quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
[QB]
The only logical response to that is that the inquisitions, the crusades (essentialy mass genocide), and the witch hunts, were all based on what was deemed accurate interpretaion of the bible at the time. These readings have since been revisited, and their merits discounted. To propogate hate in the name of the bible is, in my eyes, not a valid theory. It's a travestty against humanity, masquarading as 'christian morality'.
That is a facially interesting argument but it is not on point. Simply because one thing (which I think you will find is more political than religious if you study the true motives of those events) is repudiated does not invalidate EVERYTHING that is IN there.

But the biggest thing I would like to highlight is "in my eyes". I agree you think it is the wrong interpretation. I agree with your interpretation. But UNAMBIGIUOSLY there are criticisms of the practice. If you accept that, then you must believe that.

quote:

I mean - just to step outside the argument at hand here - the church botches things as simple as not praying to idols, nor making for oneself representations of anything in the heavens or on earth for devotion. They set up saints as mediatiors to pray to, when they angels themselves (perfect creatures that bask in God's glory) refuse any sort of devotion from men, and Christ specifically said that no oe can approach the father exept through him. These too are simple, stated in black and white principles that the church ignores to thier own ends. When asked in his book about the use of titles in the church (a practice specifically condemned by Christ), Jean-Paul replied something to the effect that 'these traditions had been in place so long that what harm could there be in them'....exactly the sort of behavior Christ had warned against.

These are just a few minor examples...all things stated just as plainly in the bible as 'homos are bad', but yet somehow they can look the other way here, and reason thier way around them...
This is absolutley unfair. This is as blanket a statement.

When you say "the church" you refer to Catholocism. I doubt DTWB is Catholic.

But overall, your point is valid. I simply think it was unfairly couched. The real question you should ask is Why follow one thing to the letter and slide on other things? That is a legitimate question if not made murky with sniping and generalization.

quote:

Do you understand why I argue so fervently? As I've said, I have nothing against Dave. He actually sounds like a right decent guy, who's willing to concede more than most. But just as he cannot let go of his convictions, I cannot possibly ignore my own.
But what exactly is it that you are arguing? I can't gather it. It seems all over the board.

Which position is closest to your view on this topic?

A. That the Bible doesn't say or doesn't mean homosexuality is immoral.

B. That even if it says it, DTWB and others should ignore that passage as antiquated.

C. That the Bible, if it feels that way, is morally wrong.

D. That DTWB is wrong regardless of the Bible.

It seems he has been hit with every possible option. I am just confused on the crux of the debate.

Finally (and slightly out of order):
quote:

but to look for justification for my existence from my creator is to propogate lies?
I didn't like that line either. I could reasonably see that you feel that is true. I don't like the "know" school of religion. I prefer the "believe" school.

But here is the interesting point: why are you trying to justify your existence to your creator by convincing Dave?

Dave can't keep you from justifying your existence with God. The only thing DTWB can do is keep you from justifying your existence at the Court House. Isn't that the real issue here?