|
|
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:
1. Christianity is open to all who will believe. Those who violate Biblical teachings are, by definition, non-believers. It's the choice of those who break the Biblical law of Christian behavior, not the Christians or the God who live by them.
Your example is like saying that it's society's fault that an armed robber is in prison for 25 years, not the fact that he held up a liquor store and shot someone. "Society is hateful for putting him in prison, why do they have to enforce the laws?" Because those are the rules of society, and if you do not obey those rules, you are excluded for the good of all who believe in and obey the rules. Those who don't obey destroy it with actions and counter-ideology. Every organization and culture has to have rules and a standardized ideology to preserve itself.
The problem with your analogy is that armed robbers cause violence and disruption to society. Homosexuality does not. Yes, I know you think it is corruptive because gays spread AIDS, try to re-interpret the Bible, try to get rights, and are not well-regarded by any other culture. I think I've made it plain that none of these satisfy any definition of "corruption". Armed robbery is not merely re-ditributing wealth: it is an act of violence which society needs to take steps against.
A ban against homosexuality is entirely arbitrary.
I have to go now and give a seminar, and I'll not be back until tomorrow, when I'll address your other points.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
...you allege that I say that AIDS/HIV is a gay disease and is proof that homosexuality is immoral. I've come back AGAIN AND AGAIN and explained otherwise, that homosexuality is ONE FORM of immoral behavior that spreads the virus, that it is a manifestation that homosexuality is not a "victimless crime".
The argument there is flawed.
Unprotected homosexual sex is one form of behaviour that spreads the virus, true. As is unprotected heterosexual sex (and sharing needles, etc, etc).
The implication here is not that homosexuality isn't a victimless crime. The implication is that unprotected sex while one is infected isn't a victimless crime; whether straight or gay. The sexual orientation is irrelevant.
quote:
My argument's cornerstone is the Bible.
And all I am saying is that the Bible should have no bearing on government laws.
I do not wish to take away the faith you place in the bible. While I may disagree with it, if it works for you, cool. I have no desire to undermine your religious beliefs.
I do think that the bible is not a good place to source one's argument in a discussion of law, as I've stated.
In a discussion of morals, the argument becomes somewhat murkier. You take your moral standard from the bible; fine. But when you start using it as a way to impede someone else's rights (ie: the right to wed), that I have a problem with (please keep in mind that when I say 'wed' I mean legal marriage, not church marriage. As has been made abundantly clear in this thread, they are two different things).
quote:
I only said that allowing gay marriage, and the legal precedent it would set, would open the door to rights and legal precedents for other sexual/moral abberations.
My only counter to this is that I believe homosexuality is not a moral abberation. The argument that allowing gay marriage leads to softening views on things that actually do have victims (the oft mentioned rape, pedophilia, etc) is a flawed one, as homosexual marriage is a consenting act that hurts nobody.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
I find it amazing that people have a problem with "wrong" and "right". I refuse to force anything upon anyone. The "gay" movement forces their morality upon me.
I think they are wrong but at the same time I do not look for rights and other things to advance my sexual taste upon others. I just look at the facts and do not let them confuse my judgement. Or my opinion. A mom and a dad is the best reality for a child to grow up in. How is that such a bad thing?
"The facts?"
Forgive me if I'm misreading, but is the implication here that Straight=Right, Gay=Wrong is The Facts?
And Gays are not seeking to force anything on people. They are not seeking to undermine your morality.
They simply want the same right the rest of us get (ie, the right to a legal, recognised marriage). In what way does this harm you? In what way is equality for all offensive to you?
|
|
|
|
|
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 Dave the Wonder Boy:
You must mean me. I've only quoted what the Bible says. As I've said on pretty much every page of this topic, repeatedly, it's NOT my/our judgement. We are all imperfect in different ways (i.e., we are ALL sinners, whether Christians or non-Christians, homosexuals or HETEROsexuals, all are imperfect in the eyes of God.)
I've only clarified what the Bible ITSELF says. I've pointed out the STANDARD, not passed judgement. Judgement is reserved for God alone.
