Unanswered questions

[Bad Writer]

Instead of seeing two men guilt of sexual sin (as we all are to one degree or another) you see or will identify two Homosexuals. Then when the bible (as with the ERV) identified homosexuality as a sin you assume God hates All Homosexuals because God hates sin. You and the westbro Baptist have more in common than you think.

It cannot be said that this is how I identify homosexuality since I don't adhere to what the Bible teaches. Actually, what I said is very relevant to how those Baptists view homosexuality. Since there was no word for homosexuality, earlier translations did circumlocution to describe this particular sin. Since then this word has been created, and it was interpolated into the Bible. Now there is a very negative connotation towards gays, even if they have never had gay sex. You are clearly more mature in your interpretation of the passage, Drich, but how do you feel about people misrepresenting what you feel is right? God obviously doesn't give a shit what you or they think, otherwise he would have intervened by now, don't you think?

God clearly seperates Man from sin. We on the other hand in our pride, wear our sins as personal identifiers to who we are as indivisuals. Homosexual, Liar, Murderer, Gossip, and so on. Know this is a failing in your understanding of how God operates, It is not a 'character flaw of God.'

So, once again, if I have gay sex once in my life, am I to be identified as a Homosexual? The world is not as black and white as you think. Merriam Webster may specify two ways that people identify homosexuality, but the definitions are in no way empirical. The dictionary is a reflection on the common understandings of what people use in their speech. But I have proven to you that even if you think someone is a homosexual because your bible identifies a man having sex with another man as such, it is only the act that's homosexual, and not necessarily the demeanor of the person. I am on such person who is not gay, but has had gay sex. Arguing against this is a crime against reality.

Oh, I'm following you pretty close on this one. Notice how I never tried to refute this point?

what fantsy world do you live in? You have never once responsiably discussed this 'point' let alone refute it.'

Why should I discuss a point that is not up for debate? You want me to refute the fact that Christianity abhors what it deems as "sexual transgression"? Is this what you want from me? The Bible says it, so I see no reason to refute that fact. I do, however, refute the claim that the Bible is god-breathed, so the idea that it's a sin is irrelevant to me anyway. As I've said before, I'm against the blatant hatred for homosexuality: you misunderstand what's good and what's not good for society, you can't leave well enough alone, and the bigotry shows to the point of emotional and physical harm. I will hotly debate you on this any day, Drich, for singling out members of society that do nothing to drastically upset the "balance" is a crime against humanity, and it's a tipping of the scales in your favor for a sexual preference that should be none of your business anyway. You base your bigotry on a 2000 year old book that's probably not true; your worldview is in serious need of reevaluation.

Now that we have that done and out of the way, please address my other concerns:

Implying? Nope. Saying so? Yes. Without law, there can be no punishment. If God thinks a person is wicked for walking funny, but he never issued guidelines on how he should be walking in the first place, this is a malevolent god indeed. If this is what you are saying about the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, that there really was no law at this point, then your God killed people for no other reason than he was a bigot himself.

However, we can dismiss this by applying what we know of earlier parts of the Bible...using a timeline, as you suggested. It looks like God was issuing laws to people since the times of the Garden of Eden, so we can safely (or not so safely) say that God did have laws in mind and even issued a few out to Adam and Eve. "Multiply and replenish the earth" is one that comes to mind right off the bat.

So what exactly don't I know about the Bible? Oh, I don't know it the way you want me to know it. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses behind on the church pew years ago.

If Marry was not a virgin it is most likely Joseph and or her would have been stoned. (They checked those sorts of things otherwise at the very least she and her family would have been disgraced.)

She wasn't stoned in the story, no. The timeline concerning the birth of Christ is kinda screwy anyway though, so there's no accurate way to tell when she got pregnant unless we build a time machine and witness the event ourselves. Could have very well been that Jesus was Joseph's son all along and the virgin birth was interpolated in order to make Jesus seem more divine.

Wow, Didn't you just say that there wasn't a koine greek word for homosexual in the Bible, and now you say because Jesus did not openly condemn Homosexuality specifically/by name, meant that He was ok with it?

