....
Now there's quite a plan for worldly bliss. But it isn't any path to heaven. There's only one way there.
Definitely it's time for Johnny Cash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU Personal Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA When The Man Comes Around
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2XJ0mlUnM When The Man Comes Around
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine |
I know what a marriage is, as a respectable and legitimate status and an honorable and unique relationship which for millenia has been by definition
the formal committed relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife .... no others need apply or pretend it is otherwise. Activist
judges with their heretical lie and counterfeit can burn in hell with their proponents.
Homosexual marriage is a preposterous joke in poor taste which seeks to devalue something legitimately unique and honorable to equate it with
something that is definitely not marriage. It is a counterfeiting and subverting the word marriage and the exclusive generally correctly accepted and
established idea and reality of what it means. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a lie.
This is more evidence of the "confusion" about which I have spoken already which is a credential of persons for which there is nothing sacred. Enter
the fruit loop activists who are seeking legitimacy for what isn't legitimate.
No, people do not "have the right" (fill in the blank) to do as they damn well please (not in any qualified nor unqualified sense)
whatsoever... not just because they say so nor because any government on earth says so.
You confuse a "right" with what is a privilege, an entitlement defined and guaranteed by the state. Rights are an endowment from God not a
dispensation from the state or society.
Neither the state nor society invented the sacrament of marriage, or the natural families that resulted from marriages of men and women.
Holy Matrimony, or sacramerntal marriage has for millenia been synonymous with "marriage" in the common use of language.
As for redefining the reality of what is marriage, that is simply another subversive activist agenda to subvert what is good to what is evil and blur
any distinction by deception and rationalizations which are not valid. Athiests all have their rap down pat, complete with
all the literature and philosophies which embolden them to live sinful lives fearing no accountability of course, since they don't really believe any
judgement awaits them. No conscience, no values, no ethics, no shame or guilt ....
|
It sounds as though Rosco Bodine seeks to impose his religious doctrine on everyone else.
Not all societies have historically practiced committed relationships analogous to Rosco Bodine's "god-sanctioned" notions of marriage. One has only
to look to the scriptures to see that this is so. Men traditionally had more than one wife.
Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 describe a roman centurion who came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his boy. The boy is referred to in the
original greek scriptures by the word pais, which by itself means that the boy was either the centurion's son or boy servant. Luke wrote that
the boy was the centurion’s entimos doulos [verse 9], which meant the boy was an "honored slave".
The centurion refers to his boy as pais, while using the word doulos to refer to his other slaves in Matthew verse 9.
Matthew
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6 “Lord,” he said, “my [boy] servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I
say to my [slave] servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great
faith.
11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom
of heaven.
12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.
Luke
1 When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his
master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and
heal his servant.
4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our
synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble
yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word,
and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one,
‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even
in Israel.” 10 Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.
It would have been highly unusual for a Roman centurion to humble himself and plead with a Jewish rabbi to heal his menial slave, for several reasons.
A roman centurion was a proud high-ranking official administering a conquered land, where the people were viewed as inferior to the romans. Slaves
were generally treated as sub-human, expendable, in many respects like animals. Children also had low status within roman society. Free roman citizens
could sell their children into slavery, and creditors could claim the children of insolvent debtors as slaves. Roman girls could be married off at the
age of twelve and boys at fourteen. By the age of sixteen boys generally donned the adult toga.
The greek word pais also had another possible meaning to the romans. At that time it was not uncommon for a man to purchase a young slave boy
to be his lover. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. Under the law, for example, the wife
was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just above that of a slave. The ancient romans did not have any qualms about same-sex
relationships, nor were there prohibitions on older adults having relationships with 12 year old children. Pederastry was an accepted part of roman
society. Indeed, it was seen as somewhat of an embarrassment if two older men were lovers. The word doulos only meant "slave" or "servant",
and was never used to refer to a son or other family member, even adopted children.
Nowhere in the scriptures can be found any clear and direct sanctions against gay marriage. The verses typically quoted by the religious right are all
very ambiguous. Yes, Leviticus describes punishment for two men laying with eachother "as a man lies with a woman", but this is part of "the law of
moses", which Paul later preached was not a requirement for Christians.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ
that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Galatians 3:23-25
Leviticus also instructs that baby boys should have part of their penis (foreskin) cut off. Paul made it clear that Christians do not need to be
circumcised.
