(November 24, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Daniel Wrote: If a man marries a 9-year old and has sex with her it's still wrong. Here's an image to help you:


Muhammad, Aisha and her doll.

Wow, what Nazis! I guess if you want something done right you have to host it on your own f*ing website these days:

[image removed]

---

(November 25, 2012 at 1:18 am)Waratah Wrote: Still not clear. We are not talking about a 9 year old girl. I am talking about adult marriage, sexuality and sin.
A married homosexual couple having sex is wrong? Yes or no included in the answer please, will hopefully help make it clear. Actually just a yes or no answer would make it clear.

I don't give a shit about the new testament. To be married in Australia has not needed the churches for a while now. So your "Porneia" is irrelevant.

I already answered your question. Yes I am against same-sex marriage. However I'm not against civil rights, I don't support criminalization of homosexuality, and I don't presume to tell non-Christians how to live their lives.

One day, the question of homosexuality may be answered without reference and association to pedophilia. I'll probably never see that day, because I'll never see the end of christians....but it's a pleasant thought. Help keep those stereotypes alive Daniel, rage against the dying of the light...and all that.......

/sigh.

(November 25, 2012 at 2:04 am)Ryantology Wrote: Obviously it isn't. The underlying basis for sin and morality, in Biblical terms, are the ancient bigotries and prejudices of bronze-age shepherds in Israel. Which, for some insane reason, continue to persist long after everybody should know better.

You seem to think that Israel's morality is pagan-based. There are several things that attest otherwise, not the lest of which being that they kept the 10 commandments in the Ark of the Covenant. Regardless, the Hebrews/Israelites often refused to be moral, choosing instead the "easier" option. Also, consider that the israelites had the laws and commandments, but did not have a King (God was their King). For this reason they constantly got conquered by pagan nations and put under their laws. In the time of Christ this was the Roman empire - yet despite being under Roman authority they still kept to their Jewish laws and traditions.

Quote:Who knows the exact people or their motivations, and who cares? What difference does it make? It's still a fabrication.

Because your assertion isn't new, and many people have tried proving that Judaism and/or Christianity is fabricated. Almost always they point to clearly fabricated evidence to defend their arguments, being unable to sustain them with non-fabricated historical support.

Let's consider an example. I'm a critic of the LXX, I don't believe there was ever a completed LXX in the time of Christ, and I believe the LXX as we have it today is simply a collection of 22 unrelated Greek translations of the 22 books of the Hebrew scriptures (which we now count as 39 books FYI) plus 7 additional books of non-scripture. I believe it wasn't even a complete work (library/codex) until the 2nd or 3rd century AD. I have evidence for my position. For instance, there is not one single complete manuscript of the "original LXX" in existence. Codex Chisianus is the only LXX manuscript to contain a complete copy of the book of Daniel and it's dated some 900 years after Christ. All the other manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus, ec) had this book, and sometimes other books too, replaced by other Greek translations.

If you want to admit you have no evidence of fabrication, then just do so. Otherwise provide evidence that the Bible is fabricated. Simple.

---

(November 25, 2012 at 8:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: One day, the question of homosexuality may be answered without reference and association to pedophilia. I'll probably never see that day, because I'll never see the end of christians....but it's a pleasant thought. Help keep those stereotypes alive Daniel, rage against the dying of the light...and all that.......

/sigh.

Yeah because it's fine to stigmatize and call paedophiles evil, correct?

There's a documentary I recommend on child abuse, it's called Just, Melvin: Just Evil.

You mean as simple as saying it's a fairy tale about dragons, demi-gods, and magical realms other than earth where shit like exodus occurred???

Whether or not pedophiles are evil has little bearing on whether or not some comment about pedophilia can lead to a competent remark about homosexuals, Dan. But it does seem to be a common trend amongst the fundies, such as yourself, to reference pedophilia as though it were a pavlovian reaction to homosexuality.

(November 25, 2012 at 8:07 pm)Daniel Wrote: I already answered your question. Yes I am against same-sex marriage. However I'm not against civil rights, I don't support criminalization of homosexuality, and I don't presume to tell non-Christians how to live their lives.

So you would be against any civil law which sought to impose tthe usual Christian stance on homosexual activity on non-Christians? If only there were more like you!

(November 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Marriage by the church and civil marriage are two different things.
The church imbues the act of marriage with some mumbo-jumbo which they call a sacrament. And they only allow marriages between a man and a woman. It's their institution, their rules, they can do whatever the hell they want with their associates.
The civil marriage is the real contract that two people make and the one that is valid in a court of law.

I'm going to call you out on this. When the Church had the authority over marriage - yes including the days of the Israelites - it was always a contract, and always administered by the Church. Whether that contract is administered by the Church or by the State doesn't change the fundamental fact that it remains "one and the same". It was a contract in the time of Christ, the contract was not administered by the State authorities, but it was a contract nonetheless.

If you want to give the Church the full right to administer the contracts without any State involvement whatsoever, then you can do whatever you want with the State's version. Until you hand the Church the power to do that, the Church will defend the institution which the State now wholly controls. You should be in favour of such a move as it will represent further separation of Church and State.