If he was a Jew he probably wasn't okay with it. If he was then there would probably be something like, "And it's okay for men to think about lying with other men." If anything, this just proves that the bigotry against premarital sex and homosexuality was also held by Jesus.

I didn't really have a point to make about Jesus not saying it was admission that it was okay, but it was fun to point it out anyway.

Not all tangents are red herrings, and these points we're hitting upon all seem pretty close in the realm of what we're discussing. Why are you upset about that?

I am getting upset because you are using all of these tangents to skirt the primary issue.

Which is not what you think it is, as I've been explaining to you. You think the main issue is that the Bible speaks out against sexual sin? That's a no brainer and doesn't even need to be debated. Being anti-gay is not okay though because people are only against it because the Bible told them to, and holding the Bible to be true is a tough burden to bear in the first place. The Bible is not a very good authority on reality.

[Drich]

Instead of seeing two men guilt of sexual sin (as we all are to one degree or another) you see or will identify two Homosexuals. Then when the bible (as with the ERV) identified homosexuality as a sin you assume God hates All Homosexuals because God hates sin. You and the westbro Baptist have more in common than you think.

It cannot be said that this is how I identify homosexuality since I don't adhere to what the Bible teaches. Actually, what I said is very relevant to how those Baptists view homosexuality. Since there was no word for homosexuality, earlier translations did circumlocution to describe this particular sin. Since then this word has been created, and it was interpolated into the Bible. Now there is a very negative connotation towards gays, even if they have never had gay sex. You are clearly more mature in your interpretation of the passage, Drich, but how do you feel about people misrepresenting what you feel is right? God obviously doesn't give a shit what you or they think, otherwise he would have intervened by now, don't you think?

God clearly seperates Man from sin. We on the other hand in our pride, wear our sins as personal identifiers to who we are as indivisuals. Homosexual, Liar, Murderer, Gossip, and so on. Know this is a failing in your understanding of how God operates, It is not a 'character flaw of God.'

So, once again, if I have gay sex once in my life, am I to be identified as a Homosexual? The world is not as black and white as you think. Merriam Webster may specify two ways that people identify homosexuality, but the definitions are in no way empirical. The dictionary is a reflection on the common understandings of what people use in their speech. But I have proven to you that even if you think someone is a homosexual because your bible identifies a man having sex with another man as such, it is only the act that's homosexual, and not necessarily the demeanor of the person. I am on such person who is not gay, but has had gay sex. Arguing against this is a crime against reality.

what fantsy world do you live in? You have never once responsiably discussed this 'point' let alone refute it.'

Why should I discuss a point that is not up for debate? You want me to refute the fact that Christianity abhors what it deems as "sexual transgression"? Is this what you want from me? The Bible says it, so I see no reason to refute that fact. I do, however, refute the claim that the Bible is god-breathed, so the idea that it's a sin is irrelevant to me anyway. As I've said before, I'm against the blatant hatred for homosexuality: you misunderstand what's good and what's not good for society, you can't leave well enough alone, and the bigotry shows to the point of emotional and physical harm. I will hotly debate you on this any day, Drich, for singling out members of society that do nothing to drastically upset the "balance" is a crime against humanity, and it's a tipping of the scales in your favor for a sexual preference that should be none of your business anyway. You base your bigotry on a 2000 year old book that's probably not true; your worldview is in serious need of reevaluation.

Now that we have that done and out of the way, please address my other concerns:

Implying? Nope. Saying so? Yes. Without law, there can be no punishment. If God thinks a person is wicked for walking funny, but he never issued guidelines on how he should be walking in the first place, this is a malevolent god indeed. If this is what you are saying about the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, that there really was no law at this point, then your God killed people for no other reason than he was a bigot himself.

However, we can dismiss this by applying what we know of earlier parts of the Bible...using a timeline, as you suggested. It looks like God was issuing laws to people since the times of the Garden of Eden, so we can safely (or not so safely) say that God did have laws in mind and even issued a few out to Adam and Eve. "Multiply and replenish the earth" is one that comes to mind right off the bat.

