Homosexuality in Religion

[quote="LeafyOwNu2"]

Gauz wrote:

rot wrote:Because, again, God maps out our lives, but gives us the right to choose our own path. It's called free will. If you want to argue predestination, go bug kslidz about it.

No... thats not how the bible interperts God's Plan. When I say mapped out, I literally meant it. The idea of God's Plan does eliminate free will, because God has already predetermined what you will do. Not only did he determine it, but he forces it on you, it will be done. He doesn't map out what he wants your life to be, like you were suggesting, he maps it and forces it on you.

Free will is an illusion with the idea of "God's Plan". However, that's not the point. The point is (that goes back on topic) God has planned and forced your body to be Homosexual, he forced Hitler and Stalin to execute millions of people, he's forcing me to argue this point and you to defend free will. He forces people to sin, and forces people to go to hell also.

I don't believe in it, but that's what "God's Plan" is. Another hypocritical passage in the bible.

Challenge, Gauz:
Point that passage out.
... Rot beat me to it...

Gauz wrote:You won't argue with me... why?

You realize that I stated why, right? But I've noticed a passage down at the bottom of this post, so I'll respond, since I asked for a passage.

Gauz wrote:You have no reason not to, i'll back up what I say. What part did you think was so unexplaing and not worth your time? The part that god commands you to kill more than half the people in America? Was it the part that he claims to control our lives?

It was actually the part where you don't understand what free will is, and even when someone who I'd always written off as not very bright comes in and spells it all out for you, you still don't get it. But those things above certainly don't help your case. ;)

Gauz wrote:Please tell me rather than sayin "STFU you don't know what you're talking about (notice the lack of actual arguement here, oh wait, 'it was already said previously')"

Can't be bothered to refute an argument based completely on hearsay from an atheist. If you're going to argue what the Bible says, I want specific scriptures then and there.

Gauz wrote:God commands you to kill millions of people:

Oh? He commands me, specifically?

Gauz wrote:A passage in the bible that you should be familiar with is the one that commands you to kill all people on the sabbath. That alone wipes out the lives of many people. I don't know how'd you argue that one, as in the bible it says just that, "kill those who work on the sabbath".

You'll forgive me, but I'm not particularly familiar with the inner workings of the law and punishments laid out for the Jews, as we are no longer under the Old Covenant, but I'll humor you. A bit of research (the kind you should have done, not me) revealed that you are referring to a passage in Exodus 31, specifically verses 14 and 15. So, let's take a look at this passage, shall we?

Exodus 31 wrote:¹⁴" 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. ¹⁵For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

Looks pretty grim for me, now doesn't it? Well, let's pause a moment and go to the beginning of this section. You see, Moses starts writing about the Sabbath in verse 12, not in verse 14. I wonder what the whole thing has to say.

Exodus 31 wrote:¹²Then the LORD said to Moses, ¹³"Say to the Israelites,'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

Oh, what do you know. This was a law given specifically to the ancient Israelites, and falls under the Old Covenant, like pretty much every other law in the Old Testament. What does this mean? It means that, technically speaking, working on the Sabbath is a sin, but under the New Covenant, we are not responsible for punishing sins, anymore. If you had done even the slightest of research into the subject, rather than just regurgitating what you likely read on the Internet somewhere, you'd have known this. Now you just look like an idiot. I'm sure most of the "God orders you to kill people" shit is going to be Old Testament law given to the Israelites, but if you've got anything that you actually think has substance, then go ahead and give me the passage reference, and I'll be sure to tear you a new one.

Gauz wrote:"God's Plan" is a common belief shared by many christians that god plans your birth and death and everything in between.

And it is also a common belief among most Christians (except Calvinists) that God has given us free will and the thus the right to choose whether or not we follow the path God has ordained for us.

Gauz wrote:God's plan is generally how most christians explain most negative happenings in life, natural disasters, car accidents, murders and war.

You must be confused. While Christians do believe that God presents us with trials, and that God will sometimes use the bad things that happen in our lives to bring about a greater good, Christians do not believe that God is personally responsible for every bad thing. In fact, I'd point out that Satan is the prince of the powers of the air, and that he is generally accepted as the one responsible for things like natural disasters.

Gauz wrote:Here is a passage from the book A Purpose Driven Life:

You can quote novels and the like, but you can't be bothered to actually quote out of the Bible?

Gauz wrote:Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139]

Here's the actual passage (in King James Version)

Psalms 139 wrote:¹⁵My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. ¹⁶Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Strange. It doesn't seem to say what you thought. In reality, it says that God knows what is going to happen in our lives, and has written it down in His book. Doesn't say anything about God specifically planning exactly what is going to happen, because that isn't what God does, because we have free will.

Gauz wrote:God supposedly planned you exact birth date and death and everything in between. For everyone, everyone in the world, no exceptions. Therefore he would be the cause of the Holocaust, Stalin's killings, 9/11, ALL war, among other horrible events...

You know, for someone claiming to be an intellectual, I'm surprised you didn't even bother to crack open a Bible, or just google search the reference, and read it for yourself, before making a fool of yourself like this.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Rot, I simply and utterly give up. You have taken my post and when multi-quote crazy on it. You broke it down to every single sentence. Don't you know that you have to read the entire thing as a whole to get the full meaning. Apparently you didn't because you didn't catch the whole part where I tried to tell you why homosexuality is not a perversion. You just simply cut it up too much to get the full meaning. I will say it one last time since you didn't quite understand.

Don't see how me cutting it down by point is bad. I read the whole thing, one way or the other.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Bestiality is a perversion because you are loving another species. This love is more than likely going to be in the form of sex.

Homosexuality is a perversion because you are loving a member of the same gender. This love is more than likely going to be in the form of sex. Like homosexuality, bestiality does not necessitate sex, but it likely comes down to it. But even if it didn't, bestiality would still be a perversion.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Pedophilia is a perversion because you are loving a child who is incapable to returning the same love because they do not understand it. Not to mention the fact that you are abusing the innocence of a young mind.

