|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I was listening to an old DC Talk album earlier today and while listening to the retrospective at the end of it, they were talking about their song "Socially Acceptable" and how society has changed over the years. How there was a time when things were taboo but now they're the norm. I think this says a lot about the world Christians live in. How things have changed and go against what the Bible says.
quote:
DC Talk
Free At Last
[It's okay, it's all right]
It's okay, it's alright
Yeah, here we go
dcT is in the house boy
It's okay, it's alright
Whatcha thinking, doing the things you do
Whose opinion are ya listening to?
Justifying, you turn it all to gray
Synchronizing to society's ways
Society has gotten to be all outta whack
And don't bother with excuses whether white or black
To blame it on a color won't get a result
Because history reveals to me how ethics were lost
In reality our decency has taken a plunge
"In God We Trust" is an American pun
Funny how it happened so suddenly
Hey yo fellas, kick the melody...
(chorus)
Socially acceptable, it's okay, it's all right
Socially acceptable, it's okay, in whose sight
Socially acceptable
Times are changing, with morals in decay
Human rights have made the wrongs okay
Something's missing, and if you're asking me
I think that something is the G-O-D
To label wrong or right by the people's sight
Is like going to a loser to ask advice
And by basing your plans
On another man's way of living life
Is creating a brand of ethics
Sure to be missing the punch
No count morals that are out to lunch
They're sliding away cause everything is okay
It was taboo back then but today ya say, "What the hey"
(repeat chorus)
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Here we go, here we go
A come on, a come on
Here we go, here we go
A come on, a come on
Here we go, here we go
A come on, a come on
Here we go, here we go
A come on, a come on
Everybody's doin' it
Who's doin' it
Everybody's doin' it
Yo, who's doin' it
Everybody's doin' it
Who's doin' it
Everybody's doin' it
Yo, yo, yo, who's doin' it
Ohhhh, alright
Ohhhh, come on
(bridge)
We gotta back to the principles found in the Word
A little G-O-D could be society's cure
From the state that we're in cause again we're slipping
So pray for America cause time is ticking
(repeat chorus 2x)
socially respectable
socially acceptable
socially respectable
Oh, you poor, put-upon christians. What a tough life you have here in the US where you have complete freedom of Religion.
Give me a frigging break.
And thanks for sharing that delightful little ditty with us--- it was pure magic, and an absolute musical treat. (I bet you also enjoy Jack T. Chick publications, don't ya?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
Be careful, Matt. Rob doesn't check this forum as often as some of the others, but you're flirting with getting some of your posts deleted at the very least. Not only are you making personal attacks on individuals, you are attacking Christianity itself. Distinctly not an advisable course of action. ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Uhhhh....Rob doesn't "check" forums here...this isnt the DCMB's and he didn't "check" them either...he only responded to complaints...and he won't even do that here...
Yeah, I thought that was the case here. Thanks for the info, Franta.
I think ol' Cap'n Dawson should just plug up his "flow" (it's obvious that it is "that time of month" for the dear, apple-cheeked lad) and head back to "the creek" before he makes me angry--- I would really hate to say something that would hurt his precious lil' feelings, y'know... ![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Y'know, Dave, you say all this as if you are an impartial observer, but your opinion is as subjective as you claim that mine is. Within the context of the Bible, my statements are objectively correct. What I've said, and quoted at length, is LITERALLY what the Bible says. It is only through omission and re-interpretation that the Bible verses (quoted extensively above) can be made to endorse homosexuality. And since you don't seem to have any faith whatsoever in the Bible's credibility as a source of law and authority, there goes your objectivity right there. quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Examples of corruption #1,2 and 4 are each plagued by logical fallacies, which I will make clear.
Again, in your opinion. I respect that you have a different view than mine, but I don't think you've proven my statements non-factual and false. You've only STATED that my views are false, without detailing how this is untrue. For me, your OWN statements are a non-sequitor.
And I say that as respectfully as I can. It just doesn't add up for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Dealing with each of those in turn:
1. again, I think you're being ethnocentric. "Morality" isn't limited to just North America and the European peninsula: I assume morality and the effects of morality are global because Christianity is a universal religion.
I'm not entirely clear what your point is. As you know, I live in Florida, and I meet people here who have come from all over the world, from every continent. I almost daily come into contact with people from Europe, China, Japan, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Morrocco, Iran, Vietnam, the Phillipines, and places closer to home for you, Australia and New Zealand. I've regularly spoken to people who are Jews, Muslims, Hindu, and Buddhist. Among all these cultures, I've never heard any raise a favorable opinion of homosexuality.
I see that the standard of one man/one woman is the global standard for marriage, and I've never seen ANY evidence, or any personal opinion of foreigners I know personally, to indicate otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Yet you say:
a. AIDS is predominately spread by gays
b. yet only in the West, and not in the rest of the world
c. therefore AIDS is a gay disease and is a form of "corruption".
Dave, you are a highly intelligent and literate person. Could you truly not see my point in what I just previously posted to you?
I acknowledged AIDS/HIV is not an exclusively gay disease. That in most of the world heterosexual transmission [again, 1)through prostitution, and 2) through heterosexual anal sex, either for pleasure or to avoid pregnancy through vaginal sex] is the major way of contracting the disease, GLOBALLY.
But in the U.S., homosexual males, I.V. drug users, and I.V. drug user/homosexual men, account for over 75% of AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S.
And that many of the 17% or so of heterosexually transmitted cases originate from a secretly bisexual gay man, who then gives it through heterosexual intercourse to a woman. But despite the source, it is sattistically labelled as "heterosexual transmission". I spoke to the CDC directly about this statistical breakdown when I wrote an article about AIDS/HIV in 1993.
But THE POINT is, heterosexual OR homosexual methods of transmitting AIDS are both through illicit sex or IV drug use. Close to 100% of AIDS/HIV cases are transmitted through (by Biblical standards) immoral behavior.
As I said in my last post, homosexuality is not EXCLUSIVELY transmitting AIDS/HIV, but it is certainly a major slice of the AIDS/HIV pie, particularly in the U.S.
And while I don't single out the gay lifestyle exclusively, I have logically explained my position on homosexuality as a corruptive culture, from a Biblical perspective (detailing gay attempts to alter the obvious literal meaning of Bible scripture on homosexuality),
permissiveness/promiscuity argument (which I think the media attempts to hide from the public, and only display monogamous gay couples, projecting a politically correct notion that gays are "just like us", whereas I've seen numerous reports, mostly on Christian news, that gays are far more promiscuous and risky in their behavior than heterosexuals generally are),
and
cultural acceptance of homosexuality opening the floodgates for a variety of perversions and abberant sexual practices. Which as has been noted, other excesses follow on the coat-tails of gay rights.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
This lacks logic - its ignarato elenchi. Its also probably a circular argument or a non sequitur- AIDS is an indicator of corruption, AIDS is spread by gays, homosexuality is an indicator of corruption, therefore AIDS is an indicator of corruption, therefore homosexuality is corrupt.
"lacks logic" is your opinion of my opinion. I can as easily say that your own opinion lacks logic and doesn't add up for me. I don't see any clear and logical argument that my opinion lacks logic. I think I've made the connections clear.
