Magnus
Casual Heathen
Posts: 15
|
Post by Magnus on Nov 21, 2003 11:31:30 GMT -5
atsuko: that wasn't how the debate was meant, that's the slant that it was taken into by others than me.
valvillis: i was not refering to sodom and gomorrah when referencing the Bible, i was refering to Leviticus 18. as for the two books that i've read on the subject of sodom and gomorrah, it was about 2 years ago and i don't remember the exact titles, but should be able to find them amongst the stacks of my library when i go home over Christmas break. and no, i can't prove about my friends. believe me or not, though, frankly, i've given you no reason not to other than the apparent low status i got in your mind as soon as you realized that i was a conservative
-magnus
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 21, 2003 11:51:53 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know, Magnus... maybe he lost all respect for you when you claimed to know our beliefs better than we do? Oh, and then you had absolutely nothing to back your claims up other than our silly joke titles.
Or maybe it was when you trolled with a homophobic thread, trying to disguise it as a legal question?
Perhaps, though, just perhaps, it's that you go around this board and use ad hominem attacks instead of intelligently debating the issues. We have some people on here who don't necessarily agree with us, but who can actually hold their own in a debate instead of screaming childish insults such as "Liberals are ugly!" like your beloved Ann Coulter. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you; and THAT, Magnus, is why most of us don't have a single shred of respect for you.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 22, 2003 5:03:44 GMT -5
Magnus,
She pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't give you any credit because you're clearly full of crap. You've made it clear that you don't really know anything that you're talking about, but also that your ignorance won't stop you from going on and on about these things regardless. While you've shown to have no real redeeming qualities, being a conservative is far from your biggest flaw. A man of honor such as yourself should be able to understand that...
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Nov 22, 2003 12:06:54 GMT -5
first off, i take my honor very, very seriously. "You keep using that word.....I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Nov 23, 2003 14:34:26 GMT -5
Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha. I love when anyone tries to use "If a woman haveth an issue" Leviticus as support to their argument. Be veeeeeeery careful how you dress tomorrow morning!
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Nov 23, 2003 14:48:55 GMT -5
Hmm.. Ive got an interesting possiblity for this one. Imagine the social benefits of having an Uncle who is gay. Now in your early human tribe or clan... or whatever. How many benefits could there be to having an extra man around who doesnt have a family he is obligated to support? It would seem quite beneficial IMO to have such a anomaly every once and a while. Especially when looking at the enormous need for resources humans tend to have. Even throughout recent more recent history it would seem to be that the families with a gay relative who could pour his resources into ensuring the survival of his sister or brothers kids is likely to be higher than those families without the homosexual. Then of course, if these offspring are more likely to survive and therefore reproduce.. it is all the more likely that those genes or tendencies would be passed on.. just something to think about. Man, you nailed this one on the head. I TOTALLY get better presents from my rich no-spawn uncle living in Boston than I do from my toodamnmanykids aunt living in texas! Now that I think of it, if pretty much all of my extended family were gay, I'd really not have any problem with that.
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 23, 2003 17:10:08 GMT -5
Hehe, It just seems to make evolutionary sense to me. Thanks for helping prove that point. So, let's recap: you're ignorant on many subjects (obviously including the fact that the bible doesn't even condemn homosexuality, stop reading the damned NIV. While im here, i want to take this opportunity to dispel a slight myth that i see being propogated here about the passage in genesis about sodom and the unfounded NIV bashing 1) just as a point of reference the word "sodomy" is older than the NIV 2) If you read..oh lets use the KJV. it reads like this: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. " -Genesis 19:5 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. The key word in genesis 19:5 is "Know". It comes from the greek "Qal". It is a verb to know somone carnally, "as a man knows his wife". Anyway, Im not sure where you are getting information about such things in the bible, but if all youre doing is getting words from someone saying that the NIV is inaccurate because this translation doesnt say the same thing, you should look deeper than the translations and at least verify whatever the source is telling you to be truth, Otherwise it can make you look bad. I would like to be able to trust what you have to say, but it seems like your skepticism is only one sided. Not that I think magnus has really made any intelligent or well thought out defences for what he has to say, but hes right about leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination". Not that any of it really means anything unless you believe it, I guess Im just saying, youve gotta be able to back up what you say or risk losing credibility. *wow, that was poorly written. time for some coffee...heh**
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 23, 2003 18:40:07 GMT -5
Cyg,
Just for the record, I've read the KJV, the NIV, and Young's Literal front to back. I've also sampled quite a few others and read much of the NT in the original Greek. I do not feel at all bad for raising criticisms. And as I've said on here before, the sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality, not homosexuality.
As a side note, unless you beleive everything else in Leviticus, you cannot just pick and choose. When it comes time to leave your proper burnt offerings at the door of the tabernacle, don't come crying to me.