You going to just ignore the part where I asked about the instances of pedophilia which don't involve rape?

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Necrophilia is a perversion because you are looking for sex in a lifeless corpse. They can not tell you no and they have no will to stop you. It is essentially rape.

Actually, most people who commit necrophilia believe themselves to be in love with the corpse, and believe the corpse loves them back. Why should life be a boundary?

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Being homosexual is not a perversion. You and another of the same sex are simply agreeing to love one another. Any type of love. There is no misconceptions, no manipulations, nothing of the sort. It is simply love.

And you are saying that this love simply cannot exist between an adult and a child, or between a man and an animal, or between a man and a corpse? Who are you to condemn these people!? Can't you just be open minded and accept that they are different and that they aren't hurting anyone around them (again, noting that we are talking about specific instances of pedophilia, and that the basic concept of rape is still bad)?

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:If it was truly a perversion would there no be a word called homophilia? I mean a word that is official, not some urban dictionary bull.

It's ironic that a little research reveals that homophilia was actually a commonly used word by homosexuals in reference to themselves up until around 1960.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:I am honestly done since you are just going to pick apart every single sentence instead of taking things on head first. You've gone multi-quote crazy.

I suppose you expect me to read your wall of text and respond with my own wall of text, with the points being lost in the middle, yes? Well multi-quoting is more efficient, because I can take your argument piece by piece and refute it one at a time, rather than trying to throw around big bulky paragraphs. And if each sentence is the beginning of a new point, then yes, I will go sentence by sentence.

it isn't more efficient to multi quote if leafy is intending his message to be read as a whole instead of in parts

especially metaphors... you realize that no metaphor will actually make relevant sense if you pick it apart line by line...

lol, homosexuality in religion is wrong.
Clearly stated that God thinks homosexuality is wrong, so for people saying theyre religous but gay theyre just taking the mick.

R!zZle BiZzl£ wrote:lol, homosexuality in religion is wrong.
Clearly stated that God thinks homosexuality is wrong, so for people saying theyre religous but gay theyre just taking the mick.

Well, I still don't think God hates gays, much like I think that animals do go to Heaven.

Rotaretilbo wrote:



You'll forgive me, but I'm not particularly familiar with the inner workings of the law and punishments laid out for the Jews, as we are no longer under the Old Covenant, but I'll humor you. A bit of research (the kind you should have done, not me) revealed that you are referring to a passage in Exodus 31, specifically verses 14 and 15. So, let's take a look at this passage, shall we?

Exodus 31 wrote:¹⁴" 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. ¹⁵For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

Looks pretty grim for me, now doesn't it? Well, let's pause a moment and go to the beginning of this section. You see, Moses starts writing about the Sabbath in verse 12, not in verse 14. I wonder what the whole thing has to say.

Exodus 31 wrote:¹²Then the LORD said to Moses, ¹³"Say to the Israelites,'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

Oh, what do you know. This was a law given specifically to the ancient Israelites, and falls under the Old Covenant, like pretty much every other law in the Old Testament. What does this mean? It means that, technically speaking, working on the Sabbath is a sin, but under the New Covenant, we are not responsible for punishing sins, anymore. If you had done even the slightest of research into the subject, rather than just regurgitating what you likely read on the Internet somewhere, you'd have known this. Now you just look like an idiot. I'm sure most of the "God orders you to kill people" shit is going to be Old Testament law given to the Israelites, but if you've got anything that you actually think has substance, then go ahead and give me the passage reference, and I'll be sure to tear you a new one.

While everything under the old testament doesn't truly apply, I find that killing Israelites for working on the sabbath immoral. Btw, it wasn't only anchient israelites, it specifiacally says "The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant."

Meaning only the descendants of Israelites whom were slaves are supposed to be killed when they do any work on the sabbath. So yeah, rather than millions of Americans, it would be only the descendants of the Anchient Israelites.

This is off topic, but do you enjoy being a total fucking twat? I realize this is the debate section, but you take every oppurtunity to insult anyone you debate. Would you kindly change your attitude so that people actually want to talk to you and make these debates positive learning experiences rather you flaunting your knowledge thus making you look like a complete fuck. I understand you think i'm an idiot, some others may as well, but please refrain from the obvioius animosity in these debates. Somewhere on the line you must've thought I was insulting you? No... i'm not insulting you, so I don't know why you feel the need to, unless you're always an ass like that. If you are then I just won't talk to you anymore.

Rot wrote:
And it is also a common belief among most Christians (except Calvinists) that God has given us free will and the thus the right to choose whether or not we follow the path God has ordained for us.

Right..

rot wrote:

Gauz wrote:Here is a passage from the book A Purpose Driven Life:

You can quote novels and the like, but you can't be bothered to actually quote out of the Bible?

Gauz wrote:Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139]

Here's the actual passage (in King James Version)

Psalms 139 wrote:¹⁵My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. ¹⁶Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Strange. It doesn't seem to say what you thought. In reality, it says that God knows what is going to happen in our lives, and has written it down in His book. Doesn't say anything about God specifically planning exactly what is going to happen, because that isn't what God does, because we have free will.

Crazy...

I'm using the New International Version btw, while there are multiple interpretations of even that version, it goes on how God foresaw what you did, and thusly wrote it in his book. Mistaken was I? Yes, multiple versions of the book each have different interpertations, with one saying he chooses what you do, to the other saying he sees what you do. Under the idea of free will him foreseeing your life would make sense (as much as religion could) that he gave us free will. While I disagree with the entire argument that you pose, there is no substantial evidence to actually say the free will is non-existent.

The original arguement was something about homosexuality being always frowned upon in religion.