In the Babylonian Talmud, "lyings of a man" is contrasted with other forms of sexual activity between men, indicating that the meaning did not
encompass all forms of sexual activity. As "the lyings of a man" is restricted in meaning, "the lyings of a woman" may also have had a similar
specific sexual meaning. Scholars generally believe it referred only to anal sex, an activity that was not necessarily considered a feature of
male-male sexual relationships in ancient times. Journal of the history of Sexuality, Volume 5 pp 179-206
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
There simply does not exist any biblical authority whatsoever for regarding homosexuality as anything else but wickedness, and in fact it is in many
places explicitly stated to be unnatural and wickedness, not at all ever described as being any "valid alternative lifestyle", which is an erroneous
idea and entirely deceptive invention of human convenience. Homosexual activism seeks to sanctify and make socially acceptable what is soundly
prohibited and condemned
as unacceptable by the bible. It is very plainly, unequivocally a delusional and subversive agenda. Plenty of references are available if you want
to start citing scripture chapter and verse.
I do not seek to impose any religious doctrine on anyone.
What I resist is the unbridled and brazen lunacy and immorality and deception of others masqueraded as reason or law that must be accepted or imposed
upon me. The bottom line there is I simply won't have it, won't humor it, won't patronize it, not for one second, because I know better. That snake
oil doesn't sell here. I have been immunized against it.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
?
Perhaps you would like to consider Jonathan and David:
“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took
him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.
Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.”
1 Samuel 18:1-4
And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.
1 Samuel 20:17
Jonathan's father, Saul, was not very happy about the relationship. Saul told Jonathan:
“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your
mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” 1 Samuel
20:30
“Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” Jonathan asked his father. But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew
that his father intended to kill David. Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the month he did not eat, because he was
grieved at his father’s shameful treatment of David.
1 Samuel 20:32-34
“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept
with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The
Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the
city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)
After Jonathan and Saul died in battle, David wrote a song:
“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, greater than the love of women.”
2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27
Some scholars have suggested that David was just an opportunistic soldier rapidly rising up through the ranks and gaining popularity. When Saul's son
Jonathan, who would have been the future king, showed favor in him, David may have been quick to take advantage of the opportunity, to use the
relationship to gain influence. The scriptures later tell how David sent Bathsheba's husband off to the front lines of a battle to get get rid of him.
Similarly, it may also have been possible that David informed the enemy when he learned that Saul would be leading a battle, so that Saul could be
ambushed. If the enemy knew that the king himself would be fighting, there would likely have been many more soldiers lying in wait. David had used his
influence with Jonathan to secure a high position for himself, and had gained much popularity (so much so that Saul had become very suspicious), so
David knew he would be the favored candidate for the throne if Saul and Jonathan were killed. David may or may not have known that Jonathan would
accompany his father into battle.
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | Maybe you mean, though, that by *now* every intelligent person on earth has gotten the memo and realizes that you can't tell anything about someone
from their race. |
Got it in one!
Don't we all know by now that the word 'xenophobia' is fairly self-explanatory . . .
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | Taking the name of the Lord in vain won't put any stars in your crown in heaven. |
Just checking, Rosco - that remark wasn't intended to be taken seriously?
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Start with the law of Moses and then the reference to it made by Jesus during the sermon on the mount, that will put Leviticus in perspective. There
is more about this subject in Jude and Romans and Corinthians.
Leviticus 18:4-5 and 22
4You must obey all my regulations and be careful to obey my decrees, for I am the Lord your God. 5If you obey my decrees and my regulations, you will
find life through them. I am the Lord.
22“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Matthew 5:17-19
17“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their
purpose. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is
achieved. 19So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone
who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Romans 1:18-32 God’s Anger at Sin
18But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19They know the truth about God
because he has made it obvious to them. 20For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they
can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
21Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like.