"circular logic" is a bit insulting. I see this term as more of a label than a clear criticism. A dismissive label.
My train of logic as you describe it is not accurate. My train is more of: The Bible condemns sexual immorality, homosexuality is (Biblically) a clear form of sexual immorality, like other forms of sexual immorality (heterosexual forms of illicit sex), homosexual immorality likewise spreads AIDS/HIV also. And not surprisingly, gays have a high ratio of HIV/AIDS infection.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
2. Gay rights will lead to the downfall of civilisation - you let open the barn door, and all the cows will get out. This is a logical fallacy, too - the slippery slope.
You again label this as a logical fallacy (in your own subjective opinion) and yet do not clearly demonstrate any fallacy beyond the dismissive label.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
3. Interpretation of the Bible is an industry in itself.
FALSE interpretation is, but logic dictates that if you're going to be a Christian, you want a clear, factual, verifiable base for your beliefs and teachings. That logical base is the Bible. As I detailed in a previous post, there is considerable historic/archaological evidence to verify the Bible has been accurately preserved for 2,000 years, more verifiable than any other ancient document. And while there is symbolic interpretation of certain passages, there is overwhelming consensus on the major themes of the Bible, including overwhelming consensus on the Biblical stance on homosexuality.
It is therefore dismissive and illogical to dismiss the Bible as a verifiable foundation for Judao-Christan teaching and ideology.
Or to put it another way, to NOT go by what the Bible says, to reject any part of it, is to defy what is clearly the "God breathed" Word of God. And logically, anyone who professes to be a Christian and IGNORES those teachings (or in the case of gays, circumvents and manipulates those teachings) clearly and simply IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Rejecting or ignoring scripture is buffet religion, and ignorant of the clear teachings of Christianity. And logically, NOT truly representative of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
You oppose a liberal interpretation, which is just as valid as liberally interpreting the Bible so that it can co-exist with evolutionary theory. You exclude all other interpretations of the Bible save your own. This is a radical fundamentalist view.
Liberal interpretation is not equally valid. It is disingenuously manipulative toward ulterior motives, and ignores the clear direct meaning.
For instance, my example in earlier posts, of the literal as well as symbolic meaning for "the Bride" in scripture, and the value of purity. Gay sex violates that proscribed purity, just as HETEROsexual immorality does.
As I've said repeatedly. I feel you're attempting to falsely imply that I hold a different standard for homosexuality, when in point of fact I've clearly and repeatedly said that both (hetero and homo) forms of extramarital sex are prohibited Biblically, and punishable by death.
Homosexuality (when prevalent) has the Biblical distinction of marking a society that has reached its ultimate slump into decadence, and marks that society's near destruction.
And as quoted in Biblical scripture (particularly ROMAN 1, quoted above) that meaning is unmistakeable, except to a mind that chooses to ignore the clear meaning )
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
4. the fourth example of the corruptive nature of homosexuality suffers from the logical fallacy of the hasty generalisation. What about all of the gays who are devoted to their partners? Or the gays which are not bisexual? Or the open bisexuals who practice no deceit? You take one segment of the gay community and apply their practices against all segments.
"hasty generalization" is another emotional label that is wrapped in a fancy coat of allegedly impartial pseudo-science.
But ultimately, it is again your interpretation and your opinion, based on your own liberal preconceptions, and utter rejection of the Bible as a reasonable source of law and moral standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
Somebody better tell all them priests and their supporters that forcing homosexual sex on kids is NOT OK...but as the Chicago cardinal stated it could be overlooked if its a female kid 17 or 18 and the priest was drunk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Not being a Catholic, and seeing very clearly that vows of celibacy (i.e., an inability to marry) , are clearly NON-Biblical, I offer no defense of the Catholic church's policy on this. But I would hasten to add that many Catholics I know are outraged by this protection of child molesters in the church, and many have denied tithe-collections and other support to the Catholic church as a result, until the Vatican changes its position. Which will really hit the Vatican where it hurts, until they do change their policy. The Catholic clergy's position is a clear good-ol'-boy situation, where the elite of the Catholic church can thwart the will of its parishioners. But it is not just, or Biblical. Again, Genesis 2, verses 23-25 establishes that men and women are to marry for companionship and family: quote:
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Christians (and specifically priests and nuns and other clergy) are not pressed to celibacy in order to serve God. I have absolutely no idea why the Catholic church does not abolish this practice. They would find far more men and women eager to become priests and nuns. And this would weed ot the abusive perverts victimizing innocent boys (and girls).
The Old Testament book SONG OF SOLOMON details a healthy, and passionate, relationship between a man and his wife. Christianity is clearly not meant to be sexlessness, or sexual repression. Or celibacy. This book is a celebration of marriage:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=SONG+1&language=english&version=NIV
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
But seeing as Catholics ARE Christians...
Why are these Christians able to ignore Homosexuality when its statitory rape...
but.... not when amongst consenting adults?!?!?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Actually DWB you do interpet the Bible with your own bias. The story of Sodom for example you apply to todays gay people. What literaly happened in that story? A mob tries to rape some angles & are punished by God. Now if one of the villagers asked one of the angles out on a date & was punished by God I would believe your interpretation.
I know it's off topic but I would be interested in your interpretation of Jesus's view on piety?
Arguments that have gays leading the country's slide into decadence smacks of scapegoatism. If gays are so decadent why do so many want to get married?
Batwoman & anybody else. What period of time were values A-OK? Before Civil Rights? During Biblical Times? Disco 70's?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
Hey, Franta--- were you aware that "The 700 Club" apparently has oodles and oodles of "news" and assorted highly credible info on the decadent, immoral gay "lifestyle"? It's true! That's what Wonder Dave has said therefore it must be true. (He's a decent, pious, and infinitely wise Christian fellow, so I'm sure he wouldn't lie!) Come to think of it, right-wing christian television and/or radio sounds like a GREAT place to get ANY kind of "news"--- gay or otherwise! Now why haven't I thought of this before??? ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Actually DWB you do interpet the Bible with your own bias.
Actually thats all ANYONE can do.
You can find arguements for to justify anything.
Why didnt Jesus say to love everyman as you love yourself? Couldn't that be seen as endorsement for homosexuality?
Or is it just because someone in authority is uncomfortable with it its unacceptable?
Bottom line is morals do NOT belong in law.
Should it be illegal not to eat pork because that in Hebrew morality?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
But seeing as Catholics ARE Christians...
Why are these Christians able to ignore Homosexuality when its statitory rape...
but.... not when amongst consenting adults?!?!?!?!?!
Damn good question, Franta. (Wonder Dave's probable answer: 'cuz Jesus told me so; in fact, that's pretty much ALL he has to say on this subject when you get right down to it--- our Davey is a regular bear for independent thought, y'know.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
The pork thing gets into the purity code in Leviticus. As Klinton brought up a zillion pages ago, was done away with in the New Testament. So it would only apply to Jews & how they interpret it. I don't think legislating morality works anyway. It needs to be taught by a parent or guardian. Some parents just are not putting the time in these days or there trying to be a friend instead of a parent IMHO
I saw a bit of the 700 club many years ago where they were commenting on the Family Leave Act & how it was going to be abused & ruin small business. I figure it's not really about getting the news with those type of show but a reaffirmation for the thumpers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
My views are based on many sources, as I already said Matt. Not just Christian news.