In religion, homesexuality is a perversion, we have to accept that. However, outside of religion it is only a perversion by opinoin, as many people have different views on the morality of homosexuality.

I've learned that, arguing Religion, something that has no facts, is hard... and stupid. I'll admit, i've been stupid during these debates blatantly ripping ideas of how religion and god do not exist off multiple sites. Just for show, and because some may be interested, here's a link to that site:


http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

If you don't like homosexuality viewed as negative in a religion, then don't associate yourself with said religion, it's simple. I'll admit, I feel very strongly about the topic of homosexuality, and am an avid supporter of homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with them, they are just like everyone else. Some of the nicest people you'll meet could be homosexual, and some not so much. They are just like you and me, they are capable of love and why religion hates them is beyond me. Something to do with "it's a perversion" when it really isn't. Or it is..... in that religion.

KrAzY wrote:it isn't more efficient to multi quote if leafy is intending his message to be read as a whole instead of in parts

especially metaphors... you realize that no metaphor will actually make relevant sense if you pick it apart line by line...

But a series of metaphors make sense all on their own.

Gauz wrote:While everything under the old testament doesn't truly apply, I find that killing Israelites for working on the sabbath immoral. Btw, it wasn't only anchient israelites, it specifiacally says "The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant."

Under the New Covenant, no one is responsible for carrying out the sentences for the old laws, anymore. I also don't see how it is immoral to punish someone for a crime. The Israelites all believed in God (since was in the business of working great miracles specifically for them, back then) and all knew not to work on the Sabbath. If they did it, then they knew they were committing wrong.

Gauz wrote:Meaning only the descendants of Israelites whom were slaves are supposed to be killed when they do any work on the sabbath. So yeah, rather than millions of Americans, it would be only the descendants of the Anchient Israelites.

Being forced to work by another people doesn't count as breaking the Sabbath, as one has no choice. I'd also note that I am still not responsible to kill anyone, as humans are no longer responsible for carrying out he punishments under the New Covenant. You're grasping at straws, now.

Gauz wrote:This is off topic, but do you enjoy being a total fucking twat?

Only as much as you enjoy being a headstrong, ignorant troll. ;)

Gauz wrote:I realize this is the debate section, but you take every oppurtunity to insult anyone you debate.

Actually, I usually don't insult people I debate. This one's just not been my day, because you're making wild accusations without actually doing research, KrAzY is claiming that he knows every single thing about himself, and Leafy just ignores what I say. I much prefer debating with Recon. He used to use logical fallacies way back, but he's quite the civil debater now. Probably why he and I, despite having opposing beliefs, usually resolve our debates quite peacefully. Though it is quite funny to be asked why I insult people by a troll who gets off to insulting people on a regular basis.

Gauz wrote:Would you kindly change your attitude so that people actually want to talk to you and make these debates positive learning experiences rather you flaunting your knowledge thus making you look like a complete fuck.

This can't be a learning experience for anyone if you're all just going to regurgitate what you learned on the Internet in a way that is worded to be as demeaning and offensive to me as possible. Maybe if you guys asked honest questions rather than trying to trap me in some kind of poorly conceived logic snare, I would be more inclined to remain civil myself.

Gauz wrote:I understand you think i'm an idiot, some others may as well, but please refrain from the obvioius animosity in these debates.

You could save me the time and actually do some research before you post.

Gauz wrote:Somewhere on the line you must've thought I was insulting you?

More of demeaning than insulting.

Gauz wrote:No... i'm not insulting you, so I don't know why you feel the need to, unless you're always an ass like that. If you are then I just won't talk to you anymore.

You're the one telling me that my religion instructs me to kill millions of people, and that God is personally responsible for every terrible thing to ever exist. If religion was that broken, it wouldn't exist anymore. And, by proxy, if it was that broken, my IQ would have to be lower than room temperature for me to follow it. I didn't just wake up one morning and say "I'm going to join a religion that I know nothing about, and never once question anything about it!" I actually took the time to learn about my religion, and I can tell you matter-of-factly that the points you raise against it are so contorted and purposely misinterpreted that they are offensive that you would think I would fall for such bullshit.

Gauz wrote:Crazy...

I'm using the New International Version btw, while there are multiple interpretations of even that version, it goes on how God foresaw what you did, and thusly wrote it in his book. Mistaken was I? Yes, multiple versions of the book each have different interpertations, with one saying he chooses what you do, to the other saying he sees what you do.

When in doubt, use KJV. NIV is nice because they make study Bibles which have sections that analyze passages, but NIV is an attempt to make things easier to understand, and the translations are not always...accurate.

Gauz wrote:Under the idea of free will him foreseeing your life would make sense (as much as religion could) that he gave us free will. While I disagree with the entire argument that you pose, there is no substantial evidence to actually say the free will is non-existent.

Fair enough.

Gauz wrote:The original arguement was something about homosexuality being always frowned upon in religion.

In religion, homesexuality is a perversion, we have to accept that. However, outside of religion it is only a perversion by opinoin, as many people have different views on the morality of homosexuality.

Something like that, yes.

Gauz wrote:I've learned that, arguing Religion, something that has no facts, is hard... and stupid. I'll admit, i've been stupid during these debates blatantly ripping ideas of how religion and god do not exist off multiple sites. Just for show, and because some may be interested, here's a link to that site:


http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

So it was Internet regurgitation! Ya, I'm going to suggest that before you take the word of an atheist site at face value, you do a touch of research. I usually just look up passages and make sure that what someone says they say lines up with what they actually say.

Gauz wrote:If you don't like homosexuality viewed as negative in a religion, then don't associate yourself with said religion, it's simple. I'll admit, I feel very strongly about the topic of homosexuality, and am an avid supporter of homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with them, they are just like everyone else. Some of the nicest people you'll meet could be homosexual, and some not so much. They are just like you and me, they are capable of love and why religion hates them is beyond me. Something to do with "it's a perversion" when it really isn't. Or it is..... in that religion.

