|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:32 pm
Eurytus SinfulGuillotine CCubed One, I said it was the first translation, which is true. It was the first Latin translation. The Greek Septuagint came several hundred years before the Vulgate. Quote: "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men." They are talking about homosexual acts, it then says "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. There were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil..." Because they committed homosexual acts they were filled with evil. That verse CANNOT be anymore clearer. Again, lust and promiscuity. Which, as I said in my post that you so eloquently ignored, are unquestionably bad, homosexual or otherwise. You, on the other hand, are plainly ignoring the "women with women and men with men" and "shameless acts" phrases. It's a clear statement. Just because there are more verses afterwards that elaborate on it and add to it doesn't take anything away from the point in the eariler verses. Ugh. Let me give you an analogy. "Ken had sex with his wife Barbie last night." That's no sin, right? Oh, let's add "Barbie didn't consent." Now it's rape! Is THAT sin? Yes. While women had sex with women and men had sex with men, that was not the reason God gave them up. He gave them up because they gave HIM up, and worshipped idols. While we no not deny that what these people did is bad, we DO deny that what they did has any relation to two men in a loving, committed relationship. Quote: Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe For the last time, leave your bias OUT of this. You have repeatedly ignored any response to the faults in the points you've made. I am not the one suffering from bias. No he hasn't. You haven't pointed out a single problem in his points. All you've done is answer questions with questions because you're either too stupid or too afraid to back up what you say with logic and fact. I actually have not seen him bring up any points. Could you list these? Quote: Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it. Oh, shut up. Your question was based on an incorrect premise. Sorry, let me simplify that. Your question was stupid. The point you are trying to get across is incorrect, and I was demonstrating why. Stop holding your ignorance as a shield and either confront these topics like a rational, intelligent human or bugger off. His questions were, and still are, valid. You have never refuted what he said, and you have never given any proof against it. All you have done is say "that's stupid" or "Your question is stupid" I had no idea it was possible to carry on a discussion without making a single valid point. And yet, you still accomplish it. He has not made a single backed-up claim that I have not refuted. Does it matter exactly how many people say something? No. Quote: Cyberpunk Hero CCubed Right there, St. Paul says blatantly that those men and women who engaged in indecent acts with one another were filled with EVIL. You cannot deny that scripture. Sure can't disagree with that. Of course, I can disagree with your definition of "indecent acts". These men and women "gave up their natural relations". It does not describe what "natural relations" are. Men "committed shameless acts with men", but it does not describe what the shameless acts are. Maybe Luke can apologize to you for not getting pornographic. neutral Indecent acts is pretty straightforward, especially when you're considering it was written by Luke, not Paul as people think. THEY HAD HOMOSEXUAL SEX. Really. So, explain Romans 1:1? It is quite clearly Paul who wrote this book, especially as he refers to his fellow worker Timothy in 16:21. And as we've discussed, "homosexual sex" doesn't accurately describe the acts here, which are obviously fueled only by lust. Homosexual sex can also refer to sex in a loving, committed homosexual partnership. Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori And your point is? I have no issue with people having their own opinions. I do, however, have an issue with people telling others they are going to hell for something they cannot change. I do have an issue with people making opinions into restrictive laws. You sure seem to. You've done little more than insult anyone that disagrees with you. Well, people never do notice the verses and biblical arguments I present, no matter how big and red I make my font. Why should I expect you to start now? Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Because we are ruled by faith, not the law, and I have faith that God loves me and supports me the way he made me. It's a given fact that God loves and supports all of us, no matter what sin we commit. But just because God loves all of us doesn't mean we aren't sinning. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori neutral Wow, I didn't know that. Congrats, you've opened my eyes to how obviously sinful my lifestyle of sitting at home being teh ghey truly was. If you really enjoy being so rude, take it to the GD and leave people who enjoy intelligent discussion out of it. If you really enjoy being so stupid, take it to the chatterbox and leave people who can actually discuss the topic instead of insults that have no bearing on the discussion out of it. Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori There is no concrete biblical proof we should use computers. There is no concrete biblical proof that basic psychology works. Concrete biblical proof is not needed to encourage something; it is needed in order to condemn something. And I have never seen concrete biblical proof that homosexuality is sinful. So I'm to assume you simply skimmed over that little passage in Acts, then? Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori It means we have an inborn instinct to stick to our preferred gender(s)? Many homosexual people think heterosexual relationship are sick. Does that make it true? And where do you get that statistic from? Not to mention that an actual study has gotten a statistic that more than 50% of people who claim to have had a homosexual attraction also have had a heterosexual attraction. Many think it's sick? No. Some? Maybe. Few? Probably. Also, just because someone practicing a wrong lifestyle thinks it's right doesn't mean it's right. Saying that is like saying that cannibalism isn't wrong because cannibals think other people are stupid, or incest isn't wrong because people in incestual relationships don't think it's wrong. Bad reasoning and bad logic is involved, and it doesn't prove any point beside that you don't have any working points to back up your argument. I have yet to see a valid study by Paul Cameron, who I'm guessing you're citing. Also, you're using circular logic. You're saying that Cannibals can't say they're immoral, because obviously they're immoral and can't be trusted not to lie. That's a logical fallacy. Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Actually the APA, the leading psychological association in America (the world, even?) has realized that it is neither harmful nor changeable. To some degree, everyone has a homosexual tendency. It's like sin; our sinful nature can't be changed; we'll always have a tendency to sin, but that doesn't mean we have to act on the impulse just because it's there. No, everyone doesn't have a "homosexual tendency". If everyone had a homosexual tendency, everyone would have a "heterosexual tendency" as well, and I can say for certain that I don't. End Generalization. Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Jews are at fault for the Holocaust! We wouldn't hate them if they didn't deserve it! My heart bleeds for you. Again, hateful, sarcastic crap like this has no place in an intelligent discussion. I'm not simply being hateful and sarcastic. I'm pointing out the flaws in their logic using analogies.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:36 pm
The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it. Oh, shut up. Your question was based on an incorrect premise. Sorry, let me simplify that. Your question was stupid. The point you are trying to get across is incorrect, and I was demonstrating why. Stop holding your ignorance as a shield and either confront these topics like a rational, intelligent human or bugger off. For the last time, leave your bias OUT of this. "Yeah! Only MY bias is allowed in THIS thread!" Cut out the sarcasm. We're trying to have a serious conversation. I'm pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy in your logic. Please stop being so hypocritical. Also, I have yet to see you post a coherent point. Please post one and use one that I haven't already refuted from someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:05 pm
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it. Oh, shut up. Your question was based on an incorrect premise. Sorry, let me simplify that. Your question was stupid. The point you are trying to get across is incorrect, and I was demonstrating why. Stop holding your ignorance as a shield and either confront these topics like a rational, intelligent human or bugger off. For the last time, leave your bias OUT of this. "Yeah! Only MY bias is allowed in THIS thread!" Cut out the sarcasm. We're trying to have a serious conversation. I'm pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy in your logic. Please stop being so hypocritical. Also, I have yet to see you post a coherent point. Please post one and use one that I haven't already refuted from someone else. Or how about you post one, hmm? I did ask you a question did I not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:14 pm
The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe For the last time, leave your bias OUT of this. "Yeah! Only MY bias is allowed in THIS thread!" Cut out the sarcasm. We're trying to have a serious conversation. I'm pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy in your logic. Please stop being so hypocritical. Also, I have yet to see you post a coherent point. Please post one and use one that I haven't already refuted from someone else. Or how about you post one, hmm? I did ask you a question did I not? I didn't see one. Repeat it and I'll refute it. That simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:36 pm
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe For the last time, leave your bias OUT of this. You have repeatedly ignored any response to the faults in the points you've made. I am not the one suffering from bias. No he hasn't. You haven't pointed out a single problem in his points. All you've done is answer questions with questions because you're either too stupid or too afraid to back up what you say with logic and fact. I actually have not seen him bring up any points. Could you list these? How about you talk about your own points here. I bring up a single question and all the both of you have been doing is just waiting to pick at every weakness with holes in every bite! Dude, it's an honest question. Now, it's not even for arguments' sake. I want to know. With all this against you, you're still fighting. How about you put your fists down and talk civilized, hmm? Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it. Oh, shut up. Your question was based on an incorrect premise. Sorry, let me simplify that. Your question was stupid. The point you are trying to get across is incorrect, and I was demonstrating why. Stop holding your ignorance as a shield and either confront these topics like a rational, intelligent human or bugger off. His questions were, and still are, valid. You have never refuted what he said, and you have never given any proof against it. All you have done is say "that's stupid" or "Your question is stupid" I had no idea it was possible to carry on a discussion without making a single valid point. And yet, you still accomplish it. He has not made a single backed-up claim that I have not refuted. Does it matter exactly how many people say something? No. It's because you're fighting me. I came for answers, and I expect that you would at least give me the slight courtesy of an answer, but I digress. This is not for an argument anymore since it's completely full of emotion rather than fact. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori And your point is? I have no issue with people having their own opinions. I do, however, have an issue with people telling others they are going to hell for something they cannot change. I do have an issue with people making opinions into restrictive laws. You sure seem to. You've done little more than insult anyone that disagrees with you. Well, people never do notice the verses and biblical arguments I present, no matter how big and red I make my font. Why should I expect you to start now? This is why Biblical scholars are to discuss this sort of thing. Arguing makes the body of Christ even more diverse than we need to be. Once again (James 4:1-10) Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori neutral Wow, I didn't know that. Congrats, you've opened my eyes to how obviously sinful my lifestyle of sitting at home being teh ghey truly was. If you really enjoy being so rude, take it to the GD and leave people who enjoy intelligent discussion out of it. If you really enjoy being so stupid, take it to the chatterbox and leave people who can actually discuss the topic instead of insults that have no bearing on the discussion out of it. Don't call my best friend stupid. If ANYTHING that is more opinion than fact. Besides, stupid people don't get full ride scholarships to one of the best schools in the state, but alas. Our mission here is NOT to fight, so I'll hold off. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Jews are at fault for the Holocaust! We wouldn't hate them if they didn't deserve it! My heart bleeds for you. Again, hateful, sarcastic crap like this has no place in an intelligent discussion. I'm not simply being hateful and sarcastic. I'm pointing out the flaws in their logic using analogies. That is the biggest pile I've heard. What kind of Christian is supposed to argue like this? "My heart bleeds for you." isn't pointing out ANYTHING in your argument. Just that you're being inconsiderate of what I am saying. Did you ever think about that? Or you're probably thinking about proving your point so much that you're trying to be "Mr. Intellegent breaking the logic of many intellectuals by belittling everything they say!"... You even basically told someone to go crawl in a corner to die, how low will you get before you finally realize what you're saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:41 pm
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe For the last time, leave your bias OUT of this. "Yeah! Only MY bias is allowed in THIS thread!" Cut out the sarcasm. We're trying to have a serious conversation. I'm pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy in your logic. Please stop being so hypocritical. Also, I have yet to see you post a coherent point. Please post one and use one that I haven't already refuted from someone else. Or how about you post one, hmm? I did ask you a question did I not? I didn't see one. Repeat it and I'll refute it. That simple. Discussions were meant for open-mindedness. The meager fact that you're not even considering me this means that you're not mature enough to handle the art of discussion. I shall take my leave of this horrid thread. Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:47 pm
The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe For the last time, leave your bias OUT of this. You have repeatedly ignored any response to the faults in the points you've made. I am not the one suffering from bias. No he hasn't. You haven't pointed out a single problem in his points. All you've done is answer questions with questions because you're either too stupid or too afraid to back up what you say with logic and fact. I actually have not seen him bring up any points. Could you list these? How about you talk about your own points here. I bring up a single question and all the both of you have been doing is just waiting to pick at every weakness with holes in every bite! Dude, it's an honest question. Now, it's not even for arguments' sake. I want to know. With all this against you, you're still fighting. How about you put your fists down and talk civilized, hmm? Our point is that nowhere in the bible is homosexuality condemned. I have repeatedly backed this up by refuting every argument you and others have in favour of heterosexuality being the only proper sexual orientation. So where exactly IS this question you want us so desperately to answer? Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Cyberpunk Hero The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it. Oh, shut up. Your question was based on an incorrect premise. Sorry, let me simplify that. Your question was stupid. The point you are trying to get across is incorrect, and I was demonstrating why. Stop holding your ignorance as a shield and either confront these topics like a rational, intelligent human or bugger off. His questions were, and still are, valid. You have never refuted what he said, and you have never given any proof against it. All you have done is say "that's stupid" or "Your question is stupid" I had no idea it was possible to carry on a discussion without making a single valid point. And yet, you still accomplish it. He has not made a single backed-up claim that I have not refuted. Does it matter exactly how many people say something? No. It's because you're fighting me. I came for answers, and I expect that you would at least give me the slight courtesy of an answer, but I digress. This is not for an argument anymore since it's completely full of emotion rather than fact. You're right! Let's get back on topic. Ask the frigging question already. Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori And your point is? I have no issue with people having their own opinions. I do, however, have an issue with people telling others they are going to hell for something they cannot change. I do have an issue with people making opinions into restrictive laws. You sure seem to. You've done little more than insult anyone that disagrees with you. Well, people never do notice the verses and biblical arguments I present, no matter how big and red I make my font. Why should I expect you to start now? This is why Biblical scholars are to discuss this sort of thing. Arguing makes the body of Christ even more diverse than we need to be. Once again (James 4:1-10) Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori neutral Wow, I didn't know that. Congrats, you've opened my eyes to how obviously sinful my lifestyle of sitting at home being teh ghey truly was. If you really enjoy being so rude, take it to the GD and leave people who enjoy intelligent discussion out of it. If you really enjoy being so stupid, take it to the chatterbox and leave people who can actually discuss the topic instead of insults that have no bearing on the discussion out of it. Don't call my best friend stupid. If ANYTHING that is more opinion than fact. Besides, stupid people don't get full ride scholarships to one of the best schools in the state, but alas. Our mission here is NOT to fight, so I'll hold off. If you were smart, you wouldn't need to drag your friend in here to debate for you. If she were smart, she would not agree to come in here and debate for you, because that only loses you respect in your opponent's eyes. Quote: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Eurytus Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Jews are at fault for the Holocaust! We wouldn't hate them if they didn't deserve it! My heart bleeds for you. Again, hateful, sarcastic crap like this has no place in an intelligent discussion. I'm not simply being hateful and sarcastic. I'm pointing out the flaws in their logic using analogies. That is the biggest pile I've heard. What kind of Christian is supposed to argue like this? "My heart bleeds for you." isn't pointing out ANYTHING in your argument. Just that you're being inconsiderate of what I am saying. Did you ever think about that? Or you're probably thinking about proving your point so much that you're trying to be "Mr. Intellegent breaking the logic of many intellectuals by belittling everything they say!"... You even basically told someone to go crawl in a corner to die, how low will you get before you finally realize what you're saying? I'm pointing out that victims don't deserve what they get. As for the sarcastic "my heart bleeds for you", after 7 pages of the same arguments repeated over and over by people who can't be bothered to read the page before, I start to get a little jaded. When did I tell someone to crawl in a corner and die? The closest I have come to that would be euthanasia by prayer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:52 pm
The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The Noble Protoman.exe Cut out the sarcasm. We're trying to have a serious conversation. I'm pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy in your logic. Please stop being so hypocritical. Also, I have yet to see you post a coherent point. Please post one and use one that I haven't already refuted from someone else. Or how about you post one, hmm? I did ask you a question did I not? I didn't see one. Repeat it and I'll refute it. That simple. Discussions were meant for open-mindedness. The meager fact that you're not even considering me this means that you're not mature enough to handle the art of discussion. I shall take my leave of this horrid thread. Fair enough. I just told you I'd answer your question, and you accuse me of closemindedness? I try always to be as openminded as I can possibly be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:14 pm
The Noble Protoman.exe How about you talk about your own points here. I bring up a single question and all the both of you have been doing is just waiting to pick at every weakness with holes in every bite! Dude, it's an honest question. Now, it's not even for arguments' sake. I want to know. With all this against you, you're still fighting. How about you put your fists down and talk civilized, hmm? Why do I keep getting thrown into this equation? Really, I think I have been pretty civil. But your repeated accusations of me being a "bully" make me less and less inclined to continue being civil. Yes, both Mendori and I have been picking at the weaknesses and holes in the arguments of others because that's what debates are about. If I didn't find weaknesses and holes in their arguments, then I would have no reason to do anything other than smile and nod, would I not? Now, I believe your question was how can we know that homosexual acts are not condemned when they are not clearly condoned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you asked a short time ago, if I recall correctly (and got an answer, which you ignored). First of all, exclusion =/= condemnation. There are a plethora of things and behaviours that are not described in the Bible, but that does not automatically make them sinful. Your computer, for example. Also, some would argue that the story of David and Jonathan is an example of homosexual love that is condoned in the Bible. 1 Samuel 18 (New International Version) 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. Was that your question, and did I provide a satisfactory answer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:28 pm