As I said earlier, you clearly have nothing to say, beyond caricaturing, oversimplifying, and deliberately misrepresenting views posted by myself and anyone else you disagree with.
In all your posts, you've made not one single intelligent statement. Since you got on this topic, it's ceased to be a debate, and become your own personal insult-fest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Actually DWB you do interpet the Bible with your own bias.
Actually thats all ANYONE can do.
You can find arguements for to justify anything.
Why didnt Jesus say to love everyman as you love yourself? Couldn't that be seen as endorsement for homosexuality?
Or is it just because someone in authority is uncomfortable with it its unacceptable?
Bottom line is morals do NOT belong in law.
Should it be illegal not to eat pork because that in Hebrew morality?!?!?!
Good post.
But I think what you meant to say at the end there is that RELIGION should have no sway over the law, right? (And thank goodness we DO have separation of church and state in this country, or I'm certain misguided bullies like Davey would run riot over a shitload of our human and civil rights--- not the least of which would be to doom homosexuals to 2nd class citizen status indefinitely.) Of course we want our laws to be moral/ethical--- just not an out of control, devisive Theocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Batwoman & anybody else. What period of time were values A-OK? Before Civil Rights? During Biblical Times? Disco 70's?
Yeah. When exactly was it "the good ol' days" for you decent, moral, god lovin' and fearin' folks?
Back when all gays had to stay in the closet, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
My views are based on many sources, as I already said Matt. Not just Christian news.
As I said earlier, you clearly have nothing to say, beyond caricaturing, oversimplifying, and deliberately misrepresenting views posted by myself and anyone else you disagree with.
In all your posts, you've made not one single intelligent statement. Since you got on this topic, it's ceased to be a debate, and become your own personal insult-fest.
Dave, I hardly need to go to the trouble of "caricaturing" ya, chum--- you do such a damn good job of that yourself. (In fact, if I didn't know you to be the genuine goofball article that you are, I would have thought that you were doing an even more demented--- but endlessly less funny--- "caricature" of Archie Bunker.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Can everyone not see the endless circular pattern in this thread? I mean, there is no compramise on this issue, appearantly. As I stated much earlier in this discussion, I wish that people like Dave could step outside thier 'absolute truths' and just live a year in my life. I can't see any other way of getting the point across. For all of your talk of perversion and corruption, all I (and otheres like me) want is to be free of persecution. That's it. You can proclaim how gross and repulsive my life is until the end of the day...but the emptiness I lived with before coming to terms with myself is infinitely more disgusting. No God would ask this of his followers and expect devotion in return. It's just not possible. I know you cannot see this, and like I said, I think people like you would have to experience it to 'get' it.
Dave, sure some of your arguments make sense on paper...they do, I won't argue that. But I know undisputabley that you are wrong on this. I wish I could convey the entire reasoning behind my standpoint, but so much of it took years for me to see myself. I hope that someday, someone very close to you challenges you on this...not to humble you, but to help you see just how cruel your statments really are (and I know, they are not meant to be...I realize the convictions behind your stance. I used to share them myself).
That's really all I have to say. I think I've exausted my views in here, and they've been recieved with nothing more than "well, ok. But your still a sick fuck in my eye's".
And I appologize to everyone who is trying to keep this cilvil by acknowleding 'legitiamate political opinions'. Imagine if someone stood up and declared your relationship as a subject open to dispute and critique, and illegitimate in the eyes of the law. No one in thier right mind would stand for that, and yet somehow it is acceptable for me to have to? I hate the fact that day in and day out, the little things that most folks can take for granted are a bloody statement on my part. I am defined by the fact that I am gay, and everything else has to come second.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Actually DWB you do interpet the Bible with your own bias. The story of Sodom for example you apply to todays gay people. What literaly happened in that story? A mob tries to rape some angles & are punished by God. Now if one of the villagers asked one of the angles out on a date & was punished by God I would believe your interpretation.
Because, for the 50th time, comparing the many verses of the Bible about homosexuality, and moral purity, and sexual purity, and the sanctity of marriage (clearly, between a man and a woman), the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality specifically.
quote:
LEVITICUS 20:13
13 The LORD said to Moses... " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "
and Romans chapter 1, verses :
quote:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The meaning of these words is clear and unmistakeable. There is no question of interpretation, or expiration date. The Bible is clear this is the eternal law to be preserved. God the Father/Jesus clearly condemns homosexuality as an immoral act.
For the 50th time. Indisputably.
~
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
I know it's off-topic but I would be interested in your interpretation of Jesus's view on piety?
Jesus said the most important things were to:
1. Love the Lord with all all your heart, mind and spirit.
2. Love your neighbor as your self. Show compassion and mercy, show kindness to your enemies, and pray for your enemies, treat all men (or all humankind) as brothers (i.e., the same respect as your own family)
3. Teach the good news of God's mercy, of God's love of all men and women, and of Jesus' own sacrifice, and gift of salvation to all humankind.
(I'm not preaching, I was asked this question.)
Jesus was critical of the Pharisees and Saduccees (dominant Jewish sects of the time), because they were technically following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Jesus taught love and compassion, but not abandonment of Old Testament law. He clearly condemned sexual immorality, which homosexuality is a sub-category of as well, since what God the Father condemned in the Old Testament is what Jesus condemned with the same voice:
again,JOHN 10, VERSE 30 quote:
"I and the Father are one..."
,
and MATTHEW 5, VERSES 17-18:
quote:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Arguments that have gays leading the country's slide into decadence smacks of scapegoatism. If gays are so decadent why do so many want to get married?
No one is scapegoating gays here.
I've said OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER that the same standard applies to heterosexuals who engage in sexual immorality as well.
Homosexuality, AGAIN, is only ONE FORM of immorality. Its prevalence is a Biblical sign of the end times, though, and of a civilization on the eve of destruction.
Several have tried to misrepresent what I've CLEARLY SAID, that homosexuality is only ONE FORM of immorality, and not the Christian church's sole focus for some kind of witch hunt. Clearly, the message bears some repeating, if it is to sink in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
And the bible clearly contradicts itself in numerous cases most especially between the Old and New Testament.
The Bible is clearly outdated in many concepts (Thou shalt not worship thy neighbor;s ass?!?!?!?)
The Bible was translated to English by mere mortals who not only can have made errors but often times translations were not available or clear so they had to "fudge it".
Now in a very orginized religious way, I take the Bible for what works for me.
When Jesus was asked what the most important Commandment was He responded Love one another as you wish to be loved and treat one another as you would be treated.
So two consentual adults of any gender type having sex that is not "adultery" harms folks in what way? How is this destroying the moral fabric of society? And who the hell's business is it of ANYONE's what two people do sexually behind closed doors?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Not being a Catholic, and seeing very clearly that vows of celibacy (i.e., an inability to marry) , are clearly NON-Biblical, I offer no defense of the Catholic church's policy on this.