While I agree somewhat with you, Leafy's point was more that religion condemns homosexuality unjustly, which was primarily based on his limited understanding of the inner workings of the religion in question.

We contend that homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and other things like that; that gender is as much a boundary as age or species, and that saying gender is less of an important boundary than these things is a cop out. And, if gay marriage goes through, I'm sure NAMBLA will have a wonderful precedent for breaking down the statutory rape laws.

Gauz wrote:And noc, God can do whatever he wants says the bible and religion. He is omnipotent, present, and omniscient.

FYI, Gauz, the bible was not written by "God". It was not written by Jesus, the "son of God", or "Messiah". It was written by a bunch of disciples of Jesus, and a couple other people too, who may or may not have understood what Jesus was trying to say. So, it could be completely wrong. Plus, people translated it, which may have also led to confusion if it was not done correctly.

Gauz wrote:He created the universe and life itself.

Okay. That means something created it. Which was created by something else. Which was, again, created by another. You get the point. The universe was, to the best of our knowledge, created by the "explosion" of a couple molecules in the middle of nowhere, presumably the center of the universe. I believe the universe was a constant cycle of unmoving time. Not the byproduct of some loco spirit's experiment in some other universe.

Gauz wrote:he is quite capable of eleminating evil and creating good, just chooses not to, making him *drum roll* malevolent.

So. . . it wouldn't just start us off in heaven and make us all good guys? I mean, li3k WTF? Sure, you could argue it wants us to "fend for ourselves". But really. . . what's the reason behind it? By now, I think I've made my point. But still... :thefinger:

I hate people who say "why has God made the world so evil then".

Good, and bad, are relative (just like most everything else). Kids in Africa who are starving and recieve little health would have been almost good only a few hundred years ago. The only thing is now, everyone else's life is fucking amazing.

And before you say it, human nature is to bring yourself up and put others down. So we can't all start even without breaking free will (this is God BTW)

Just my two cents.

Edit: Also Gauz, if you are going to talk shit to Rot, you will find the shit getting shoved back into your throat at Mach 10.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Only as much as you enjoy being a headstrong, ignorant troll. ;)

The definition of troll would be someone posting irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intent to grief other users. I have been staying on-topic, posting relevant messages with no intent to personally grief any other user but just to share my views. You however have on multiple occasions called me an idiot, which is off-topic, irrelevant, and probably an attempt to get an emotional response.

Thanks.

Rot wrote:

Actually, I usually don't insult people I debate. This one's just not been my day, because you're making wild accusations without actually doing research, KrAzY is claiming that he knows every single thing about himself, and Leafy just ignores what I say. I much prefer debating with Recon. He used to use logical fallacies way back, but he's quite the civil debater now. Probably why he and I, despite having opposing beliefs, usually resolve our debates quite peacefully. Though it is quite funny to be asked why I insult people by a troll who gets off to insulting people on a regular basis.

See the above response if you want to know what a troll is, and I really think you are taking things remarkbly seriously. I do not "get off" on insulting other people.

I would also like it if you don't assume things, like say, my personality? You've never met me, so don't be posting messages thinking YOU know everything about someone else, or at least how they respond to a situation.

Rot wrote:

This can't be a learning experience for anyone if you're all just going to regurgitate what you learned on the Internet in a way that is worded to be as demeaning and offensive to me as possible. Maybe if you guys asked honest questions rather than trying to trap me in some kind of poorly conceived logic snare, I would be more inclined to remain civil myself.

Demeaning and offensive? Well then you take debates much too seriously then, and if you think I did just "regurgitate" everthing off the internet, why would you take it seriously? I also love how you seemingly have zero patience/tolerance for someone for the reason they didn't ask an honest question. God forbid you decide to hold yourself back and not be immature (note: I am talking about YOU, not the other person, who just as well may be immature). Am I calling you immature for insulting someone? Yes, it wasn't necessary, at all.

Rot wrote:

You could save me the time and actually do some research before you post.

Yes.... and then you could choose not to be rude. Oh and, then don't debate. Debate all you'd like, multi-quote all the users you like, but please try to refrain adding insult to injury, because, by doing that you'd be as bad as the person you've proven wrong who didn't do research.

Rot wrote:

You're the one telling me that my religion instructs me to kill millions of people, and that God is personally responsible for every terrible thing to ever exist. If religion was that broken, it wouldn't exist anymore. And, by proxy, if it was that broken, my IQ would have to be lower than room temperature for me to follow it. I didn't just wake up one morning and say "I'm going to join a religion that I know nothing about, and never once question anything about it!" I actually took the time to learn about my religion, and I can tell you matter-of-factly that the points you raise against it are so contorted and purposely misinterpreted that they are offensive that you would think I would fall for such bullshit.

Are your feelings hurt? Well i'm (not) sorry, Rot... you came into the debate section. Did you expect to have everyone to have the same views? Of course you didn't, no one does. Did you expect everyone to have non-offensive views? It seems like you did, that or you have no tolerance, which is a bad quality in a person (que counter insult about my stupidity).

Rot wrote:
When in doubt, use KJV. NIV is nice because they make study Bibles which have sections that analyze passages, but NIV is an attempt to make things easier to understand, and the translations are not always...accurate.

Acknowledged

Rot wrote:
While I agree somewhat with you, Leafy's point was more that religion condemns homosexuality unjustly, which was primarily based on his limited understanding of the inner workings of the religion in question.

We contend that homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and other things like that; that gender is as much a boundary as age or species, and that saying gender is less of an important boundary than these things is a cop out. And, if gay marriage goes through, I'm sure NAMBLA will have a wonderful precedent for breaking down the statutory rape laws.