SinfulGuillotine The Noble Protoman.exe How about you talk about your own points here. I bring up a single question and all the both of you have been doing is just waiting to pick at every weakness with holes in every bite! Dude, it's an honest question. Now, it's not even for arguments' sake. I want to know. With all this against you, you're still fighting. How about you put your fists down and talk civilized, hmm? Why do I keep getting thrown into this equation? Really, I think I have been pretty civil. But your repeated accusations of me being a "bully" make me less and less inclined to continue being civil. Yes, both Mendori and I have been picking at the weaknesses and holes in the arguments of others because that's what debates are about. If I didn't find weaknesses and holes in their arguments, then I would have no reason to do anything other than smile and nod, would I not? Now, I believe your question was how can we know that homosexual acts are not condemned when they are not clearly condoned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you asked a short time ago, if I recall correctly (and got an answer, which you ignored). First of all, exclusion =/= condemnation. There are a plethora of things and behaviours that are not described in the Bible, but that does not automatically make them sinful. Your computer, for example. Also, some would argue that the story of David and Jonathan is an example of homosexual love that is condoned in the Bible. 1 Samuel 18 (New International Version) 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. Was that your question, and did I provide a satisfactory answer? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:59 pm
SinfulGuillotine The Noble Protoman.exe How about you talk about your own points here. I bring up a single question and all the both of you have been doing is just waiting to pick at every weakness with holes in every bite! Dude, it's an honest question. Now, it's not even for arguments' sake. I want to know. With all this against you, you're still fighting. How about you put your fists down and talk civilized, hmm? Why do I keep getting thrown into this equation? Really, I think I have been pretty civil. But your repeated accusations of me being a "bully" make me less and less inclined to continue being civil. Yes, both Mendori and I have been picking at the weaknesses and holes in the arguments of others because that's what debates are about. If I didn't find weaknesses and holes in their arguments, then I would have no reason to do anything other than smile and nod, would I not? Now, I believe your question was how can we know that homosexual acts are not condemned when they are not clearly condoned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you asked a short time ago, if I recall correctly (and got an answer, which you ignored). First of all, exclusion =/= condemnation. There are a plethora of things and behaviours that are not described in the Bible, but that does not automatically make them sinful. Your computer, for example. Also, some would argue that the story of David and Jonathan is an example of homosexual love that is condoned in the Bible. 1 Samuel 18 (New International Version) 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. Was that your question, and did I provide a satisfactory answer? Sinful, I am not calling you a bully. Just the one in white and Kuroi... which now that I think of it are probably the same person. Now I did get an answer from two people, I did not happen to see one from you. I missed it, my bad. By "bully" I'm referring to the immature statements such as "You're stupid"... You're probably one of the few people in this guild who still has my full respect right about now I suppose. Elaborate, Sinful. What do you mean by "Your computer" exactly? Are you simply trying to say that my computer isn't specified in the Bible? I mean, I've been through this before. So how about you use a better example outside of technology. So let me ask you a question, Sinful. An honest to goodness question... Eurytus (who actually saw me posting in this thread and posted in it for HIMSELF) is my best friend. We hang out with each other and call each other "brothers" all the time (partially due to our silly natures, but our like trains of thought). So I mean, we could be like David and Jonathan in a sense. We give each other stuffs and share whot not. Does that mean David and Jonathan were living the homosexual lifestyle? And if so, does that mean I am?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:24 am
The Noble Protoman.exe Sinful, I am not calling you a bully. Just the one in white and Kuroi... which now that I think of it are probably the same person. Oh. In that case, I apologise for accusing you of calling me that. Since you usually referrred to "the two people defending homosexuality," I assumed you meant Mendori and myself. Quote: Now I did get an answer from two people, I did not happen to see one from you. I missed it, my bad. By "bully" I'm referring to the immature statements such as "You're stupid"... You're probably one of the few people in this guild who still has my full respect right about now I suppose. Oh, I don't think I gave you an answer...I might have...I just saw that one or two other people already had, and I find answering posts that have already been answered rather tedious, unless I think the answers that have been given are completely wrong. And..thanks, I think. Quote: Elaborate, Sinful. What do you mean by "Your computer" exactly? Are you simply trying to say that my computer isn't specified in the Bible? I mean, I've been through this before. So how about you use a better example outside of technology. Well, actually, a computer is a good example, so you'll forgive me for elaborating on that analogy. Things like lust and adultery (just to use some simple examples) are clearly condemned in the Bible, and a computer can be a means of fulfilling one or both of those, with things like pornography sites and cyber sex (which I would classify as adultery if the person doing it was married). So yes, a computer can be used for sinful behaviour. However, a computer can also be used for other, non-sinful things. Such as simple, harmless communication in real time with people thousands of miles away. I live in the United Kingdom, and while I have no idea where you live, I'm guessing that it's not in the flat above mine. And yet here we are, communicating and having a discussion. 