But I would hasten to add that many Catholics I know are outraged by this protection of child molesters in the church, and many have denied tithe-collections and other support to the Catholic church as a result, until the Vatican changes its position. Which will really hit the Vatican where it hurts, until they do change their policy.
The Catholic clergy's position is a clear good-ol'-boy situation, where the elite of the Catholic church can thwart the will of its parishioners. But it is not just, or Biblical.
Again, Genesis 2, verses 23-25 establishes that men and women are to marry for companionship and family:
quote:
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Christians (and specifically priests and nuns and other clergy) are not pressed to celibacy in order to serve God. I have absolutely no idea why the Catholic church does not abolish this practice. They would find far more men and women eager to become priests and nuns. And this would weed ot the abusive perverts victimizing innocent boys (and girls).
The Old Testament book SONG OF SOLOMON details a healthy, and passionate, relationship between a man and his wife. Christianity is clearly not meant to be sexlessness, or sexual repression. Or celibacy. This book is a celebration of marriage:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=SONG+1&language=english&version=NIV
Sweet. Now you're slamming on the Catholics, too. Will the Jews be next on your lil' hit parade, O wise one?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
Can everyone not see the endless circular pattern in this thread? I mean, there is no compramise on this issue, appearantly. As I stated much earlier in this discussion, I wish that people like Dave could step outside thier 'absolute truths' and just live a year in my life. I can't see any other way of getting the point across. For all of your talk of perversion and corruption, all I (and otheres like me) want is to be free of persecution. That's it. You can proclaim how gross and repulsive my life is until the end of the day...but the emptiness I lived with before coming to terms with myself is infinitely more disgusting. No God would ask this of his followers and expect devotion in return. It's just not possible. I know you cannot see this, and like I said, I think people like you would have to experience it to 'get' it.
Dave, sure some of your arguments make sense on paper...they do, I won't argue that. But I know undisputabley that you are wrong on this. I wish I could convey the entire reasoning behind my standpoint, but so much of it took years for me to see myself. I hope that someday, someone very close to you challenges you on this...not to humble you, but to help you see just how cruel your statments really are (and I know, they are not meant to be...I realize the convictions behind your stance. I used to share them myself).
That's really all I have to say. I think I've exausted my views in here, and they've been recieved with nothing more than "well, ok. But your still a sick fuck in my eye's".
And I appologize to everyone who is trying to keep this cilvil by acknowleding 'legitiamate political opinions'. Imagine if someone stood up and declared your relationship as a subject open to dispute and critique, and illegitimate in the eyes of the law. No one in thier right mind would stand for that, and yet somehow it is acceptable for me to have to? I hate the fact that day in and day out, the little things that most folks can take for granted are a bloody statement on my part. I am defined by the fact that I am gay, and everything else has to come second.
Klinton, I know it's difficult for you, I don't think you're sick. But at the same time I can't pretend to endorse your belief-system.
I don't think your a "sick f---", I don't have the moral purity to make that judgement. I'm only saying, "This is the Biblical standard."
You're not "sick". You're a human being, with a set of personal temptations that are different than what tempts me. Not better or worse. Different. We're all equally sinful, and equally loved in the eyes of God.
And as I've said, I also struggle with the premarital/extramarital issue as a heterosexual. And I don't pretend God endorses it if I violate that standard. THAT is my major point of conflict with the gay movement, and the "inborn" mindset of homosexuality it teaches.
I've thought about you a lot in the last few days, how difficult your conflict with your father must have been. And how enduringly painful that must be. I truly wish I could take that pain away from you. I'm confident at some point, you'll be able to reconcile. No one can stay angry forever.
As I said, I have gay friends. In point of fact, I have two gay family members (one lesbian, one gay and still in the closet). I don't shun them, they are still my family and friends. And there are several conversations going on at once in this topic that has made me frequently more strident than I would be if we were talking one on one.
And I know a salvation speech doesn't fill your needs, either. It never did mine !
I've often gone to church and spoken to pastors, and felt condescended and patronized to. Not everyone is equipped to answer your questions (myself included), or my questions either, it's a difficult process.
One of my favorite lines is from the movie Reality Bites where Winona Ryder's character says: "I want my life to be like the Brady Bunch, where all my problems are resolved by the end of the hour."
If only.
So hang in there. And pray for guidance from God, regardless of scripture.
And my apologies for being so strident about scripture. That aspect (at least as it relates to the Biblical position on homosexuality) has been pretty abundantly explored here.
Ending on a more positive note:
quote:
PHILLIPIANS 1, verses 4-6:
4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy
5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now,
6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Sweet. Now you're slamming on the Catholics, too. Will the Jews be next on your lil' hit parade, O wise one?
I'm clearly not bashing Catholics. And as my posts elsewhere have made clear, I am absolutely not anti-semitic.
This is just a game to you, you have no serious point to make beyond slander and insults.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Two new related news items: quote:
From World News - Canada
Toronto Open on Weekend for Gay Marriage License
By Rajiv Sekhri
TORONTO (Reuters) - Toronto's wedding registry office will open this weekend for the first time in its history to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who want to take advantage of Canada's recently changed marriage laws.
The city has already issued 225 marriage licenses for same-sex couples and expects hundreds more to tie the knot this weekend. It has received about 15 inquiries a day from around the world since June 10, when an Ontario court set aside the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman as unconstitutional.
About a million people are expected to visit Toronto for Gay Pride this week, which finishes with a parade on Sunday.
Brad Ross, a spokesman with the city of Toronto, said 25 of the 225 gay marriage licenses issued so far have gone to U.S. couples and some couples have applied from as far as Europe, China, Cayman Islands, Israel and the West Indies.
Ross said the city will also keep its marriage chapel open over the weekend. It is making two meeting rooms available for those who wish to marry there if the chapel is occupied.
Heterosexual couples are also welcome to get licenses or tie the knot over the weekend, he said.
"It's a very convenient time for people. Everybody is in the same place (for Gay Pride Week)," said Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, the majority of whose members are gay or lesbian.
He will perform six weddings this weekend and plans to marry his partner John on their 25th anniversary, in three years time.
A landmark ruling by an Ontario provincial court on June 10 included homosexual unions into the definition of marriage.
The federal government signaled its acceptance of gay marriage a week later when it decided not to appeal the provincial court's decision.
"We are now full participants in Canadian society. Apartheid is gone," said Bruce Walker, a lawyer in Toronto who plans to marry his partner of 26 years in the next six months. "It has been a 26-year struggle."
South of the border, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between same-sex couples, in effect ending all anti-sodomy laws in the 13 states where they still exist.
But gay marriages are not allowed in the United States. Vermont allows gay civil unions but not full marriage.
"I am amazed to live in such a beautiful country," Walker said of Canada. "It is beyond my wildest imagination that it happened so quickly."
and...
quote:
From Supreme Court AP:
Supreme Court Looking Less Conservative
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - In blockbuster rulings on affirmative action and gay rights and in less heralded decisions this term, a Supreme Court dominated by conservative jurists looked less conservative than it has in years.