My point was going to be "Well if they love each other, how could it be wrong?" Then I realized the same could go with pedophilia and beastiality. I think, like you said, gender is less of an important boundary. I'm done.

NOTE:I am not trying to insult ANYONE in anyway, and would rather not this be turned into an argument ABOUT AN ARGUEMENT. Thank you.

Nocbl2 wrote:
FYI, Gauz, the bible was not written by "God". It was not written by Jesus, the "son of God", or "Messiah". It was written by a bunch of disciples of Jesus, and a couple other people too, who may or may not have understood what Jesus was trying to say. So, it could be completely wrong. Plus, people translated it, which may have also led to confusion if it was not done correctly.

Okay.... so you're saying that the bible could be wrong. Considering the Bible is one of the only refrences of God we have, we have to take in account that what is in there is the true word of god. I guess the ten commandments could be completely wrong, and that the story of moses was translated incorrectly...

Noc wrote: Okay. That means something created it. Which was created by something else. Which was, again, created by another. You get the point. The universe was, to the best of our knowledge, created by the "explosion" of a couple molecules in the middle of nowhere, presumably the center of the universe. I believe the universe was a constant cycle of unmoving time. Not the byproduct of some loco spirit's experiment in some other universe.

No..... in the beginning there was God according to the bible. Nothing before him, and everything after.

Noc wrote: So. . . it wouldn't just start us off in heaven and make us all good guys? I mean, li3k WTF? Sure, you could argue it wants us to "fend for ourselves". But really. . . what's the reason behind it? By now, I think I've made my point. But still... :thefinger:

You've made no point at all actually.

I guess he had the power to, but thats no fun. I kind of like Earth, its been nice.

Rot, just to make it clear, I was ignoring you because you where ignoring me. Your not very good at debating if you just keep spitting the same thing out over and over.

I am talking about the perversion thing. I would come up with something new to try and make my point but you would stay with your previous statement. If I didn't agree with it the first time, why would I agree with it the second? Repeating it over and over wont help. Why not trying to come up with a new idea to get your point across.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KrAzY wrote:it isn't more efficient to multi quote if leafy is intending his message to be read as a whole instead of in parts

especially metaphors... you realize that no metaphor will actually make relevant sense if you pick it apart line by line...

But a series of metaphors make sense all on their own.

Again you are ignoring the point. You don't acknowledge the other persons point, you just spit out random statements.

Rotaretilbo wrote:You're grasping at straws, now.

You don't even see the straws.

Rotaretilbo wrote:...you...headstrong, ignorant troll. ...

That wasn't very nice.

Rotaretilbo wrote:you're making wild accusations without actually doing research

And the only things you are quoting is a bible that may or may not have the correct translation. It has already been proven earlier in this thread that a translation can change the meaning. So if it can do it once, why couldn't it do it again? Your facts may be wrong, or at-least your interpretations of them.

Rotaretilbo wrote:, KrAzY is claiming that he knows every single thing about himself

Its Krazy's body and he, at this point in time, does know everything about it. He even stated that before. If solid proof is brought to the table his views would change. He never claimed that he knows everything he will ever do for the rest of his life because he doesn't know all the facts that will be brought to him.

For being able to interpret the Bible so well you sure cant interpret a simple thing like that huh?

Rotaretilbo wrote:I insult people... ...on a regular basis.

That much is apparent.

Rotaretilbo wrote: Maybe if you guys asked honest questions rather than trying to trap me in some kind of poorly conceived logic snare, I would be more inclined to remain civil myself.

That's what a debate is. Trapping your opponent until he or she can not come up with a counter argument until they agree they are wrong. It really wouldn't be a debate if we just agreed with you now would it?

Rotaretilbo wrote:You could save me the time and actually do some research before you post.

Could you save me the time and actually so research on my posts before you just pass it off as not important? Every time I bring a new point up, you spit out the same old response. Its not very productive.

Rotaretilbo wrote:When in doubt, use KJV. NIV is nice because they make study Bibles which have sections that analyze passages, but NIV is an attempt to make things easier to understand, and the translations are not always...accurate.

So you admit that some bibles are wrong? Well if some are wrong then there is the chance that KJV is wrong too. So logically any facts coming from KJV are null and void.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Fair enough.

I am glad you agreed with me.

Rotaretilbo wrote:So it was Internet regurgitation! Ya, I'm going to suggest that before you take the word of an atheist site at face value, you do a touch of research.

Since when was the internet not a good source of information? Is the bible to only source from which you will accept topics. I would love to see you try to write a research paper in school. You would fail so hard your head would spin. You need at least 3 to 5 sources. If your going to just stick with one your not very open minded and shouldn't be debating.

Rotaretilbo wrote:We contend that homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and other things like that; that gender is as much a boundary as age or species, and that saying gender is less of an important boundary than these things is a cop out. And, if gay marriage goes through, I'm sure NAMBLA will have a wonderful precedent for breaking down the statutory rape laws.

Again, you completely ignored my points as to why it is not a perversion. All the others have mental problems. They all are considered medically psychotic. I have yet to see discerning proof that being gay means the person should end up in a psychiatric hospital.



If you guys couldn't tell the above post was to show rot that breaking a post down into small parts does not give the same meaning and shouldn't be performed.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Rot, just to make it clear, I was ignoring you because you where ignoring me. Your not very good at debating if you just keep spitting the same thing out over and over.

It is if you just ignore his point, and keep on giving him situtations in which his point comes through.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:I am talking about the perversion thing. I would come up with something new to try and make my point but you would stay with your previous statement. If I didn't agree with it the first time, why would I agree with it the second? Repeating it over and over wont help. Why not trying to come up with a new idea to get your point across.

You simply ignored it from what i recall.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KrAzY wrote:it isn't more efficient to multi quote if leafy is intending his message to be read as a whole instead of in parts

especially metaphors... you realize that no metaphor will actually make relevant sense if you pick it apart line by line...