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
Actually, I didn't mean you specifically. I wrote that without anyone in particualr in mind, but with some of the things I had read two nights ago still in my head - who said what wasn't what I was thinking about. I was trying to respond to Batwoman's comment about Christians defending themselves. My point was only that if Christians (or for that matter, anyone really) called someone something negative, they cannot then be surprised that someone responds by defending themselves. That's all.
However, I do now have a question based on the above comment. You state that this is not your judgment - or rather, a Christian judgment - but just a standard that is established. But the standard sets the bar that people should follow and so it becomes clear that if you do "A" you're good, but if you do "B," then you are not. Yes, that's oversimplifying it, but my question is, isn't that a judgment? And if so, then people following these tenents set by religion do judge based on the standard. Yet, you claim its not your judgment. How can you separate the two?
Dave TWB, I realize that this being the internet tone and inflection are lost, so let me just say that I don't mean this to be rude, I am curious even though it's wandered off the original topic.
No offense taken, Harleykwin.
I think that in general, whether Christian or non, people when they're younger have a tendency to see things in stark black and white ideals, right or wrong, and as you get older, you're more sympathetic to people's individual quirks and vulnerabilities that make them have affairs, do drugs, become alcoholic, and so forth.
Christians are no different in this. And it really takes a lot of Biblical reading on your own to see how consistent, and logical, and loving the Bible is. I find what is taught in church to be very different from reading the Bible on your own.
Most of the characters in the Bible are flawed people, who struggle to serve god anyway, despite their flaws and vulnerabilities: King David, for example, or Moses, or Jacob, or Solomon, or Jonah, or Paul. Or Mary Magdalin. The Bible doesn't teach condescension and prejudicial judgement. It teaches understanding and forgiveness.
As I quoted earlier, it says that quote:
"All fall short of the glory of God. It is by faith you are saved, not works, so no man should boast"
By biblical standards, all fail to live up to the standard of the 10 Commandments ("the Law") and all are equally sinful (sin was originally an archery term, meaning "to miss the mark").
And therefore, since all are sinful, no one has the right to judge. Only God has the wisdom to judge. We're to know the Biblical standard and teach the Biblical standard, but judgement is reserved for God alone.
When I see someone who makes me angry, or who I initially don't like for whatever reason, I try and think to myself This person is struggling with insecurities and frustrations and anger and peer pressure, just like me, and in that moment I feel common ground with them, and am more sympathetic.
But like anyone else, when I'm under pressure and things aren't going well, I have more tendency to think "What an asshole !"
And maybe have sympathy for them later, if I remember it.
I think we're all kids basically. We become adults, but we still have a playfulness, boredom, sense of adventure, insecurity, or temper that can make us do irresponsible things. Not just so-called "bad" people, ALL of us. And that boredom/quest for adventure/loneliness/insecurity --whatever childlike intuitive impulse-- it can make us do unpredictable and irrational things, even when we're adult enough to know intellectually what the right thing is.
And a person who is into drug addiction, or prostitution, or has a violent temper, or is self-destructively promiscuous, they can be good people in many ways, and still be dangerous, to themselves and others. And it's not necessarily condescension or hate or judgement, as it is recognition that a person's emotionally driven impulsive behavior can be dangerous. To others, or self-destructive.
So knowing the Biblical standard is not teaching condescension and judgement, it's recognizing the destructiveness of the behavior, to themselves and to others, and instructing them to pursue a more fulfilling path.
I think American culture, beyond just Christianity, has this Brady Bunch/Leave-It-to-Beaver image of what a family is supposed to be where you have a perfect mother and father, and no one has any shameful problems like teen pregnancy, or drugs, or homosexuality, or marital infidelity. And we all like to fool ourselves that our family is perfect, and perhaps think "Oh, no one in our family would ever do that..." UNTIL THEY DO !!
Believe me, my family is not perfect.
And I think Christian families are perhaps a bit more so, driven to be perfect, or APPEAR perfect. Because everyone expects them to be perfect.
And for some reason, a lot of people love to see a Christian take a fall.
I think we all believe everyone else's family is perfect, and so there's greater shame, among your peers --who all SEEM to be perfect-- that you don't want to appear to have problems. So when some Christians ARE judgemental, I think it's a defense mechanism, and in professing perfection, they are actually trying to reassure themselves that they fit the moral profile they see themselves in.