"On vitally important issues to social conservatives, they suffered serious defeats this term," said Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who specializes in the Supreme Court. "There was not a single victory to balance it out."
Serendipity plays a role in the mix of cases the court hears in a given year, and it can be misleading to look at any one year in isolation.
Still, the 2002-2003 session will be remembered for its exceptions to the conservative rule, lawyers and law professors said.
In the term that ended last week, the high court bolted from a decade of rulings striking down or limiting racial formulas, and upheld the continued use of race as a factor in university admissions.
The justices also made an about-face on the question of whether gay men and women can be prosecuted for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That caused one of the court's core conservatives, Justice Antonin Scalia, to sputter that his colleagues had "taken sides in the culture war."
No less a conservative stalwart than Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist led the majority this spring in departing from the court's march to increase state rights at the expense of federal control in a case about family leave for state workers.
The court also upheld a legal aid financing program for the poor that political conservatives called an unconstitutional government assault on private property.
"These decisions were not as conservative as might have been expected," said Emory University law professor Robert Schapiro. "The affirmative action ruling is one I'll be teaching for many years to come."
The court's work left Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University constitutional law professor and former legal adviser to Republican presidents, shaking his head.
"In affirmative action, federal-state relations, and, after the sodomy case, basic — and I do mean very basic — principles of constitutional interpretation have been tossed aside, not conserved."
That is not to say the court abandoned its conservative leanings.
A string of law-and-order rulings strengthened government powers to go after suspects and punish criminals. For example, the court upheld the nation's strictest "three-strikes" law, ruling that a California man's 50-years-to-life sentence for stealing videotapes was not unconstitutionally harsh.
Those tough-on-crime rulings were in keeping with the court's rightward shift under Rehnquist's leadership, a path that has taken the court far from its progressive stance under the Civil Rights era stewardship of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
It is a mark of the current court's fundamentally conservative outlook that all nine justices voted to allow Michigan to cancel family visits for prisoners caught with drugs, and that a six-member majority said Congress can require public libraries to block objectionable material on their Internet terminals or lose federal money.
Rehnquist and fellow conservative Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas still held sway in a large percentage of the 73 cases decided this term. The three usually vote together and prevail when they can attract one or both of the court's center-right justices, Reagan appointees Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.
It was O'Connor who joined more liberal justices to preserve affirmative action. That vote was 5-4. It was Kennedy who provided the crucial vote in the sodomy case.
In that case, the court set out a constitutionally protected right to adults' private sexual conduct. The government has no business peeping in bedroom windows, the court said in a ruling written by Kennedy.
O'Connor also voted to strike down a Texas sodomy ban, making the overall ruling 6-3, but she would not go nearly as far as Kennedy and her more liberal colleagues.
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson was among many conservatives who condemned the decision, which he said would take the nation "down into a moral sewer."
The nine justices closed their term without any announcement of an impending retirement.
An opening on the court had been hotly anticipated on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, since it would give President Bush his first opportunity to name a Supreme Court justice.
The anticipation peaked with release of the court's final opinions Thursday, the day the court most disappointed political and social conservatives with its gay rights ruling.
"No justice may have retired physically, but a number managed to retire intellectually," Kmiec said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
How strange--- Dave actually behaving like a halfway decent, sensitive fellow. Mucho weird.
I'm sure this rosey, heartfelt, and somewhat reasonable (for Dave, anyway) post makes up for all the other ugly, insulting, and down-right shitty things you had to say about homosexuals. Right? You didn't mean to sound so judgemental, hateful, and "strident" in all those other posts--- ya just got so carried away with your cold-blooded scripture-quoting that you forgot that these people were living, feeling human beings with just as much right to their religious faith as you. Right? Riiiiiight.
You really take the cake, Davey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
[QUOTE]
This is just a game to you, you have no serious point to make beyond slander and insults.
Bullshit. Nearly every time you open your mouth you make my "point" for me, Dave.
And I happen to take cranks like you very seriously, Bunky. You epitomize so much of what I find grotesque about humanity: willful crueltry, a readiness to pass judgement on those who are different than you at the drop of a hat ( a side effect of the "pack" mind-set, I suppose), and a sickening self-righteousness so vast and unseemly that only a human could posses it. Having grown up among many loud-mouthed, bullying, self-serving "christians" as a boy and young adult I know your type all too well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Again, this has already been covered abundantly, but you choose to not read my previous posts.
If I lusted after 12-year-old girls, or had an inborn impulse to rape women, or to kill people, would I have a right to act on those impulses because it's an inborn part of my identity?
No. Of course not.
I again stand by what I said earlier, that homosexuality is an impulse, a compulsion, an obsession, that can be controlled, redirected, or even eliminated.
They are vastly different issues.
Pedophilia, rape and murder are acts that violate the rights of others.
A homosexual relationship is between two consenting people, harming nobody.
To draw a correlation between gays and the aforementioned acts is misleading and hateful.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy: Y'know, Dave, you say all this as if you are an impartial observer, but your opinion is as subjective as you claim that mine is.
[/quote] Oh, no, I never said it wasn't. You're just as able to attack my opinion on the basis of logical fallcy, if indeed its there. quote:
Within the context of the Bible, my statements are objectively correct. What I've said, and quoted at length, is LITERALLY what the Bible says.
It is only through omission and re-interpretation that the Bible verses (quoted extensively above) can be made to endorse homosexuality.
And since you don't seem to have any faith whatsoever in the Bible's credibility as a source of law and authority, there goes your objectivity right there.
I don't disagree with that. I don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible is logical. Literal intepretation has many hurdles to negotiate. Do you include the Apocrypha, or not? Do you literally conclude God made the universe in seven days, or not? Do you think God has the identity of Yahweh Saboath, the brutal and murderous God of Armies who drowned the Egyptians chasing Moses and the Israelites, or is he the Trinity in later books as decided by the theologicans of Cappadocia in the late 300s AD? Is the Sabbath the day of rest to remind us of the Exodus as stated in Deuteronomy, or because God had a day of rest in creation as seen in Pentateuch? I of course am no theologican, but I have read a wonderful book called "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, who demostrates in an academic yet engaging fashion that the Bible is mostly a contemporary political text. The "discovery" of the Book of Deutronomy itself is a fascinating example of the politics of the Bible. Further, by what moral right is the Bible superior to the Qu'ran? In 610, Muhammed was seized by an angel and give the command, "Iqra!" ("Recite!"), and from his lips cam the divine recital. It sounds like an equally valid religios claim to authority to me.
This does not mean that I discount the Bible out of hand: on the contrary, the Bible contains many fundamental principles which underpin notions such as the rule of law. But I certainly do not believe that it was written by God to guide human behaviour.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Examples of corruption #1,2 and 4 are each plagued by logical fallacies, which I will make clear.
Again, in your opinion. I respect that you have a different view than mine, but I don't think you've proven my statements non-factual and false. You've only STATED that my views are false, without detailing how this is untrue. For me, your OWN statements are a non-sequitor.
And I say that as respectfully as I can. It just doesn't add up for me.
Well, perhaps you'd better tell me how they are a non-sequitur.