As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23And instead of worshiping the glorious,
ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
24So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s
bodies. 25They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy
of eternal praise! Amen. 26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and
instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did
shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
28Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
29Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30They
are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31They refuse to
understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to
die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
If you are looking for some sort of Da Vinci code hidden validation of the homosexual "alternative lifestyle" you won't find it in the bible. What
you will find is just the opposite. So where all of this is going on that track is nowhere.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
In ecology, the competitive exclusion principle states that two species competing for the same resources cannot coexist. This principle also applies
to sexually isolated subspecies. When one species has even the slightest advantage or edge over another, then the one with the advantage will dominate
in the long term. One of the two competitors will always overcome the other, leading to either the extinction of this competitor or an evolutionary or
behavioral shift towards a different ecological niche.
True coexistence is very rare, and such instances are only possible through a combination of non-limiting food and habitat resources and high rates of
predation and parasitism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_differentiation
These ecological phenomena may have implications in human society. If human subspecies actually exist, then in the long term they will either
completely mix, or they will be unable to coexist in the same region while occupying identical places within the economic structure. The different
subspecies would either have to speciate into different occupational niches, or go extinct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Five different subspecies of warblers inhabit the same spruce tree, but differ in what part of a spruce tree they frequent, and whether they capture
insects on needles, under bark, or flying in the air. The subspecies are reproductively isolated from eachother by differences in feather coloration
and mating calls. In the wild the different subspecies generally do not interbreed, but the different subspecies can be induced to mate in the lab, to
produce hybrid offspring. Even superficially similar subspecies actually have important differences, upon close inspection.
http://www.iteachbio.com/Life%20Science/Ecology/Niche.png
http://www.ao.net/~holmanh/CoppBioBases/CoppBioBases.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. |
'Reminds me of an old BBC joke . . . an American couple in London when asked by a journalist if they, like most people, had a 'favourite place' for
making love responded in unison; Yeah sure, in the butt!
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine |
Leviticus 18:4-5 and 22
4You must obey all my regulations and be careful to obey my decrees, for I am the Lord your God. 5If you obey my decrees and my regulations, you will
find life through them. I am the Lord.
22“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Matthew 5:17-19
17“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their
purpose. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is
achieved. 19So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone
who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
|
If that is what your believe, then Christians should also not eat pork, ham, or bacon:
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat,
and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.
Leviticus 11:7-8
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead
carcase.
Deuteronomy 14:8
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
You do realise that this is just mistranslation of the original hebrew, later perpetrated to support baseless doctrine? A more accurate translation
is:
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is a sinful thing.
Indeed, the literal translation from Hebrew is actually:
And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman, it is an abomination.
V’et-zachar lo tishkav mishk’vei ishah to’evah hu.
mishk’vei actually means "bed", as it is the noun form of mishkav, which means "to lie down". ishah means "women".
to’evah is best translated as "abomination", although a direct and accurate translation into english is problematic.
The actual meaning of the verse simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
And you're the nutcase. The Taleban of SM...
One question to you and I’m done here. Just how far would you take this ‘no to homosexuality’ in that putrid worldview of yours? In Ole’
Blighty homosexual acts were imprisonable offences by Law up to 1967 (off the top of my head). What should have been a national hero and definitely
was a mathematical genius, Alan Turing, committed suicide because of how his sexuality was viewed in his country. Is that what you want to return to?
In the name of God?
Rosco, you’re the manifestation of a dying, dinosaur part of the US but in it’s dying throes the animal still makes a lot of noise. A way of life
that’s basically gone with just a few diehards left, grasping at straws… How on Earth you reconcile your paleoviews with an interest in science is
truly beyond me.
This thread proves that allowing religion and politics into this forum can't lead to anything productive.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland | | Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine |
Leviticus 18:4-5 and 22
4You must obey all my regulations and be careful to obey my decrees, for I am the Lord your God. 5If you obey my decrees and my regulations, you will
find life through them. I am the Lord.
22“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Matthew 5:17-19
17“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their
purpose. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is
achieved. 19So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone
who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
|
If that is what your believe, then Christians should also not eat pork, ham, or bacon:
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat,
and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.
Leviticus 11:7-8
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead
carcase.
Deuteronomy 14:8
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
You do realise that this is just mistranslation of the original hebrew, later perpetrated to support baseless doctrine? A more accurate translation
is:
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is a sinful thing.