Two movies that deal with families, and unraveling preconceptions of families that are normal or "perfect" are Pleasantville and Ed T.V..
But although I don't think many really consciously believe most families in America are The Brady Bunch, they still secretly feel like their family is a little more twisted than everyone else's.
And again, when you're the Christian family on the block, and you feel like you're supposed to be the perfect one, you tend to put up a bit more of a front of being perfect.
Maybe someday we'll learn how to talk to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
I find it amazing that people have a problem with "wrong" and "right". I refuse to force anything upon anyone. The "gay" movement forces their morality upon me.
I think they are wrong but at the same time I do not look for rights and other things to advance my sexual taste upon others. I just look at the facts and do not let them confuse my judgement. Or my opinion. A mom and a dad is the best reality for a child to grow up in. How is that such a bad thing?
"The facts?"
Forgive me if I'm misreading, but is the implication here that Straight=Right, Gay=Wrong is The Facts?
And Gays are not seeking to force anything on people. They are not seeking to undermine your morality.
They simply want the same right the rest of us get (ie, the right to a legal, recognised marriage). In what way does this harm you? In what way is equality for all offensive to you?
Good points Danny
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
I like it when your eyes explode...
|
|
|
|
|
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:
2. Calls into question perhaps, but not disproves. As I said earlier, there are a number of books that explore the archaological and historical evidence for the Bible and its accuracy.
For all we know, the universe could have been created in 7 days.
I've read news articles in the recent past that confirm Biblical statements about the time of the fall of Jericho, that the Biblically prescribed number of days after birth for an infant's circumcision coincides with the most recent biological findings of when an infant's blood development makes him physically ready for that ritual, the forseen "army in the east" of 300 million men, which is foretold, and China now boasts a reserve of exactly that number.
Uh, what are we talking about now? The prophetic vision of the Bible?!?
quote:
And that there are plans for damming of the river Euphrates, exactly as predicted for the end times, that would make an invasion of Israel possible from the far East.
So who is to say that the world wasn't created in 7 days?
My attitude on this fact has been, despite the fact that it doesn't seem possible with my present knowledge, that it should be taken as literal until proven beyond a doubt to be only symbolic.
Whereas I prefer a "balance of probabilities" rule. The Earth is certainly more than 4,000 years old or whatever the Bible says on the subject... hang on let me find it. Here we go:
quote:
A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago. Standing in firm opposition to that view is the suggestion of atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and so-called “old-Earth creationists” that the current age of the Universe can be set at roughly 8-12 billion years, and that the Earth itself is almost 5 billion years old. Further complicating matters is the fact that the biblical record plainly indicates that living things were placed on the newly created Earth even before the end of the six-day creative process (e.g., plant life came on day three). The evolutionary scenario, however, postulates that early life evolved from nonliving chemicals roughly 3.5-4.0 billion years ago, and that all other life forms gradually developed during the alleged “geologic ages” (with man arriving on the scene, in one form or another, approximately 1-2 million years ago).
Even to a casual observer, it is apparent that the time difference involved in the two models of origins is significant. Much of the controversy today between creationists, atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and old-Earth creationists centers on the age of the Earth. The magnitude of the controversy is multiplied by three factors. First, atheistic evolution itself is impossible to defend if the Earth is young. Second, the concepts mentioned above that are its “theistic cousins” likewise are impossible to defend if the Bible is correct in its straightforward teachings and obvious implications about the age of the Earth. Third, there is no possible compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and evolutionary views in this particular area simply is too large...
Thus the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology (1984, p. 115).
In the earlier quote from Dr. Wysong, it was suggested that “we must query if vast time is indeed available.” That is exactly what I intend to do in this series of articles. Indeed, a million-fold mistake is no small matter. How old is the Earth according to God’s Word?
...Arphaxad begat Salah in his thirty-fifth year; however, Luke 3:36 complements the chronological table of Genesis 11 with the insertion of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, which indicates that likely Arphaxad was the father of Cainan. Proceeding forward, one observes that Terah was born in 1879 A.A., and bore Abraham 130 years later (in the year 2009 A.A.). Simple arithmetic—2166 B.C. added to 2009 A.A.—would place the creation date at approximately 4175 B.C. The Great Flood, then, would have occurred around 2519 B.C. (i.e., 1656 A.A.).
