[quote]ZEB wrote:
The point is you seemed to want to discuss religion!
[/quote]
I did, but I did not want to get into an argument about my beliefs. I merely wanted to state them. You had done as much, surely I was entitled. It was all the subsequent back and forth that was detestable of us.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
What is so special about a right shared by everyone? “heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual” would seem to about cover the gamut.
Not true.
[/quote]
Not true? Is there a fifth alternative then?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Go check out the Creation v. Evolution thread for a nice list of the errors, recently posted. But not by me. I contented myself with noting that witchcraft is a crock.
The point is you seemed to want to discuss religion!
[/quote]
Now you’ve made me curious by avoiding the point. What about these factual errors in the Bible, this other fellow has listed?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Go check out the Creation v. Evolution thread for a nice list of the errors, recently posted. But not by me. I contented myself with noting that witchcraft is a crock.
The point is you seemed to want to discuss religion!
Now you’ve made me curious by avoiding the point. What about these factual errors in the Bible, this other fellow has listed?
[/quote]
engamer:
I have an idea, why don’t you post one (or more if you like) error that you think the Bible has with in it on this thread as I asked. Don’t ask me to go over to another thread, post it right here!
If the Bible is full of errors coming up with one should be quite easy. Now go get it and post it right here so that I can see it!
I am being sincere when I tell you that I have never seen one.
I will await your post.
Thank you,
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If the Bible is full of errors coming up with one should be quite easy. Now go get it and post it right here so that I can see it!
I am being sincere when I tell you that I have never seen one.
I will await your post.
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Here you go, courtesy of toshindo:
[quote]LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Wrong, hares do not chew cud. [/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And Jesus Christ was trying to free you from your sins! Who has the more important mission?
[/quote]
I am with both Christ and Krishnamurti, and I need make no such choice. The two do not seem to contradict each other in any fashion.
This is why it is my belief that there is much more than a single error in the Bible. The Bible was used to establish a religion. Beliefs are good. Religions are questionable at best.
Especially if they are somebody else’s religion.
I am curious what you suppose will actually happen to Canada as a result of enabling gay marriage. If not direct punishment from god, how will this dreadful vitiation of marriage (I am being sarcastic) play out for them do you think? What will go wrong for the Canadians as a result of this?
ZEB, sorry, meant to post this earlier -I must respectfully bow out for a while, lots going on with my brother’s upcoming wedding and a study I’m getting off the ground.
Best wishes
-Dan
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If the Bible is full of errors coming up with one should be quite easy. Now go get it and post it right here so that I can see it!
I am being sincere when I tell you that I have never seen one.
I will await your post.
Thank you,
Zeb
Here you go, courtesy of toshindo:
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Wrong, hares do not chew cud. [/quote]
Keep this in mind: There is a very big difference between the Bible having a mistake and the Bible containing something that we don’t understand.
I’m sure that you have read a passage in a text book that you did not understand (I think we all have at one point in our academic careers). Because you did not understand it does not mean that the author was mistaken. It simply means that you didn’t understand it.
With that said, I continue to make my claim that the Bible does not contain any factual errors and has been accused of such by atheists for many years unjustly.
As to you (or should I say toshindo’s) question:
Leviticus 11:47 defines the purpose of the Dietary Law:
" . . . to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten."
“Clean” and “unclean” refers to the ceremonial laws. Only clean animals could be offered as a sacrifice in the Old Testament sacrificial system, prior to Jesus coming and great sacrifice by dieing on the cross. This as the final, complete sacrifice for sin, ended the Old Testament sacrificial system (Heb. 10:1-18).
In addition to this certain animals were simply considered “unclean.” Not fit for consumption based upon their own habits, how they were made etc.
Just some background so that we know why certain animals were not to be eaten.
Now let’s take a look at two key words which will further help us understand the passage which you have asked about from the perspective of the ancients:
Two issues are at hand:
the definition of “cud” and that of “chewing.” Whenever there is a question as to the meaning of any words or phrase I always go back to ancient Hebrew which seems to clear things up. Here is the word for “cud”:
“Gerah”, the cud (as scraping the throat).