Whose telling these fuckers they can't cast whatever magic spell they feel is appropriate Daniel? If a couple wants to avail themselves of the protections and benefits offered by the state for married couple, that's the business of the couple and the state, theyre the ones involved in the contract. If they want to draw down some of christs juju I can't see how the state is going to facilitate that, nor do I see the state involving itself in that, but I do see churches offering that service day in and day out. Is this different where you're from?

(November 25, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Daniel Wrote:

(November 25, 2012 at 2:04 am)Ryantology Wrote: Obviously it isn't. The underlying basis for sin and morality, in Biblical terms, are the ancient bigotries and prejudices of bronze-age shepherds in Israel. Which, for some insane reason, continue to persist long after everybody should know better.

You seem to think that Israel's morality is pagan-based. There are several things that attest otherwise, not the lest of which being that they kept the 10 commandments in the Ark of the Covenant. Regardless, the Hebrews/Israelites often refused to be moral, choosing instead the "easier" option. Also, consider that the israelites had the laws and commandments, but did not have a King (God was their King). For this reason they constantly got conquered by pagan nations and put under their laws. In the time of Christ this was the Roman empire - yet despite being under Roman authority they still kept to their Jewish laws and traditions.

Quote:Who knows the exact people or their motivations, and who cares? What difference does it make? It's still a fabrication.

Because your assertion isn't new, and many people have tried proving that Judaism and/or Christianity is fabricated. Almost always they point to clearly fabricated evidence to defend their arguments, being unable to sustain them with non-fabricated historical support.

Let's consider an example. I'm a critic of the LXX, I don't believe there was ever a completed LXX in the time of Christ, and I believe the LXX as we have it today is simply a collection of 22 unrelated Greek translations of the 22 books of the Hebrew scriptures (which we now count as 39 books FYI) plus 7 additional books of non-scripture. I believe it wasn't even a complete work (library/codex) until the 2nd or 3rd century AD. I have evidence for my position. For instance, there is not one single complete manuscript of the "original LXX" in existence. Codex Chisianus is the only LXX manuscript to contain a complete copy of the book of Daniel and it's dated some 900 years after Christ. All the other manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus, ec) had this book, and sometimes other books too, replaced by other Greek translations.

If you want to admit you have no evidence of fabrication, then just do so. Otherwise provide evidence that the Bible is fabricated. Simple.

---

(November 25, 2012 at 8:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: One day, the question of homosexuality may be answered without reference and association to pedophilia. I'll probably never see that day, because I'll never see the end of christians....but it's a pleasant thought. Help keep those stereotypes alive Daniel, rage against the dying of the light...and all that.......

/sigh.

Yeah because it's fine to stigmatize and call paedophiles evil, correct?

There's a documentary I recommend on child abuse, it's called Just, Melvin: Just Evil.

You might try reading some Biblical scholarship. Try Bart Ehrman.

(November 25, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Whether or not pedophiles are evil has little bearing on whether or not some comment about pedophilia can lead to a competent remark about homosexuals, Dan. But it does seem to be a common trend amongst the fundies, such as yourself, to reference pedophilia as though it were a pavlovian reaction to homosexuality.

This is you making a straw man argument. What I said is that porniea (fornication) covers all sexual sins - adultery, promiscuity, bestiality, sex before marriage, rape, etc, and you're the one cherry picking and pulling "homosexual" and "paedophile" out of this list and then claiming that I group them together. Is paedophilia a real sexual orientation like heterosexual and homosexual orientation? I believe it is. And I believe just like someone who is homosexual, you can not change their sexual orientation. That doesn't mean I accept the criminal behaviour of adult-child sex. It also doesn't mean that I think homosexual sex is a criminal act (I don't). See the differentiation? Or did you miss it that time too.

(November 25, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Daniel Wrote: You seem to think that Israel's morality is pagan-based. There are several things that attest otherwise, not the lest of which being that they kept the 10 commandments in the Ark of the Covenant. Regardless, the Hebrews/Israelites often refused to be moral, choosing instead the "easier" option. Also, consider that the israelites had the laws and commandments, but did not have a King (God was their King). For this reason they constantly got conquered by pagan nations and put under their laws. In the time of Christ this was the Roman empire - yet despite being under Roman authority they still kept to their Jewish laws and traditions.

...pagan-based? I am pretty sure I said the opposite of that.

"The underlying basis for sin and morality, in Biblical terms, are the ancient bigotries and prejudices of bronze-age shepherds in Israel."

Yeah, I did.

Quote:If you want to admit you have no evidence of fabrication, then just do so. Otherwise provide evidence that the Bible is fabricated. Simple.

When I say 'fabrication', I mean that the stories themselves are untrue or based on untruths, not necessarily that they were written or altered later (though it is impossible to believe they were not over thousands of years).

Unless someone can prove the existence of God, the entire thing is a sham because he is the center of the entire belief system. The purity of the text is meaningless until that assertion is shown to be true.