Indeed, the literal translation from Hebrew is actually:
And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman, it is an abomination.
V’et-zachar lo tishkav mishk’vei ishah to’evah hu.
mishk’vei actually means "bed", as it is the noun form of mishkav, which means "to lie down". ishah means "women".
to’evah is best translated as "abomination", although a direct and accurate translation into english is problematic.
The actual meaning of the verse simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by AndersHoveland] |
Your arguments are not substantive but are semantics. Many translations don't give you many different meanings, unless you are equivocating
deliberately.
Mark 7:14-23 Jesus abolishes food restrictions
14Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. “All of you listen,” he said, “and try to understand. 15It’s not what goes into your body
that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart.”
17Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowd, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the parable he had just used. 18“Don’t you
understand either?” he asked. “Can’t you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you? 19Food doesn’t go into your heart, but
only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)
20And then he added, “It is what comes from inside that defiles you. 21For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual
immorality, theft, murder, 22adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. 23All these vile things come
from within; they are what defile you.”
One may safely presume that any previous Mosaic law that was not specifically amended and/or perfected stands, and given the sort of argument being
made, it is clear that you are identifying a conflict of law which does not exist. Many
things were changed by Jesus directly, but not other things.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 |
And you're the nutcase. The Taleban of SM...
One question to you and I’m done here. Just how far would you take this ‘no to homosexuality’ in that putrid worldview of yours? In Ole’
Blighty homosexual acts were imprisonable offences by Law up to 1967 (off the top of my head). What should have been a national hero and definitely
was a mathematical genius, Alan Turing, committed suicide because of how his sexuality was viewed in his country. Is that what you want to return to?
In the name of God?
Rosco, you’re the manifestation of a dying, dinosaur part of the US but in it’s dying throes the animal still makes a lot of noise. A way of life
that’s basically gone with just a few diehards left, grasping at straws… How on Earth you reconcile your paleoviews with an interest in science is
truly beyond me.
This thread proves that allowing religion and politics into this forum can't lead to anything productive.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by blogfast25] |
When honest medical science does not defer to political correctness but tells it like it is once again, as it did acknowledge for many years before
political correctness, then the DSM-IV code for homosexuality as a bona fide mental disorder will be reinstated. That would be done on the basis of
scientific objectivity not religion.
So much for science.
Marriage is not a "special olympics" category event for mental defectives.
And to be clear about the matter of military service, it would also be my view there should be zero tolerance there as well, a 100% disqualification
is what should be in effect, not any half measures.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine |
15It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart.”
17 “Can’t you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you? 19Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach
and then goes into the sewer.”
20And then he added, “It is what comes from inside that defiles you. 21For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual
immorality, theft, murder, 22adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. 23All these vile things come
from within; they are what defile you.”
One may safely presume that any previous Mosaic law that was not specifically amended and/or perfected stands, and given the sort of argument being
made, it is clear that you are identifying a conflict of law which does not exist. Many
things were changed by Jesus directly, but not other things.
|
"It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart.”
Then presumably a penis going into another man does not defile the man.
"Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.”
Semen also does not go into the heart; it only passes into the rectum. 
"sexual immorality, lustful desires... vile things come from within; they are what defile you.”
Sexual immorality and lustful desires are not necessarily specific to same-sex relationships.
"Mosaic law... Many things were changed by Jesus directly, but not other things."
It is interesting how lightly evangelicals have taken other proscriptions found in the same Old Testament Code, for example: rules against the eating
of rabbit (Lev 11:26), oysters, clams, shrimp, and lobster (Lev 11:10ff), and rare steaks (Lev 17:10). Evangelicals do not picket or try to close down
seafood restaurants nor they keep kosher kitchens. They do not always order steaks “well-done.” They eat pork and ham. The wearing of clothes made
from interwoven linen and wool (Deut 22:11) does not seem to bother them at all. They do not ”cut off” from among the people, as is demanded by
this same Code, those who have intercourse with women during menstruation (Lev 20:18) and those who marry women who have been divorced (Lev 21:14).
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Romans 10:4
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1 Timothy 4:4
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