To me, yours are plain, especially the slippery slope argument in corruption example #4. No slippery slope is ever valid in logic: "Once you start using marijuana, you'll end up using heroin": "if you bend the constitution to wrongfully imprison one person, soon all persons will be wrongfully imprisoned." The link for this logical fallacy says:
quote:
The slippery slope argument is also known as the thin end of the wedge or the camel's nose. The argument holds that once an exception is made to some socially accepted rule, there will be nothing holding back further exceptions to that rule.
The slippery slope argument is usually used as a commentary on social change, not as a point of logic. It is sometimes known as the slippery slope fallacy because it cannot be made to make logical implications.
Contemporary examples of the slippery slope argument in use:
If we allow women to abort their unborn children, then soon no life will be held sacred.
If we allow guns to be registered, then gun confiscation will follow.
Use of 'soft' drugs such as cannabis will inevitably lead to addiction to 'harder' drugs such as heroin.
These arguments are often based on a perception of momentum in the change of social mores.
Which is precisely the trap you've allowed yourself to fall into. Allow gays the right to get married in a church, and soon we'll all be sleeping with animals." Its a fallacy, without logic.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Dealing with each of those in turn:
1. again, I think you're being ethnocentric. "Morality" isn't limited to just North America and the European peninsula: I assume morality and the effects of morality are global because Christianity is a universal religion.
I'm not entirely clear what your point is. As you know, I live in Florida, and I meet people here who have come from all over the world, from every continent. I almost daily come into contact with people from Europe, China, Japan, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Morrocco, Iran, Vietnam, the Phillipines, and places closer to home for you, Australia and New Zealand. I've regularly spoken to people who are Jews, Muslims, Hindu, and Buddhist. Among all these cultures, I've never heard any raise a favorable opinion of homosexuality.
I see that the standard of one man/one woman is the global standard for marriage, and I've never seen ANY evidence, or any personal opinion of foreigners I know personally, to indicate otherwise. [/qb][/quote]
Ah, I see: you're not saying that homosexuals are the chief cause of the spread of AIDS. Instead, this is logic by consensus, which is another logical fallacy. Here you go:
quote:
"This is right because we've always done it this way." The appeal to tradition is a very common logical fallacy in which someone proclaims his or her accuracy by noting that "this is how it's always been done."
The assumption behind this argument is that whatever reason was used to come to the old methods of thinking is still valid today; often, this is a false assumption to make.
Humans are creatures of habit; this is the likely cause of the popularity (and, unfortunately, the success) of this argument.
Examples:
"It's always been done that way. We've never done it like that."
"You're crazy! Nobody ever thought like that before!"
"This precedent was set 100 years ago and has been followed many times."
The opposite is the appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it's new.
Its illogical to think that because the majority holds a view, that its right. Otherwise, we'd all be conceding that Hinduism is correct and Christianity is wrong.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Yet you say:
a. AIDS is predominately spread by gays
b. yet only in the West, and not in the rest of the world
c. therefore AIDS is a gay disease and is a form of "corruption".
Dave, you are a highly intelligent and literate person. Could you truly not see my point in what I just previously posted to you?
Nope, I wrestled with it and did not understand it. Let me go through this next explanation.
quote:
I acknowledged AIDS/HIV is not an exclusively gay disease. That in most of the world heterosexual transmission [again, 1)through prostitution, and 2) through heterosexual anal sex, either for pleasure or to avoid pregnancy through vaginal sex] is the major way of contracting the disease, GLOBALLY.
But in the U.S., homosexual males, I.V. drug users, and I.V. drug user/homosexual men, account for over 75% of AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S.
And that many of the 17% or so of heterosexually transmitted cases originate from a secretly bisexual gay man, who then gives it through heterosexual intercourse to a woman. But despite the source, it is sattistically labelled as "heterosexual transmission". I spoke to the CDC directly about this statistical breakdown when I wrote an article about AIDS/HIV in 1993.
But THE POINT is, heterosexual OR homosexual methods of transmitting AIDS are both through illicit sex or IV drug use. Close to 100% of AIDS/HIV cases are transmitted through (by Biblical standards) immoral behavior.
As I said in my last post, homosexuality is not EXCLUSIVELY transmitting AIDS/HIV, but it is certainly a major slice of the AIDS/HIV pie, particularly in the U.S.
Finally, a concession! So its not just gays, its heterosexual but promiscuous people who are corruptive. So, I guess promiscuous people are also not allowed to get married in a church?
quote:
And while I don't single out the gay lifestyle exclusively, I have logically explained my position on homosexuality as a corruptive culture, from a Biblical perspective (detailing gay attempts to alter the obvious literal meaning of Bible scripture on homosexuality),
permissiveness/promiscuity argument (which I think the media attempts to hide from the public, and only display monogamous gay couples, projecting a politically correct notion that gays are "just like us", whereas I've seen numerous reports, mostly on Christian news, that gays are far more promiscuous and risky in their behavior than heterosexuals generally are),
and
cultural acceptance of homosexuality opening the floodgates for a variety of perversions and abberant sexual practices. Which as has been noted, other excesses follow on the coat-tails of gay rights.
While I accept the fact that gays are probably as a broad generalisation more promiscuous than straights, does this mean that non-promiscuous gays are ok to get married in a church?
I've already dealt with your "floodgates" argument above: it can never win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
This lacks logic - its ignarato elenchi. Its also probably a circular argument or a non sequitur- AIDS is an indicator of corruption, AIDS is spread by gays, homosexuality is an indicator of corruption, therefore AIDS is an indicator of corruption, therefore homosexuality is corrupt.
"lacks logic" is your opinion of my opinion. I can as easily say that your own opinion lacks logic and doesn't add up for me. I don't see any clear and logical argument that my opinion lacks logic. I think I've made the connections clear.
Well, no. It lacks logic. Logic follows certain syllogisms. "If A, then B" is a proof. But you're saying "If A, then B/ if B, then A". Read out loud what I wrote above: its a circle.
quote:
"circular logic" is a bit insulting. I see this term as more of a label than a clear criticism. A dismissive label.
Its not dismissive: its an attack upon the lack of logic in your argument.
Look, here is something about logical fallacy for you to chew on:
quote:
A fallacy is a way that a logical argument can go wrong and thereby fail to be valid or sound, or otherwise fail to properly support its claim. Arguments intended to persuade may be convincing to many listeners despite containing such fallacies, but they are nonetheless flawed. Recognizing these fallacies is sometimes difficult.
Here is an example of a bad argument. Suppose James wanted to argue for the claim that all killing is wrong. Suppose he was giving this argument to a group of people who supported the death penalty: they think that some killing is fine, as punishment of the worst murderers. So James argues as follows:
If one should never do X, all X is wrong. (X can be any action.)
One should absolutely never kill.
Therefore, all killing is wrong.
The supporters of the death penalty would not be impressed by this argument. It commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. In the argument, James says that one should absolutely never kill. But to prove that, he would have to prove that all killing is wrong—which is what he is trying to argue for. Anyone who disagrees with the conclusion will disagree with the premise that one should absolutely never kill. One might maintain to the contrary that, indeed, in some cases one actually should kill: it is our grim duty, an unfortunate yet necessary part of justice.