....There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providing information on the age of the Earth and humanity. But the numerous chronological tables permeating the Bible prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about giving man exact chronological data and, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledge of the period back to Abraham, plus two tables—with ages—from Abraham to Adam. The ancient Jewish historians (1 Chronicles 1:1-27) and the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understood the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 as literal and consecutive. The Bible explains quite explicitly that God created the Sun and Moon to be timekeepers (Genesis 1:16) for Adam and his descendants (notice how Noah logged the beginning and the ending of the Flood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11; 9:14).
This article then goes on to dismiss geological theories as inaccurate in ways that would enrage my sister's father in law (a professor of geology).
But lets pick an example which you might have more acceptance of: the earth's movement through space.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Or astrophysics: we contend that the stars are merely burning balls of hydrogen:
"...the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud (Job 38:7).”
Deuteronomy 4:15-19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that they were created for other peoples to worship. In the Apocrypha, specifically, 1 Enoch 88:1, a star that fell from the sky is seized, bound hand and foot, and thrown into an abyss. A few verses later, other stars “whose sexual organs were like the organs of horses” are likewise bound hand and foot and cast “into the pits of the earth (1 Enoch 88:3).”
Some stars never set, and Enoch was shown their chariots (1 Enoch 75:8). Stars that do rise and set do so through openings in dome, just like the sun and moon. God, according to 1 Enoch, runs a tight universe, and stars that do not rise on time are thrown into the celestial slammer. Showing Enoch a hellish scene, the angel Uriel explains:
This place is the (ultimate) end of heaven and earth: it is the prison house for the stars and the powers of heaven. And the stars which roll over upon the fire, they are the ones which have transgressed the commandments of God from the beginning of their rising because they did not arrive punctually (1 Enoch 18:14-15).
Enoch was not told the sentence for tardy rising, but Uriel later shows him other stars “which have transgressed the commandments of the Lord,” for which they were doing ten million years of hard time (1 Enoch 21:6). Enoch also was shown an even more terrible place, a fiery prison house where fallen angels were detained forever (1 Enoch 21:10).
Bear in mind that the Book of Enoch was only thrown out of the canon in 325AD by the Council of Nicea (not God, but humans editing His work): it has been found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and is considered canon by Coptic Christians.
There is a lot on the internet about the inaccuracies of the Bible. To be honest, I never really looked into it: I figured that all Christians save for radical fundamentalists would simply see the Bible as allegorical, not literal.
quote:
For me, the Bible and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hold them as two theories, until one can be proven absolutely over the other.
But science has not disproven the Bible.
You've cited Occam's Razor before as a logic tool: how does the Bible fare against the razor?
God himself generally doesn't do well: the Bible, with its detailed history of development, does even more poorly. Why believe it is the word of God when it has been so thoroughly edited on so many occasions?
|
|
|
|
|
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 THE Franta:
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
I find it amazing that people have a problem with "wrong" and "right". I refuse to force anything upon anyone. The "gay" movement forces their morality upon me.
I think they are wrong but at the same time I do not look for rights and other things to advance my sexual taste upon others. I just look at the facts and do not let them confuse my judgement. Or my opinion. A mom and a dad is the best reality for a child to grow up in. How is that such a bad thing?
"The facts?"
Forgive me if I'm misreading, but is the implication here that Straight=Right, Gay=Wrong is The Facts?
And Gays are not seeking to force anything on people. They are not seeking to undermine your morality.
They simply want the same right the rest of us get (ie, the right to a legal, recognised marriage). In what way does this harm you? In what way is equality for all offensive to you?
Good points Danny
I agree. Well put, Danny. Gays do not seek to imppose their morality upon you: they seek acknowledgement that they are entitled to the same rights as you.
quote:
A mom and a dad is the best reality for a child to grow up in.