So what exactly don't I know about the Bible? Oh, I don't know it the way you want me to know it. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses behind on the church pew years ago.

If Marry was not a virgin it is most likely Joseph and or her would have been stoned. (They checked those sorts of things otherwise at the very least she and her family would have been disgraced.)

She wasn't stoned in the story, no. The timeline concerning the birth of Christ is kinda screwy anyway though, so there's no accurate way to tell when she got pregnant unless we build a time machine and witness the event ourselves. Could have very well been that Jesus was Joseph's son all along and the virgin birth was interpolated in order to make Jesus seem more divine.

Wow, Didn't you just say that there wasn't a koine greek word for homosexual in the Bible, and now you say because Jesus did not openly condemn Homosexuality specifically/by name, meant that He was ok with it?

If he was a Jew he probably wasn't okay with it. If he was then there would probably be something like, "And it's okay for men to think about lying with other men." If anything, this just proves that the bigotry against premarital sex and homosexuality was also held by Jesus.

I didn't really have a point to make about Jesus not saying it was admission that it was okay, but it was fun to point it out anyway.

I am getting upset because you are using all of these tangents to skirt the primary issue.

Which is not what you think it is, as I've been explaining to you. You think the main issue is that the Bible speaks out against sexual sin? That's a no brainer and doesn't even need to be debated. Being anti-gay is not okay though because people are only against it because the Bible told them to, and holding the Bible to be true is a tough burden to bear in the first place. The Bible is not a very good authority on reality.

So after 10 pages you can now admit, that homosexual sex is a sexually based sin like all other heterosexually based sin, (fornication/sexually immorality) because it is not sex that can be Santified through an approved marriage?

If yes the please tell me oh great kazoo, how is identifying homosexual sex as a sin like all other sexual sins bigoted?

[Cyberman]

Is that the only objection to same-sex partnerships, this focussing on the sexual act? What about the love aspect?

[Bad Writer]

The Bible describes homosexual sex as a sinful (if not moreso, considering how it singles it out sometimes) as heterosexual acts done outside the bounds of marriage. As the Bible is merely a fairytale though, sin is a false notion, and it cannot be taken seriously. Homosexuality is just as valid as Heterosexuality, and practicing either act with a consenting partner is not a bad thing if done outside the bonds of any kind of marriage. If you feel any guilt after having sex before marriage, it's because you've been brainwashed to think that an invisible sin token has been put on your heavenly tally, which makes the negative emotion completely unwarranted.

Drich, you like porn as you have admitted. If you feel any guilt for viewing it, then it's only because you have allowed religion to affect you in such a way. Would a loving god really want to incite fear in you, or would he treat you with respect and openness? I know you would pick the latter, but that god would be just as made-up as the former, so there's really no use believing in either. What's a better way to operate is to trust in your fellow man and work to make this world a better place for all around you. This is a goal we can all agree on, and it can definitely be achieved by secular means (proven fact).

[Drich]

Is that the only objection to same-sex partnerships, this focussing on the sexual act? What about the love aspect?

I guess it depends on the man. Can he love without expressing or wanting to express his love sexually? Or rather if a man can isolate his feelings of love to: phila, agape, or storg? if yes Then this is not a sin. However if his feelings wander into Eros, then it is a sin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

[Silver]

I guess it depends on the man. Can he love without expressing or wanting to express his love sexually?

That is ironically rich, especially coming from a religion that claims one must unite with another merely for the purpose of copulation for the sake of reproduction.

Making babies is rather sexual.

[Cyberman]

I guess it depends on the man. Can he love without expressing or wanting to express his love sexually? Or rather if a man can isolate his feelings of love to: phila, agape, or storg? if yes Then this is not a sin. However if his feelings wander into Eros, then it is a sin.

Okay; so love is fine, but the sex part is basically "eww, icky!" Regardless, if the assertion is that such love can only properly be expressed physically when "sanctified", what's the problem with allowing same-sex couples to marry, get their relationship recognised officially and then express whatever damn feelings they want without offending the followers of a misbegotten mythology? Because let's be honest and grown-up here; it's not some mid-Eastern desert deity with an overactive thyroid that gives a shit is it, really?