...Typically, logical fallacies are invalid, but they can often be written or rewritten so that they follow a valid argument form; and in that case, the challenge is to discover the false premise, which makes the argument unsound.
[/qb]
Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. On first inspection, they seem persuasive, but when broken down and examined, they are based on illogic. That's not an insult: its a statement of fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
My train of logic as you describe it is not accurate. My train is more of: The Bible condemns sexual immorality, homosexuality is (Biblically a clear form of sexual immorality), like other heterosexual forms of illicit sex, homosexual immorality likewise spreads AIDS/HIV also. And not surprisingly, gays have a high ratio of HIV/AIDS infection.
OK, then. I'm not trying to denigrate you personally, but let me see if I can make this clear for you how illogical it is. You say:
1. Bible says homosexuality is immoral
2. homosexuality spreads disease
conclusion: homosexuality is immoral
Assume 1 and 2 are correct. Where is your link in the logic chain between "disease" and "immorality"? What you need to say is either:
1. Bible says homosexuality is immoral
Conclusion: homosexuality is immoral
(in that event you are arguing from Biblical authority)
or
1. disease is immoral
2. homosexuals carry disease
Conclusion: homosexuality is immoral.
(in which case you make an illogical argument: not all disease is immoral, and even AIDS is not immoral. Unless you say it is?)
Perhaps what you are trying to say is:
1. homosexual transmission of AIDS is immoral
Conclusion: homosexuality is immoral.
But why is homosexual transmission of AIDS immoral? If you say, "Because it says so in the Bible" then you are arguing from authority again.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
2. Gay rights will lead to the downfall of civilisation - you let open the barn door, and all the cows will get out. This is a logical fallacy, too - the slippery slope.
You again label this as a logical fallacy (in your own subjective opinion) and yet do not clearly demonstrate any fallacy beyond the dismissive label.
Dealt with this, again, above. Its textbook illogic.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
3. Interpretation of the Bible is an industry in itself.
FALSE interpretation is, but logic dictates that if you're going to be a Christian, you want a clear, factual, verifiable base for your beliefs and teachings. That logical base is the Bible. As I detailed in a previous post, there is considerable historic/archaological evidence to verify the Bible has been accurately preserved for 2,000 years, more verifiable than any other ancient document.
It is therefore dismissive and illogical to dismiss the Bible as a verifiable foundation for Judao-Christan teaching and ideology.
Or to put it another way, to NOT go by what the Bible says, to reject any part of it, is to defy what is clearly the "God breathed" Word of God. And logically, anyone who professes to be a Christian and IGNORES those teachings (or in the case of gays, circumvents and manipulates those teachings) clearly and simply IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Rejecting or ignoring scripture is buffet religion, and ignorant of the clear teachings of Christianity. And logically, NOT truly representative of Christianity.
If you think that the Bible is ""God breathed" Word of God", then you place emphasis on the form, and not on the man-made history of the Bible. I cannot in good conscience accept the Bible as literal truth. Some of the reasons I have outlined above. It would be against all common sense.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
You oppose a liberal interpretation, which is just as valid as liberally interpreting the Bible so that it can co-exist with evolutionary theory. You exclude all other interpretations of the Bible save your own. This is a radical fundamentalist view.
Liberal interpretation is not equally valid. It is disingenuously manipulative toward ulterior motives, and ignores the clear direct meaning.
What is clear, and what is not? Do you accept that God did not make the world 4000 years ago within 7 days? Or do you say, "Its only an allegory: God is responsible for the creation of the universe, but its clear that the universe is actually billions of years old, so the Bible is not literally true?"
This is not disingensous: its a valuable reconciliation for some Christians.
Now, if you bend the rules on one principle, that of creationism having a place in Christianity, despite the clear and unequivocal words in Genesis, can you bend the rules on homosexuality?
quote:
My example in earlier posts, of the literal as well as symbolic meaning for "the Bride" in scripture, and the value of purity. Gay sex violates that proscribed purity, just as HETEROsexual immorality does.
As I've said repeatedly. I feel you're attempting to falsely imply that I hold a different standard for homosexuality, when in point of fact I've clearly and repeatedly said that both (hetero and homo) forms of extramarital sex are prohibited Biblically, and punishable by death.
OK, fair enough. The person who has extramarital sex and does not repent has no right to get married in a church, either, then?
quote:
Homosexuality (when prevalent) has the Biblical distinction of marking a society that has reached its ultimate slump into decadence, and that society's near destruction. And as quoted in scripture (particularly ROMAN 1, quoted above) that meaning is unmistakeable, except to a mind that chooses to ignore the clear meaning )
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
4. the fourth example of the corruptive nature of homosexuality suffers from the logical fallacy of the hasty generalisation. What about all of the gays who are devoted to their partners? Or the gays which are not bisexual? Or the open bisexuals who practice no deceit? You take one segment of the gay community and apply their practices against all segments.
"hasty generalization" is another emotional label that is wrapped in a fancy coat of allegedly impartial pseudo-science.
How disappointing: logical theory is a "pseudo-science". I fear I'm wasting my time. "Hasty generalisation" is part of the terminology of the science, Dave, not an "emotional label". I use this terminology in court to attack the arguments of my opponents. They use it to attack my arguments. Logical debate is accepted by judges, mathematical logicians and other scientists as being valid and rational. The terminology is the distilled essence of how someone argues a point.
If you dismiss logic, then we can't meaningfully debate this because we aren't speaking the same language: you are speaking from belief, which is not logical but intuitive.
quote:
But ultimately, it is again your interpretation and your opinion, based on your own liberal preconceptions, and utter rejection of the Bible as a reasonable source of law and moral standard.
Attacking me, not my argument. Oh well. Unless you can come back and logically refute what I'm saying, I think I'll just form the opinion that you believe what you say, but do not think its appropriate to back it up with logic.
There is, after all, no point to debate in the absence of logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
A religion that professes equality for all in Jesus does not seem like a religious faith that would condemn one racial/ethnic/gender group of its faithful to slavery under another.
Nor does a religion that professes equality for all seem like the type to discriminate against someone for their own lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Along the same path of thought, a loving court system should not convict and imprison thieves, rapists, drug dealers and murderers.
Laws are set up for a reason, for the good of society.
And the Bible is a set of laws of moral behavior. If those laws are not enforced and practiced, then why have them in the first place?
And without them, it is no longer Christianity. It is decadence and sexual immorality.
Church is not state. Christian laws do not and should not influence government laws.
There is a distinction between legal marriage and Christian marriage.
Gays should have the right to a legal marriage, on an equal playing ground to straight couples.
When it comes to the Christian side of things, I don't profess myself knowledgable enough in the bible to make a judgement. While I believe the church should allow gay couples to marry (hateful tradition be damned), I'm in no position to say whether or not that's in accordance with the bible.
I still take issue with your labelling of homosexuality as immoral. If you believe this because the bible says so, then I can't really argue that. You believe in a book that I place no stock in.