A broad generalisation. Aren't two gay parents who are lving and devoted better than two physically or mentally abusive straight parents?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Fortunately for the two of us, I get may facts straight. The only place in the world a woman can be an Anglican/Protestant priest right now is in Australia.
or the usa, or canada, or the czech republic, or england, or hong kong, etc.
this site refers to female priests in the netherlands, switzerland, south africa, and more.
it certainly is still a "shocking" concept to most "old school" religious individuals, but the suprise is fading. i think its kinda silly that its still being upheld as rigorously as it is -- especially at a time when the catholic church is claiming low numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Using Aids as part of the con side against gays marrying always bugs me. If the disease was some sort of condemnation on homosexuality than logic would dictate that those most immune to it were not being condemned. So roughly half the gay population being lesbians are very much immune. But those using it as an argument only apply what fits their argument. Diseases don't discriminate & I don't think God does either.
The argument that Christians somehow own the concept of marriage doesn't work for me either. Marriage has not been a static institution. It has changed & evolved over history. Women were property, multiple wives, arranged marriages, all have been a part of the institution. (all of these still are) The argument that 2 people of the same sex wrecks the sanctity of marriage only rings true for the choir & the haters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
I don't have time to talk right now (I'm at work), but there is an interesting op-ed piece on nytimes.com today that may be of interest to some. It's written by William Safire entitled "The Bedroom Door" that deals with some of what has been discussed in this thread.
Later.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
From The New York Times:
The Bedroom Door
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court has just slammed America's bedroom door. Sodomy — defined in the new 11th edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate as "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex" — when practiced between consenting adults, straight or gay, is none of the government's business.
Libertarian conservatives like me who place a high value on personal freedom consider Lawrence v. Texas a victory in the war to defend everyone's privacy. Homosexuals hail the decision as the law's belated recognition of fairness, which it is, but some would escalate that to American society's acceptance of their lifestyle, which is at least premature.
Traditionalist conservatives put forward a concern that officially decriminalizing sodomy might undermine state laws against adult incest (as between grown-up siblings). But that universal taboo is driven as much by the genetic dangers of inbreeding as by morality or law.
Of more immediate concern to traditionalists is the dramatic warning issued from the Supreme Court bench by dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia. He predicted that this legal triumph for gays would lead to the next big antidiscrimination item on the homosexual agenda: legal sanction of the marriage of two people of the same sex.
Scalia is right about that. We can now expect this question to be asked of every candidate for political office. Because polls will show a majority of voters are uncomfortable with the notion, the issue of same-sex marriage will be evaded or fudged by those primary candidates with an eye on the general election campaign. But the s-s-m issue is now seriously in play.
Don't underestimate the depth of feeling about this on the religious right. Not just fundamentalists, but many churchgoers and congregants see this as a perversion of the institution of marriage and an assault on our standards of morality. Branding them as mindless bigots for holding these views, or for daring to argue that a child's sexual orientation may be influenced by that of his or her parents, is unfair and divisive.
Sooner or later, one of our states — perhaps Vermont, which already has "civil unions," or Massachusetts or some other liberal bastion — will get in step with Canadian trends and make it legally possible for gays to marry, with all the tax breaks, insurance benefits and spousal visitation rights and protections that appertain.
What about all the other states that anticipated this cultural battle and passed laws refusing to recognize any such marriages? The coming dispute among states will go to the Supreme Court, and even if the next three appointees are Scalia clones, I'll bet the court will hold that the laws of one state that do not offend the U.S. Constitution must be recognized by all other states.
After that decision, some wedding guests will be hard pressed to forever hold their peace. One reason is that straight marriage is showing signs of strain. More nubile women are postponing weddings to pursue careers. More eligible men dither along into uncommitted cohabitation. More of our marriages are ending in divorce, as no-fault life doth us part. Now marriage isn't even between one man and one woman, the way it's been for thousands of years. Traditionalists despair: What's happening to the idea of the rock-solid, procreative, mutually supportive family?
Rather than wring our hands and cry "abomination!", believers in family values should take up the challenge and repair our own house.
Why do too many Americans derogate as losers those parents who put family ahead of career, or smack their lips reading about celebrities who switch spouses for fun? Why do we turn to the government for succor, to movie porn and violence for sex and thrills, to the Internet for companionship, to the restaurant for Thanksgiving dinner — when those functions are the ties that bind families?
I used to fret about same-sex marriage. Maybe competition from responsible gays would revive opposite-sex marriage.
Last week I misquoted Walt Whitman as writing "Very well then I am inconsistent." What he wrote, in "Song of Myself," was "Very well then I contradict myself." Best of a torrent of corrections came from Prof. James Bloom of Muhlenberg College: "Whitman knew that using an active-voice transitive verb always beats a copula-and-adjective-complement combo."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Interesting take on the whole matter.
