Unanswered questions

[Bad Writer]

the attemp to strip the bible of the book chapter and various verses that openly denounce homosexuality and identify it as a sin is nothing new.

Then I'm confused why you are against it if you've heard this argument before. You should know that the Bible never explicitly states anything about God hating Gays or any such nonsense, so why all the bullshit?

Lot has sex with his daughters...even though he was apparently the most righteous man in the entire city.

lot also lived in a time before the law.

Care to explain the deaths of thousands by the hands of God in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah then? So they weren't wicked? They didn't transgress any of God's laws? According to your Holy Babble, they indeed lived before the law of Moses, but I guarantee you that no Christian in his right mind will agree with what you just pooped out of your mouth.

In no less than 13 different places the bible openly identifies homosexuality a sin. http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

I see the word "Homosexuality" interpolated into the ESV, but it was not a known term at that time, so this cannot possibly be the translation. Nothing is ever specified as to what "unnatural means", so we can toss out those couple of passages. And how in the fuck can a man lie with another man the same way that man lies with a woman? Homosexual sex is done completely differently.

Okay, so the closest the Bible gets to speaking out against Homosexuality is in Leviticus where Moses openly condemns men lying with other men. I wonder why it doesn't say anything about women lying with women? I'm guessing OT polygamy has something to do with that.

But you know what? Deciding what to follow and what not to follow in Leviticus is Cherry Picking. If you're going to follow the admonitions of Moses, why not also avoid eating Rabbits and Pork still? Those were also part of that law. I mean, you guys preached that Jesus fulfilled the law, and since he never spoke out against Homosexuality, that means anything goes now. Jesus is cool with it.

You see how we can twist and mangle the Bible to say whatever we want? That's why it doesn't take a fucking degree to understand what it says: because what it says doesn't matter when compared to a lot of other stuff that it says. (BTW, I'm still waiting to hear about how Mormonism contradicts the Bible.)

beggs the question.

It doesn't beg any questions.

do you not understand what the logical fallacy 'begs the question' means?
[/quote]

Indeed. And you admitted that you have a soft spot for porn, so I was dead on with my assumption that you have a preference. Even if you think what I was asking was a logical fallacy, you lost a lot of ground by sidestepping the questions about it in the first place. You could have addressed it directly, saying something like, "BWS, I actually don't like porn, so these questions of my preference are irrelevant." You see how easy that could have been? Instead you try to school me on something you believe to be a logical fallacy, even though you make a blatant error later on in admitting that you have what you consider to be a porn addiction.

Now that we're done with that hot mess, can we get on with the porn preference questions? What kind of porn did you prefer? What kind of images come up in your mind from time to time? Do you think it's healthy to feel bad every single time you have what you deem to be a "dirty thought"? I'm serious about this last one, because if there was a ever societal decay, it would be the introduction of the thought police.

In your orginal question you asserted that if I did not like gay porn I was only inclined to straight porn. Not allowing for the option of not liking porn at all. The fallacy comes in because you need to provide proof of your assertion that limits me to only two options.

You're right, I left that option out. But the questions of preference were about which types of porn, not if you liked porn or not. But I'm willing to forgive you for trying to pin a logical fallacy on me like this. I conceded the homosexuality reference in the Bible (however attaching the reference to the long-gone law of Moses), so you can do me a flavor and concede that I deliberately formed my questions about porn preference the way I did, purposefully excluding whether or not you liked it.

If you still think I'm proceeding with dishonesty, you don't have to reply to my post.

I'm just trying to find out how you personally feel about sexual acts because this is very connected to what we're discussing here.

I am for them in the proper context. (A Santified marriage.)

Now I'm going to do something that you think is shifting the goal posts, but it's actually just furthering my line of questioning, since it's related to the topic at hand. I'm warning you now just so you aren't alarmed or act badly in response.

Ahem.

How do you define a Sanctified marriage? Holy Matrimony? Justice of the Peace? Common law marriage okay? Also, if a man and woman get marooned on an island with no hope of leaving, should they not have sex with each other and raise a family simply because there is no Priest to marry them?

Look at how quickly homosexuality went from social taboo to a social mandate in this country.

I know! It's incredible that people were willing to do social studies and find out for a fact that Homosexuality is not only perfectly healthy, but it hurts nobody in the process if done with the same love and care that heterosexual relationships are also supposed to be about. Now, I'd like to find a modern society that doesn't see the harm and pitfalls of having grown man marry a 10 year old. Let's see if that old taboo will get approved for common practice too, shall we?