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 23, 2003 21:11:25 GMT -5
It was far more than inhospitality or homosexuality, but regardless, the "sin" of sodom is irrelivant. My point was, and still is that you say that the bible doesnt condemn homosexuality and it clearly does in both places. In the situation at sodom, it is called wicked, and in leviticus its refered to as detestable. Whether I personally adhere to belief on either is also irrelivant. I also dont see the relavance in your having read the bible cover to cover in different translations.. you were still wrong. For someone who claims to have read the entire KJV and NIV and then "much" of the NT in greek, you certainly seem to understand little of it. Peter's vision in Acts 10 was revelation of the end of the old covenant and legalistic living...burnt offerings..who are you trying to fool? yourself? I also want to add that simply because someone sees anothers actions as immoral, it does not necessarily imply hate or bigotry. Though, it certainly makes those on the other side feel better about their own idealogical position to call one a bigot. It's always nice to have someone to contrast yourself against, and even better if you can slander them to make yourself look even more righteous. As a student of psychology Im sure youre familiar with that concept.
I was honestly looking forward to some intelligent discussion, and thank you all for it in some of the previous topics, this one included. I was hoping to learn a fair bit from you all, but unfortunately your most outspoken member apparently has no intellectual integrity. Valvilis, learn to admit your shortcommings, pride will get you nowhere. I certainly have no interest in discussing topics with someone who throws slanderous remarks and bold lies as though they were something to build one's ideology upon. It is clear you just hate christians. I'm sure your emnity has many unfortunate roots in past experiences, but bitterness only leads to bondage and pride blinds foolish eyes. From day one you were skeptical of my intentions. I tried to take it with a grain of salt, although it was insulting at times. I could get past that, but I have no interest in conversing with ignorance or filling my head with the garbage you spew out. How can I trust anything you say? I'd be better off in a library where at least i can verify what I come across.
I've no reason to be here. It is clear that you, Valvilis do not want "free" thinking for yourself or for me. Ill leave you with this quote that should sum up exactly why Im done with you, and since youre a self-declared authority on the bible Im sure you can guess who said it... "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
It would be quite hypocritical for me to tell you to let go of your bitterness and harbor it myself. You can think what you may, but Val, I truly wish you the best in life.
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Nov 23, 2003 22:08:04 GMT -5
Heh. Heh heh heh. *grabs marshmallows and stick*
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 24, 2003 8:40:42 GMT -5
Let's recap. Only one place in the bible comdemns homosexuality, and it's in Leviticus, the book of rules that was obsolete by the first time it was recorded. You can leave, that's quite fine, but don't do so under false pretenses. You harbor a certain set of ideas - you came here to "discuss" those ideas, it didn't pan out and for a split second, you thought you might actually not know what you are talking about. You had two choices, learn or leave. Which one did you pick... uh-oh, here comes my surprised face... I called you from day one as being just more of the same. Several FA members got on my case about it. But in the end what happened? You came here ill equiped, asking for intelligent arguments but offering none of your own. Anytime something was said that you didn't care for, you either strawmaned or flatout ignored it. Things weren't going your way and you showed your good Christian convictions... you ran.
It would have been nice if you took Magnus with you though, I think you two would be happy together, at least he can admit he's a close-minded bigot unwilling to learn about the faith system he's devoted his life to.
On a serious note, you might want to find a different major besides philosophy... you can't build a rocket ship with mud and twigs, if you follow me.
And on a final note, I give your DQ exist a pathetic 3/10.
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 24, 2003 13:39:36 GMT -5
I do have to say that the Leviticus thing really bothers me. I mean, [glow=red,2,300]bugs the shit out of me.[/glow]
Every time a believer condemns homosexuality, he/she uses the old standard Leviticus 20:13. However, I don't see any Christians bawling over eating lobster or crabs, which is ALSO referred to as an abomination in Lev. 11:10-12. Or, there's good old Leviticus 19:19 which says we can't wear mixed fibers.
*looks at her cotton/poly blend tee-shirt and sighs*
Now, when you tell apologetics these things, they get all puffed up and defensive.
"It says right there in the Bible that homosexuality is WRONG! It's right there in Leviticus!" "Oh, you mean the Leviticus which calls a bat a bird, the same Leviticus which tells you not to wear mixed linens, the same Leviticus which tells you that Red Lobster is the scourge of the earth?" "We don't follow the OT laws anymore! Jesus died for our sins!" "Well, how wonderful! Then I guess that means that you can stop using LEVITICUS (an OLD TESTAMENT book) to defend your persecution of homosexuals, right?"
Wrong. And round and round we go.
I can't stand hypocrites. Religious practices are pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. I have had ONE evangelical admit to me that this was pretty screwed up; the rest just try (unsuccessfully) to defend this hypocritical position.
This is not directed right at you, either, Cygnus, but I do agree with Valvilis that if you're going to follow one law, you have to follow them all.
|
|
|
Post by Atsuko73 on Nov 24, 2003 19:50:12 GMT -5
Right on, Sista!
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 24, 2003 20:22:53 GMT -5
You might want to retire your dancing Jackson until this trial is over... just incase.
|
|
|
Post by Atsuko73 on Nov 24, 2003 21:05:04 GMT -5
You're just jealous because you don't have one. Enh, I was thinking of changing it soon anyway, to be honest.
|
|