But a series of metaphors make sense all on their own.

Again you are ignoring the point. You don't acknowledge the other persons point, you just spit out random statements.

That was a DIRECT repsonse to KrAzY. I don't know why you don't think it is.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:You're grasping at straws, now.

You don't even see the straws.

Petty.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:...you...headstrong, ignorant troll. ...

That wasn't very nice.

Sucks.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:you're making wild accusations without actually doing research

And the only things you are quoting is a bible that may or may not have the correct translation. It has already been proven earlier in this thread that a translation can change the meaning. So if it can do it once, why couldn't it do it again? Your facts may be wrong, or at-least your interpretations of them.

We have many sources in which the Bible is written from. It does change from time to time, but the version we have now is pretty accurate.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:, KrAzY is claiming that he knows every single thing about himself

Its Krazy's body and he, at this point in time, does know everything about it. He even stated that before. If solid proof is brought to the table his views would change. He never claimed that he knows everything he will ever do for the rest of his life because he doesn't know all the facts that will be brought to him.

For being able to interpret the Bible so well you sure cant interpret a simple thing like that huh?

This entire logic strip, including Rots, made my head hurt it was so confusing.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:I insult people... ...on a regular basis.

That much is apparent.

Petty.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote: Maybe if you guys asked honest questions rather than trying to trap me in some kind of poorly conceived logic snare, I would be more inclined to remain civil myself.

That's what a debate is. Trapping your opponent until he or she can not come up with a counter argument until they agree they are wrong. It really wouldn't be a debate if we just agreed with you now would it?

A Debate is to continue to bring up points and counter-points until one side is seen as more logical than the other.

There's nothing about poorly conceived logic snares, as they are, in all practicality, "noob" ways to argue.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:You could save me the time and actually do some research before you post.

Could you save me the time and actually so research on my posts before you just pass it off as not important? Every time I bring a new point up, you spit out the same old response. Its not very productive.

What new points have you brought up? From what i've seen, you spit the same crap in a different way, meaning Rot HAS to spit back the same response.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:When in doubt, use KJV. NIV is nice because they make study Bibles which have sections that analyze passages, but NIV is an attempt to make things easier to understand, and the translations are not always...accurate.

So you admit that some bibles are wrong? Well if some are wrong then there is the chance that KJV is wrong too. So logically any facts coming from KJV are null and void.

This entire argument is nullified by this: NIV is a figurative Bible, KJV is literal.

More later...

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:So it was Internet regurgitation! Ya, I'm going to suggest that before you take the word of an atheist site at face value, you do a touch of research.

Since when was the internet not a good source of information? Is the bible to only source from which you will accept topics. I would love to see you try to write a research paper in school. You would fail so hard your head would spin. You need at least 3 to 5 sources. If your going to just stick with one your not very open minded and shouldn't be debating.

And you insult HIM for lack of reasoning and missing the point?

When someone says something about the Bible with no back up, that is wrong. That's what Rot is talking about. People who claim the bible says this, when it clearly doesn't, cannot flock to some internet source instead.

For fuck's sake, why do i have to point that out to you?

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:We contend that homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and other things like that; that gender is as much a boundary as age or species, and that saying gender is less of an important boundary than these things is a cop out. And, if gay marriage goes through, I'm sure NAMBLA will have a wonderful precedent for breaking down the statutory rape laws.

Again, you completely ignored my points as to why it is not a perversion. All the others have mental problems. They all are considered medically psychotic. I have yet to see discerning proof that being gay means the person should end up in a psychiatric hospital.

You missed the entire section above it.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:If you guys couldn't tell the above post was to show rot that breaking a post down into small parts does not give the same meaning and shouldn't be performed.

That's because you are doing it wrong? You read the post, THEN go back and multi-quote. Besides, your logic was EXTREMELY broken, which is what i pointed out above.

Edit: Just re-read it, i realize i might have just wasted my time.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Rot, just to make it clear, I was ignoring you because you where ignoring me. Your not very good at debating if you just keep spitting the same thing out over and over.

In context such as this, such an action would be poor debating.
However, if a counterargument is valid against two or more arguments, then it is a valid action.

If you can bring up the points where you feel he's been regurgitating everything, I'd be happy to lend my (hopefully unbiased) opinion.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KrAzY wrote:it isn't more efficient to multi quote if leafy is intending his message to be read as a whole instead of in parts

especially metaphors... you realize that no metaphor will actually make relevant sense if you pick it apart line by line...

But a series of metaphors make sense all on their own.

Again you are ignoring the point. You don't acknowledge the other persons point, you just spit out random statements.

How is that random?
In the event they're talking about, you used several metaphors, in which addressed each single one.
If he broke up a SINGLE metaphor, then it would be a problem. But, as Heinlein once said, "Metaphor is suspect."

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:you're making wild accusations without actually doing research

And the only things you are quoting is a bible that may or may not have the correct translation. It has already been proven earlier in this thread that a translation can change the meaning. So if it can do it once, why couldn't it do it again? Your facts may be wrong, or at-least your interpretations of them.

1: Rot's point about the NIV is incorrect. It was actually translated MORE CAREFULLY than King James. Multi-denominational input was taken, from leading theologians, historians, and linguists. Multiple sources of biblical text were taken and compared to each other.
2: As we pointed out BEFORE, there's more evidence to support the unchanging history of the bible than Homer's Illiad.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:, KrAzY is claiming that he knows every single thing about himself

Its Krazy's body and he, at this point in time, does know everything about it. He even stated that before. If solid proof is brought to the table his views would change. He never claimed that he knows everything he will ever do for the rest of his life because he doesn't know all the facts that will be brought to him.

For being able to interpret the Bible so well you sure cant interpret a simple thing like that huh?