2000 years ago, such a thing wouldn't even be imaginable. Of course it's not mentioned in the Bible. However, that does not mean that our communication is sinful. If I was wanking to porn that I'd downloaded off Limewire while I was typing this (how I would multi-task that much is beyond me, but this is hypothetical), that would be using my computer for sinful activities, Simply conversing with you through my computer, however, is not sinful. (Though perhaps repeating myself this much should be XP) Stick with me. I swear this is relevent. Now, there is no doubt that homosexual desires, like any other sort of sexual desire, can lead to sinful activities. Lust and adultery, for example (and for the sake of consistency). Again, lust and adultery are clearly condemned in the Bible, and any means thereof. However, the passages that "condemn" homosexuality do not refer to loving, mongamous same-sex relationships. They refer to things like gang rape, idoltery, lust, promiscuity, and so forth, all of which are clearly defined sins. But just because homosexuality can be a means by which these sins are accomplished does not mean that other expressions ("uses," if you will) of homosexual affections are condemned. I hope you see what I'm getting at. I realise I'm kind of rambling on, but I hope I got my point across. Quote: So let me ask you a question, Sinful. An honest to goodness question... Eurytus (who actually saw me posting in this thread and posted in it for HIMSELF) is my best friend. We hang out with each other and call each other "brothers" all the time (partially due to our silly natures, but our like trains of thought). So I mean, we could be like David and Jonathan in a sense. We give each other stuffs and share whot not. Does that mean David and Jonathan were living the homosexual lifestyle? And if so, does that mean I am? The thing that has me personally leaning towards the fact that David and Jonathan's love goes beyond plain platonic affection is the description of David leaving his father's house and making a "covenent" woth Jonathan. It sounds extremely similar to the description of marriage in which the woman "leaves the house of her father and cleaves unto her husband." I butchered that, but I think you know what I'm talking about. Now, as far as I can tell, biblical scholars are in disagreement about that passage and whether or not the love between David and Jonathan is sexual/romantic in nature, or merely brotherly. I think there's a fairly strong case for the former, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:00 am
The Noble Protoman.exe Elaborate, Sinful. What do you mean by "Your computer" exactly? Are you simply trying to say that my computer isn't specified in the Bible? I mean, I've been through this before. So how about you use a better example outside of technology. What Enj is saying is that nowhere in the bible is your computer listed as "acceptable". While it is true that using technology as an example is flawed, it is a valid analogy. In biblical times, homosexuality as a concept didn't exist. You grew up, married the person your parents picked out for you, and made teh babiez. Now, we marry for love. Alternative response: God never said it was okay to shave. That existed in biblical times. Quote: So let me ask you a question, Sinful. An honest to goodness question... Eurytus (who actually saw me posting in this thread and posted in it for HIMSELF) So sorry. ^-^;;; Quote: is my best friend. We hang out with each other and call each other "brothers" all the time (partially due to our silly natures, but our like trains of thought). So I mean, we could be like David and Jonathan in a sense. You could, if the relationship between them never escalated beyond friends. That's the part that's open to debate. Quote: We give each other stuffs and share whot not. Does that mean David and Jonathan were living the homosexual lifestyle? And if so, does that mean I am? Well, if David and Jonathon were just friends, then no. If they were married (covenant), then they were still just people in a loving, committed relationship. They were not living a "lifestyle" because the "lifestyle" does not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:08 am
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori What Enj is saying is that nowhere in the bible is your computer listed as "acceptable". While it is true that using technology as an example is flawed, it is a valid analogy. In biblical times, homosexuality as a concept didn't exist. You grew up, married the person your parents picked out for you, and made teh babiez. Now, we marry for love. Enj also managed to turn the computer example into a long and overly involved analogy to homosexuality. Somehow. Because I'm cool like that. Quote: Alternative response: God never said it was okay to shave. That existed in biblical times. Isn't shaving in Leviticus? (Which no longer holds, but still, it's mentioned.) Clipping your toenails might be a better example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:54 am
SinfulGuillotine Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori What Enj is saying is that nowhere in the bible is your computer listed as "acceptable". While it is true that using technology as an example is flawed, it is a valid analogy. In biblical times, homosexuality as a concept didn't exist. You grew up, married the person your parents picked out for you, and made teh babiez. Now, we marry for love. Enj also managed to turn the computer example into a long and overly involved analogy to homosexuality. Somehow. Because I'm cool like that. Quote: Alternative response: God never said it was okay to shave. That existed in biblical times. Isn't shaving in Leviticus? (Which no longer holds, but still, it's mentioned.) Clipping your toenails might be a better example. Yes, but it was forebidden then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