It is funny how many conservatives are calling the law horrendous.
It reminds you that there are two major wings to the GOP: the libertarian conservatives and the moral majority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
Interesting take on the whole matter.
It is funny how many conservatives are calling the law horrendous.
It reminds you that there are two major wings to the GOP: the libertarian conservatives and the moral majority.
Yeah...but where the heck am I... ![[sad]](images/icons/frown.gif) ![[gulp!]](gulp.gif) ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.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 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
But lets pick an example which you might have more acceptance of: the earth's movement through space.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Or astrophysics: we contend that the stars are merely burning balls of hydrogen:
"...the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud (Job 38:7).”
Earth is fixed on its axis, and fixed in orbit around the sun.
What you say does not prove Biblical innacuracy.
Regarding the apocryphal verses, they are by definition apocryphal, not Biblical. They were rejected from the Bible because they were discovered over time to be thematically and structurally inconsistent with the themes of the accepted 66 books of the Bible. Communication in ancient times was not what it is in modern times and the Christian church arguably did not have control over all the things said in the name, or even in the mainstream, of Christianity. And come to think of it, even in modern times, things can be alleged (the acceptance of gay marriage, for example) in the name of Christianity that is not representative of the vast majority of Christians.
Regarding the age-of-the-Earth/geophysics argument you raised, I know there are Christians who claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.
I don't believe for certain that evolution, and the Creation account in Genesis, are mutually exclusive. The Bible does not say specifically that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or that it is 6 billion years old. This aspect is open to interpretation.
I certainly don't argue for the "Earth is only 6,000 years old" camp.
I also don't argue for Evolution.
Pending further evidence, the actual creation acount could be Creation, Evolution, or a combination of both.
|
|
|
|
|
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 BigOl'Willie:
Interesting take on the whole matter.
It is funny how many conservatives are calling the law horrendous.
It reminds you that there are two major wings to the GOP: the libertarian conservatives and the moral majority.
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
Yeah...but where the heck am I...
I know how you feel, C.J.
I haven't been fully comfortable with the Republican party for about 12 years. I was a very comfortable Reaganite, but since then the Republicans have not provided the candidates or the ideology that made the 1980's such an era of Republican pride.
I prefer the current Republcian party to the special interest/victim-culture whining of the Democrat party, but the Republicans in recent years have, for me, been the only-slightly-better of two bad alternatives.
I voted Perot in 1992 and 1996(less enthusiastically), and Nader in 2000. Which has often been more of a protest vote, for an alternative in the two major parties.
|
|
|
|
|
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 Dave:
You've cited Occam's Razor before as a logic tool: how does the Bible fare against the razor?
God himself generally doesn't do well: the Bible, with its detailed history of development, does even more poorly. Why believe it is the word of God when it has been so thoroughly edited on so many occasions?
You will have to prove this. I've already said that there are many books to prove that the Bible is more verifiable, with more exisiting manuscripts, than any other ancient document.
~
Also, I consider your repeated use of the term Radical Fundamentalist to be another stereotyping pejorative label, which again skews the stated objectivity.
I will admit that I am a fundamentalist (meaning I think Christianity should be practiced with the Bible it is sourced from as its sole authority for practicing Christianity).
But to add the phrase "radical" to me attempts to paint fanaticism. The phrase "Radical Fundamentalism" summons to mind Ayatollahs and murderous repressive Islamic governments.
And despite the fact that conservative Christians peacefully protest and express outrage at decadent social changes such as gay marriage, there is not a pattern of violence that follows that belief.
Please point to me one Christian government in the world that opresses and forces Christianity on its population, or slaughters or imprisons dissenters.
It is a misleading stereotyping label.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
I find it amazing that people have a problem with "wrong" and "right". I refuse to force anything upon anyone. The "gay" movement forces their morality upon me.
I think they are wrong but at the same time I do not look for rights and other things to advance my sexual taste upon others. I just look at the facts and do not let them confuse my judgement. Or my opinion. A mom and a dad is the best reality for a child to grow up in. How is that such a bad thing?
"The facts?"