KrAzY's point was that there was NOTHING that could get him to believe in God. Absolutely nothing.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote: Maybe if you guys asked honest questions rather than trying to trap me in some kind of poorly conceived logic snare, I would be more inclined to remain civil myself.

That's what a debate is. Trapping your opponent until he or she can not come up with a counter argument until they agree they are wrong. It really wouldn't be a debate if we just agreed with you now would it?

Although you guys have been pretty good about it, he's talking about logic traps. Catch-22s.
For example, the quote Gauz (or maybe Pheonix... or somebody else) questioning if God is omnipotent, good, just, whatever, is commonly known as a straw man argument.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:You could save me the time and actually do some research before you post.

Could you save me the time and actually so research on my posts before you just pass it off as not important? Every time I bring a new point up, you spit out the same old response. Its not very productive.

I'd have to question whether they're new. I've seen a lot of repeat questions.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:When in doubt, use KJV. NIV is nice because they make study Bibles which have sections that analyze passages, but NIV is an attempt to make things easier to understand, and the translations are not always...accurate.

So you admit that some bibles are wrong? Well if some are wrong then there is the chance that KJV is wrong too. So logically any facts coming from KJV are null and void.

*Headbangs.
OK, so "Teaching about Evolution" and a lot of NSF approved textbooks brings up the point that whales have vestigial hip bones. Except those ain't hip bones. They've got a lot to do with the reproductive organs. After all, when your member weighs more then an adolescent human, you need some hard structure backing that up.

Because this fact is wrong, we can assume that everything in "Teaching about Evolution" is wrong. Flat-out wrong.
And because Teaching about Evolution is wrong, there's a chance that a lot of textbooks are wrong.
So, logically, any 'facts' coming out of a textbook are null and void.

You see where that argument falls apart? Reducto ad absurdum, reducto ad nauseum!
We know that the KJV and the NIV are accurate because they back-check against older manuscripts. Saying that they have translation problems is a dying argument in the academic world.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:So it was Internet regurgitation! Ya, I'm going to suggest that before you take the word of an atheist site at face value, you do a touch of research.

Since when was the internet not a good source of information?

http://www.timecube.com/
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-folder.html
The first one is just hilarious.
So, what I'm saying here is that the internet CAN be a good source of information. But use your own brain when deciding what's true, and what's someone hiding behind an official-looking web URL.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Is the bible to only source from which you will accept topics. I would love to see you try to write a research paper in school. You would fail so hard your head would spin. You need at least 3 to 5 sources. If your going to just stick with one your not very open minded and shouldn't be debating.

No, we'll also use historical texts, medical reports, whatnot.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Again, you completely ignored my points as to why it is not a perversion. All the others have mental problems. They all are considered medically psychotic. I have yet to see discerning proof that being gay means the person should end up in a psychiatric hospital.

I have yet to see discerning proof that they shouldn't.
We don't know what causes homosexuality (despite what NT talks about). We don't know what causes necrophilia, or pedophilia, or zoophilia. Hastening to declassify homosexuality apart from the other mental disorders is premature.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:If you guys couldn't tell the above post was to show rot that breaking a post down into small parts does not give the same meaning and shouldn't be performed.

As opposed to what? Huge blocks of text? Long paragraphs with ambiguous distinction as to which part of the other post they're refuting? Bullets?

Gauz wrote:The definition of troll would be someone posting irrelevant or off-topic messages with the intent to grief other users. I have been staying on-topic, posting relevant messages with no intent to personally grief any other user but just to share my views. You however have on multiple occasions called me an idiot, which is off-topic, irrelevant, and probably an attempt to get an emotional response.

Thanks.

Seems our definitions don't add up. To me, a troll doesn't have to be off topic as long as his messages are specifically crafted in a way as to try and bait another user into becoming upset or frustrated.

Gauz wrote:See the above response if you want to know what a troll is, and I really think you are taking things remarkbly seriously. I do not "get off" on insulting other people.

Then forgive me for using the wrong word. What's the word for someone who regurgitates poorly conceived arguments that are worded to purposely demean or insult the other party? At another forum I frequent, they banned a guy for doing just that, and the reason stated was trolling, so at least I'm not the only one who apparently doesn't know what trolling is.

Gauz wrote:I would also like it if you don't assume things, like say, my personality? You've never met me, so don't be posting messages thinking YOU know everything about someone else, or at least how they respond to a situation.

And you've met me? We're both judging each other based on our posts. Your posts have been regurgitations of poorly conceived arguments and have either lacked support altogether or have had weak support that was so twisted out of context as to be laughable. My posts have been very aggressive because I'm growing tired of the sort of posts I just described.

Gauz wrote:Demeaning and offensive? Well then you take debates much too seriously then, and if you think I did just "regurgitate" everthing off the internet, why would you take it seriously? I also love how you seemingly have zero patience/tolerance for someone for the reason they didn't ask an honest question. God forbid you decide to hold yourself back and not be immature (note: I am talking about YOU, not the other person, who just as well may be immature). Am I calling you immature for insulting someone? Yes, it wasn't necessary, at all.

There is a difference, Gauz, between having no patience and putting up with this crap for five pages and then becoming frustrated. This is a serious debate, whether you like it or not, so if I'm serious, you'll just have to excuse that. I'm not the only one being serious, though.

Gauz wrote:Yes.... and then you could choose not to be rude. Oh and, then don't debate. Debate all you'd like, multi-quote all the users you like, but please try to refrain adding insult to injury, because, by doing that you'd be as bad as the person you've proven wrong who didn't do research.

Insult to injury? What injury!? I insult you, Gauz, because it's the only language you seem to understand. Everything I said up until I started insulting you was completely ignored. I explained my case several times prior to calling you an idiot.