But you say that homosexuality is depraved and insidious. Separately from the biblical argument, you claim that it lowers moral standards and spreads disease.
What two consenting adults do is not immoral. And opening up the doors to allow freedom of choice as to where one wants to stick their dick when they get home from work is NOT a lowering of moral standards. It is allowing freedom of choice, which, as long as you're not hurting anybody, is in accordance with the ideals upon which both our countries were founded.
And AIDS is not strictly a gay disease. You cannot use AIDS to justify calling homosexuality insidious and corrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
So why do gay men on average die 6 to 7 years before smokers on average die? This statistic is a dirty little secret that most in the media rufuse to report.
As for the church, I think most of the sexual crap that 1% or 2% of priests find themselves in trouble for was homosexual. Roughly 80% of the cases were sexual acts commited on males after they reached maturity (age rang or 13-17).
Another well kept secret is the media does not find it news worthy to print sexual misconduct commited by gay males. I think the reason lies in the media's victum creation mentality they have used when it comes to groups like, lets say, blacks. Most race based hate crimes in this country are black on white crime. You would never know that because the media chooses not to report them. Why? Because I guess in their mind it's normal behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
My appologies for that last post. I'd just gotten in from work and was a little on the drunk side (read: overly emotional)...Please feel free to disregard it's sappier than shit content. As you were....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
So why do gay men on average die 6 to 7 years before smokers on average die? This statistic is a dirty little secret that most in the media rufuse to report.
Another well kept secret is the media does not find it news worthy to print sexual misconduct commited by gay males.
I agree. The gay community at large is a messed up, hedonistic place. That doesn't inherently make gay people all like that. There are those of us that find it just as repulsive as everyone else. Being gay is not an excuse to be immoral. I adressed this much earlier in here while explaining the various reasons for the high AIDS statistics in the community. And once again, if this is a critique on the 'morality' of homosexuality, I'd like to point out these statistics are exclusive to the male population and do not apply to lesbianism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 433
400+ posts
|
|
400+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 433 |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
Most race based hate crimes in this country are black on white crime. You would never know that because the media chooses not to report them. Why? Because I guess in their mind it's normal behavior.
No, actually, most race based crimes are anti-semitic. And then runner-up is black on black. That's because of the absolute horrid conditions of inner city regions, which the media, as much as I agree that they are biased, does not fabricate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I don't think most "race-based" crimes are black on black. I think those are "regular" crimes.
I don't think black on black crime has anything to do with racial animosity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
Another well kept secret is the media does not find it news worthy to print sexual misconduct commited by gay males. I think the reason lies in the media's victum creation mentality they have used when it comes to groups like, lets say, blacks. Most race based hate crimes in this country are black on white crime...
That statistic is actually based on the book "The Color of Crime" by the New Century Foundation (nice people, that). They are the ones that taught me that "blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women." I did not know this about myself. FEAR ME!!
You'll simply love the way they come up with their numbers.
And if you like that article you should definitely pick up "Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism" by Jody Armour. She heavily endorses "The Color of Crime" as the book that finally blew the lid off the racial hoax. Another person I'd love to invite to dinner.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
I leave this place for a week and this becomes a catfight. *grabs hose and waters entire forum*
So...its kind of tough to respond to eighty pages of posts. Here goes a lot of random thoughts.
I am getting sick from this Christian-bashing and overall lack of respect on this topic. 'You disagree with me...therefore you are a poo-poo head' Real mature guys, real mature.
Okay...so being a Christian brings up a sterotype of some backwoods hick that can't stand change. Or whatever the local variation is (like down here the sterotype includes a certain battle flag, but obviously that doesn't work up North).
I am real sorry that some of you think that way. As with any group, only the bad stuff makes the news, so it's no wonder the bad image Christians have. Bad things have been done in the name of religion (the Spanish Inquision and the September 11th attacks come to mind), all religious and groups have their little dark moments. We are not all white sheep, you know.
Now I am a practicing Catholic, so I would like to make a few corrections to the statements here. We do not pray to saints -- we ask them to pray for us. Its not idol-worshipping. The priest scandels have been a big deal. I am not happy with what is being done -- but neither does my priest. He would rather see a few good priests then several bad apples. He's a great man, and I am proud to have been the head alter server (they haven't been called 'alter boys' in years) and working for him.
Now look, there are all sorts of sins that are legal (or at least 'not legal') in this country. Oh well. The American Constitution was not made to enforce Christian ideas. You can say that is has Jeudo-Christian influences, but that is the extent of it. Much of it is universal ethics. Of course adultary is wrong -- it hurts the other person. That is just one example.
And I will be frank: if the US did adopt a pure Jeudo-Christian law system (how complicated would that be...Orthodox and Catholic or Reformed and Mormon...the mind boggels), I would have been stoned by now. Everyone would have been, lol. Even the resident virgin here has been guilty of many sins that have shammed me. And I'm not talking about the occasional 'shit' that comes out when I stub my toe.
Now, there are lots of Christians and lots of non-Christians that get legally married every year. Now since I am not legally married I do not know the details to what kind of benefits (in terms of taxes, credit, etc etc etc) a legal married couple get, but why should a couple that have been together for ten-years should not get those benefits? Never mind the orientation. Even in a heterosexual relationship, that may the only option for anyone not in any organized religion.
So there is a difference between a legal union and a religious marriage. Should there be? Yes. Some people want to be legal married, but not by any church. There are dozens of reasons why. As long as both people are consenting, there shouldn't be a problem.
Now, if you guys continue to piss and stomp, I will get the hose again *shakes finger*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
I leave this place for a week and this becomes a catfight. *grabs hose and waters entire forum*
So...its kind of tough to respond to eighty pages of posts. Here goes a lot of random thoughts.
I am getting sick from this Christian-bashing and overall lack of respect on this topic. 'You disagree with me...therefore you are a poo-poo head' Real mature guys, real mature.
Okay...so being a Christian brings up a sterotype of some backwoods hick that can't stand change. Or whatever the local variation is (like down here the sterotype includes a certain battle flag, but obviously that doesn't work up North).
I am real sorry that some of you think that way. As with any group, only the bad stuff makes the news, so it's no wonder the bad image Christians have. Bad things have been done in the name of religion (the Spanish Inquision and the September 11th attacks come to mind), all religious and groups have their little dark moments. We are not all white sheep, you know.
Now I am a practicing Catholic, so I would like to make a few corrections to the statements here. We do not pray to saints -- we ask them to pray for us. Its not idol-worshipping. The priest scandels have been a big deal. I am not happy with what is being done -- but neither does my priest. He would rather see a few good priests then several bad apples. He's a great man, and I am proud to have been the head alter server (they haven't been called 'alter boys' in years) and working for him...
Ever wonder what it's like to be gay?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
That remark wasn't directed at you specifically, CJ. It was general.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
That's is...hose-time! Kidding, Wednesday, kidding... As far as knowing how it feels to be gay, no I don't know what is feels like. But that goes for a lot of things. I also don't know what it feels like to be rich. And boy would I like to feel rich ... ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) Just because I don't know how someone feels, can I at least still defend a group or a person? Why not.
|
|
|
|
|