Forgive me if I'm misreading, but is the implication here that Straight=Right, Gay=Wrong is The Facts?
And Gays are not seeking to force anything on people. They are not seeking to undermine your morality.
They simply want the same right the rest of us get (ie, the right to a legal, recognised marriage). In what way does this harm you? In what way is equality for all offensive to you?
Good points Danny
Yeah, good post.
Dave & Franta: Did you guys know that me and Danny are the "Dingo" twins? It's true--- I knit cute lil' pink sweaters for the Dingos, and he eats 'em (the Dingoes, not the sweaters ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) ).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
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.
It is not "hateful" to clarify what the truth is. Nothing ugly, nothing insulting. These are just more slanderous emotional labels that you're well known for here.
Your so-called "truth" and what comes out of my asshole bear a remarkable resemblence, Chief.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
I'd say your excrement is relatively clean, Matt, as compared to the foul body that it leaves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
I said nothing below the belt...you guys are getting hosed again. *cranks water on 'high'*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I'd say your excrement is relatively clean, Matt, as compared to the foul body that it leaves.
And I would say that you are a moral/ethical idiot and an absolute fool, Davey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Sideways:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Your so-called "truth" and what comes out of my asshole bear a remarkable resemblence, Chief.
Gee whiz, I wonder how long it took you to come up with that one.
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=002278
Sorry I'm late, everyone else
Go eat a hot, steaming bag of fuck, Sideways.
Or a generous helping of my "relatively clean" shit. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
I said nothing below the belt...you guys are getting hosed again. *cranks water on 'high'*
I think they like the hose!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 949
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 949 |
*snickers, and is now satisfied*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 949
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 949 |
This could go on for weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
I said nothing below the belt...you guys are getting hosed again. *cranks water on 'high'*
I think they like the hose!
Well, I think Davey secretly likes "the hose".
He "doth protest too much", and all like that, y'know...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Sideways:
*snickers, and is now satisfied*
Sideways just likes my cyber foot up his ass, apparently--- he keeps beggin' and beggin' for it. ![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
I said nothing below the belt...you guys are getting hosed again. *cranks water on 'high'*
I think they like the hose!
Well, I think Davey secretly likes "the hose".
He "doth protest too much", and all like that, y'know...
Shame on Cowgirl Jack slipping in phallic symbols on this thread. Below the belt indeed!
You do seem to have a fan there with Sideways
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Well, I think Davey secretly likes "the hose".
He "doth protest too much", and all like that, y'know...
Speak for yourself, Matt. About liking "the hose", I mean.
I think I "doth protest" just enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 949
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 949 |
In one sense of the word, yes, I am a fan. I'm hoping to get more votes with my anaolgy pic. I would have taken a better picture, but I couldn't find my rubber gloves. Oh well, whatcha gonna do.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
This is going nowhere fast .
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Regarding the apocryphal verses, they are by definition apocryphal, not biblical. They were rejected from the Bible because they were discovered over time to be thematically ans structurally inconsistent with the themes of the accepted 66 books of the bible. Communication in ancient times was not what it is in modern times and the Christian church arguably did not have control over all the things said in the name, or even in the mainstream, of Christianity. And come to think of it, even in modern times, things can be alleged (the acceptance of gay marriage, for example) in the name of Christianity that is not representative of the vast majority of Christians.
Rejected by who though? Not God. He didn't edit His works: humans did. I have read somewhere that Revelations and the Book of Solomon were also almost thrown out during he Council of Nicea.
quote:
Please point to me one Christian government in the world that opresses and forces Christianity on its population, or slaughters or imprisons dissenters.
The last one I know of was Franco's government in Facist Spain. I think Salazar's Portugal was also a Christian facist government, from memory. So its been around 30 years since we've seen such a government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Dave, what are you thinking posting actual content on here? Can't you see there's a mindless flame (npi) war going on?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
What's (npi) ?
No pun intended ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Yeah.
I need some of you guys to write stuff for my website so I have some diverse opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Gay or not gay?
1 Samuel 18
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
Later on Saul gets a bit pissed about this "friendship" that his son is in.
30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
They even kiss at some point in there. Friends or Lovers?
|
|
|
|
|
![[humina humina]](graemlins/love.gif)