I just find all this apparent obsessing over what other people want to do with similar body parts rather less than healthy, quite frankly.

[Drich]

The Bible describes homosexual sex as a sinful (if not moreso, considering how it singles it out sometimes) as heterosexual acts done outside the bounds of marriage. As the Bible is merely a fairytale though, sin is a false notion, and it cannot be taken seriously. Homosexuality is just as valid as Heterosexuality, and practicing either act with a consenting partner is not a bad thing if done outside the bonds of any kind of marriage. If you feel any guilt after having sex before marriage, it's because you've been brainwashed to think that an invisible sin token has been put on your heavenly tally, which makes the negative emotion completely unwarranted.

Drich, you like porn as you have admitted. If you feel any guilt for viewing it, then it's only because you have allowed religion to affect you in such a way. Would a loving god really want to incite fear in you, or would he treat you with respect and openness? I know you would pick the latter, but that god would be just as made-up as the former, so there's really no use believing in either. What's a better way to operate is to trust in your fellow man and work to make this world a better place for all around you. This is a goal we can all agree on, and it can definitely be achieved by secular means (proven fact).

Wow. You have lied to yourself and lied to me recounting the nature of our conversations. I was starting to develop a great respect for you as you seemed to earnestly follow the logic of discussion we were having. Till now. Now it all just fell apart. You have completely invalidated all of your work and effort to this point. You started out arguing what the bible did and did not say. When it was proved to you conclusively (a dozen different times mind you, something all of your peers got after one or two explainations) that the bible identified all sex out of we'd lock a sin, including gay sex.. You took the intellectually dishonest road and moved to dismiss the whole bible (the very same bible you were desperately trying to use to prove me wrong mind you) just like you did in your first post to me. Remember? I said you summed up the body of your work in your final paragraph of your first post in the series of post. You say basically the same thing as you did here. And I said this was a reaffirming statement you were using to remind yourself that even if you are proven wrong here, you did not believe in any of this stuff anyway.. And what did you say? "Your reading too much into what I said."

Now the circle is complete, and at the end you had to remind yourself as I pointed out you did not believe in any of this anyway.... The point? Your not the unique snow flake you think yourself to be. You fit a stereotype to a fault. I thought you were one of the few who would break the rule, but it seems you value what you been taught to think over learning to think for yourself. As such I have to shake the dust from my feet and move on to others for a while. (It's not you, it's me.)

---

I guess it depends on the man. Can he love without expressing or wanting to express his love sexually?

That is ironically rich, especially coming from a religion that claims one must unite with another merely for the purpose of copulation for the sake of reproduction.

Making babies is rather sexual.

What are you talking about?

Paul tells us we should only get married if we burn with uncontrollable passion...

[Silver]

Paul tells us we should only get married if we burn with uncontrollable passion...

First of all, Paul is unreliable. A heretic and reputable sinner who supposedly saw the light while being trampled by a horse? Yeah, he saw the light, alright. The light of fame.

Secondly, burning with uncontrollable passion is rather sexual. Ironic?

[Drich]

I guess it depends on the man. Can he love without expressing or wanting to express his love sexually? Or rather if a man can isolate his feelings of love to: phila, agape, or storg? if yes Then this is not a sin. However if his feelings wander into Eros, then it is a sin.

Okay; so love is fine, but the sex part is basically "eww, icky!" Regardless, if the assertion is that such love can only properly be expressed physically when "sanctified", what's the problem with allowing same-sex couples to marry, get their relationship recognised officially and then express whatever damn feelings they want without offending the followers of a misbegotten mythology? Because let's be honest and grown-up here; it's not some mid-Eastern desert deity with an overactive thyroid that gives a shit is it, really?

I just find all this apparent obsessing over what other people want to do with similar body parts rather less than healthy, quite frankly.

Thanks statler, now we just need to here waldorf's thoughts and we can move on to a commercial break.

I see Minnie as the Waldorf. The crotchetier of the two crotchety muppets.