Gauz wrote:Are your feelings hurt? Well i'm (not) sorry, Rot... you came into the debate section. Did you expect to have everyone to have the same views? Of course you didn't, no one does. Did you expect everyone to have non-offensive views? It seems like you did, that or you have no tolerance, which is a bad quality in a person (que counter insult about my stupidity).

Gauz, there is a difference between disagreeing and purposely construing things to be as insulting as possible. You treated me like an idiot, and I called you one. The difference is I actually support my points with evidence, and you do not. Whether you disagree or not is not the point. You see, this is the debate section, not the opinion section. It's the section where we deabte, which is to say we present arguments and then back those arguments up with evidence. Furthermore, it is generally expected that debates will remain somewhat civil. I'm not going out of my way to construe your opinion as so ridiculously stupid that you would have to be brain dead to believe it, and I'm not claiming to know more about your opinion than you do.

Gauz wrote:My point was going to be "Well if they love each other, how could it be wrong?" Then I realized the same could go with pedophilia and beastiality. I think, like you said, gender is less of an important boundary. I'm done.

Teehee.

Gauz wrote:NOTE:I am not trying to insult ANYONE in anyway, and would rather not this be turned into an argument ABOUT AN ARGUEMENT. Thank you.

I think I'm just on edge because I am sick and fucking tired of dealing with appeal to ridicule in religious debates. I don't expect everyone, or even most anyone, to agree with me, but I do expect you guys to think before you post, and try and maintain some semblance of tact or civility.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Rot, just to make it clear, I was ignoring you because you where ignoring me. Your not very good at debating if you just keep spitting the same thing out over and over.

It's ironic, because a second ago, I was paying too much attention to you, but now I'm "ignoring" you. I'm not the only one "spitting the same thing out over and over," Leafy. The difference is that you spit out an argument, I spit out a counter, and you spit out the argument again.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:I am talking about the perversion thing. I would come up with something new to try and make my point but you would stay with your previous statement. If I didn't agree with it the first time, why would I agree with it the second? Repeating it over and over wont help. Why not trying to come up with a new idea to get your point across.

But you didn't disagree. You just ignored my point. Why is gender an acceptable boundary to cross, but age and species are not? Why is gender less important than age or species? Why is homosexuality somehow "better" than pedophilia and bestiality? "Those are perverse," you say, "but homosexuality is not." Circular reasoning like "but they're not of the same species" is just as inapplicable as "but they're of the same gender" in this debate.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Again you are ignoring the point. You don't acknowledge the other persons point, you just spit out random statements.

That's because his point was irrelevant. I didn't break up any metaphors, so why should I have to weigh in on whether or not breaking up metaphors is bad?

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:That wasn't very nice.

It wasn't meant to be, either.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:And the only things you are quoting is a bible that may or may not have the correct translation. It has already been proven earlier in this thread that a translation can change the meaning. So if it can do it once, why couldn't it do it again? Your facts may be wrong, or at-least your interpretations of them.

Dead Sea Scrolls. Look them up.

And since Gauz and I were debating what the Bible says, I'm pretty sure quoting out of said Bible would be valid research, before one claims what it actually says.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Its Krazy's body and he, at this point in time, does know everything about it. He even stated that before. If solid proof is brought to the table his views would change. He never claimed that he knows everything he will ever do for the rest of his life because he doesn't know all the facts that will be brought to him.

If only knowledge worked like that, where we could just know our own mind absolutely. But the fact remains that we don't, even if we think we do. Even some of the most prestigious psychologists have fully seeing into their own minds. It is much easier to see into someone else's than your own.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:For being able to interpret the Bible so well you sure cant interpret a simple thing like that huh?

Interpret it? I'm saying that the statement is a lie! One that KrAzY tells himself over and over so that he doesn't have to think about God.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:That's what a debate is. Trapping your opponent until he or she can not come up with a counter argument until they agree they are wrong. It really wouldn't be a debate if we just agreed with you now would it?

That would be an argument, Leafy. A debate is where two or more people go back and forth, bringing up points in favor of their own side and against their opponent's side. In a debate, you should be about as well informed about your opponent's side as your own. Logic traps, also called logical fallacies, have no place in debates.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Could you save me the time and actually so research on my posts before you just pass it off as not important? Every time I bring a new point up, you spit out the same old response. Its not very productive.

Perhaps if you rebutted my points rather than ignoring them...or brought up new points like you claim...

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:So you admit that some bibles are wrong? Well if some are wrong then there is the chance that KJV is wrong too. So logically any facts coming from KJV are null and void.

I admit that some translations of the Bible are meant to make things easier to understand, not for picking apart. However, the KJV is widely regarded as highly accurate, and based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other historic documents, we know that the KJV is pretty much on the money.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Since when was the internet not a good source of information?

Probably right around the time when anyone anywhere could make a site and post their opinion on something, stated as fact. If you'd like, I can go regurgitate half-baked arguments from radical Christian sites as evidence of this.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Is the bible to only source from which you will accept topics.

Leafy! WE WERE DEBATING WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS! How hard is it to understand that when you debate about what something says, you should probably have actually read what it says first!?

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:I would love to see you try to write a research paper in school. You would fail so hard your head would spin. You need at least 3 to 5 sources. If your going to just stick with one your not very open minded and shouldn't be debating.

You also can't use sources that are not credible. I wonder if www.godisimaginary.com is a credible source...

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:Again, you completely ignored my points as to why it is not a perversion. All the others have mental problems. They all are considered medically psychotic. I have yet to see discerning proof that being gay means the person should end up in a psychiatric hospital.

So because people no longer consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, it no longer is? Yes, this makes so much sense.[/sarcasm]

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:If you guys couldn't tell the above post was to show rot that breaking a post down into small parts does not give the same meaning and shouldn't be performed.

I don't really see much of a difference. This just made it much easier to respond to your points.