That can't possibly have anything to do with them coming to grips with reality...

Why is denying your sexually 'reality' in one instance, and in another putting you at risk for mental instability?

I already did the heavy lifting on my past explanation. If you want to rehash it, fine, but my answer isn't going to look any different. I think you know the answer to this, but you're just trying to catch me in a not-so-clever word trap. If you are still confused, I'll answer it in the next post and reiterate everything that I just told you.

You can find a psychologist to agree with what ever you think is right.

I can? I can find an accredited psychologist that will agree with me that all people should get plastic surgery to look like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Man...this is an instance of you disagreeing just to disagree.

I'm also interested in what you consider to be societal decline. Really. This should be good.

the attack and degradation of the traditional family. History records societal degradation and eventually a fall, when the tradition family model has been corrupted or replaced. Greece, Rome, Korea, china, Japan have all experienced societal decline when the traditional family was compromised.
[/quote]

Are you seriously saying that the coincidence of traditional family values changing in different societies is actually directly linked to the downfall of entire nations? Okay, I can see where you got that logic from. It's right there in Genesis when God destroyed Gomorrah. So did Napoleon fall because of his views on sex? What were they again? Has England fallen? Is it showing any signs of collapse? What about Canada or Australia? New Zealand? GERMANY? You're telling me that the Nazi party failed because it had some kind of non-traditional family thing going on?

You can try again, if you'd like, but I doubt your assertion on this will be any less feasible than it was this time. Decline of the "traditional family" does not equate to societal decline. Not by a long shot. The key to a happy family is a happy home, and gay couples are just as capable of healthy, happy living as heterosexual couples are. Are things always rainbows and gumdrops? Hell no, but a bad home is not ever directly related to the sexual inclinations of the parent(s).

So while you're out there condemning homosexuals based on a law that Jesus rescinded when he drop-kicked the Law of Moses, remember that you need to be consistent and go after ALL the non-traditional families. I'm talking about Single Moms and Dads, Transgender roles, a working mom and a stay-at-home dad, and divorced people that have remarried. (If Jesus did anything for the law, he definitely kept divorce as a no-no).

Speaking of traditional families, since you tried to pin "moving the goal post" on me last time, care to answer my question this time? Are Fathers always right?

...some lost sons do not come back.

They find new families that are actually accepting of who they are.

You are quick to judge,

A trait left over from Christianity, even though Jesus apparently spoke out against it.

slow to understand

That's better than impossible to understand, so thanks.

and wreckless in how you apply your judgments on to other people.

Nothing ventured nothing gained. I would never have found out your affinity for porn had I not prodded you about it. I'm actually proud of you; you're a walking example of how the thought police is not real, but how the thought of them can mentally abuse you. You're so worried about what you think that it pains you whenever you feel like you have lust in your heart. Here's a newsflash for you: attraction to someone is intrinsically linked to lust, so you can't just shove it away, especially when you're trying to find a boyfriend or girlfriend. You wouldn't last long on the dating scene if you didn't care about your attraction towards someone.

No basements in my state.

My wager stands, basements or no.

This passage speaks to personal judgement, sentencing someone to physical death, and attempting to execute that person. None of these things have anything to do with what is being discussed.
I have judged anyone the warrants a death sentence.

This passage speaks to a few different things. I was discussing the part of it that shows how the woman was a harlot being judged and that Jesus forgave her. We are both correct in how we view the passage. Don't dismiss my use of the passage just because you don't like that it actually fits into my argument.

So? Honestly what do I care that I do not measure up to your standards? Isn't that the point of being a Christian? We look to God for instruction and not soceity.

And now we're back to the core issue; belief in a god that has no demonstrable proof of his existence. Congratu-fucking-lations. You see how one little belief actually affects your entire world view? You don't even care that it's a negative world view that hurts others around you because you believe it's what your god wants you to do. Was I too quick to judge? I think I didn't judge your character soon enough. You are indeed scum if you really think a god wants you to act this way towards other people.

Most of you guys have very limited experience in Christianity and some how believe because you ladled soup in hati after the hurricans or even spend 30 years in a church never having missed a Sunday, this somehow places you in a position to use the bible to rebuke or correct someone who has spent the lions share of their lives studying scripture.

Do you not seeing that you are making a baseless assertion?

But you being a missionary does... Yeah.

Yes, I had formal training. Now suck my ex-missionary nuts.