The rabbit practices “refection” which is a process whereby they pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material-yuck) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. Rabbits actually do this mostly at night and underground. The reason for this is that the behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after eating.
It is not just “dung” that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for “dung” was not used here.
Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, “rumination” which is what we call today “chewing the cud.” They regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more while mixing it with saliva.
Chewing the cud to the ancients was chewing the partially digested food which they all do as stated in Leviticus. Proven by the Hebrew word which simply refers to any partially digested food. The process is not the issue, just the object.
The other key word here is “alah” and it is found on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than “bring up.” It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to “alah.”)
Finally, the Hebrew word in question is not specific to the process of regurgitation! It is a phrase of GENERAL MOVEMENT. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does “maketh” the previously digested material to “come” out of the body and hence does chew “predigested material” (chew the cud). Thus, this is not an “error.”
As I stated at the outset of this post: There is a very big difference between the Bible having a mistake and the Bible containing something that we don’t understand!
Hopefully, everyone who is following along now has a better understanding of this particular scripture (I know I do).
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
And Jesus Christ was trying to free you from your sins! Who has the more important mission?
I am with both Christ and Krishnamurti, and I need make no such choice. The two do not seem to contradict each other in any fashion.
This is why it is my belief that there is much more than a single error in the Bible. The Bible was used to establish a religion. Beliefs are good. Religions are questionable at best.
Especially if they are somebody else’s religion.
I am curious what you suppose will actually happen to Canada as a result of enabling gay marriage. If not direct punishment from god, how will this dreadful vitiation of marriage (I am being sarcastic) play out for them do you think? What will go wrong for the Canadians as a result of this?[/quote]
We don’t know do we? God is sovereign!
God is the supreme authority. He is not subject to any power or law which could be conceived as superior to or other than Himself. Sovereign refers to a king who has authority over a certain land or group of people. God’s sovereignty is over all the earth and all creation, as He created all things’
I am reminded of a scripture: Isaiah 45:9
"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’?
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
ZEB, sorry, meant to post this earlier -I must respectfully bow out for a while, lots going on with my brother’s upcoming wedding and a study I’m getting off the ground.
Best wishes
-Dan[/quote]
Dan,
Darn nice of you to post this for me. I was looking for you, but I understand completely. It’s funny how “real life” commitments stop us from having fun on the forum.
Good luck with your study and your brothers wedding.
Best Too You,
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I stated at the outset of this post: There is a very big difference between the Bible having a mistake and the Bible containing something that we don’t understand!
[/quote]
So what’s your line on witchcraft? I sure don’t understand that one.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
God is the supreme authority.
[/quote]
More supreme than the Bible?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hopefully, everyone who is following along now has a better understanding of this particular scripture (I know I do).
[/quote]
Yes, I understand that my Bible, which is rendered in English, has a mistake in it. It may be the result of translation, but how it got there is not particularly important.
And I’m still curious to hear from anyone what they think is going to happen to those hapless Canadians.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hopefully, everyone who is following along now has a better understanding of this particular scripture (I know I do).
Yes, I understand that my Bible, which is rendered in English, has a mistake in it. It may be the result of translation, but how it got there is not particularly important.[/quote]
There is no “mistake in it.”
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As I stated at the outset of this post: There is a very big difference between the Bible having a mistake and the Bible containing something that we don’t understand!
So what’s your line on witchcraft? I sure don’t understand that one.[/quote]
What exactly don’t you understand? I would love to help you if I am able.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
God is the supreme authority.
More supreme than the Bible?[/quote]
The Bible is Gods word.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Homosexuals have absolutely ZERO special rights. Name me ONE, I challenge you.
Okay, I’ll name one:
“If you have been discriminated against for a job, housing, access to a public accommodation, or another covered area because you are heterosexual, HOMOSEXUAL, bisexual, or asexual, you can now file suit using the New York State Human Rights Law.”
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn30/whatthegay.html
That is a “special right!”
[/quote]
Can you even read? Hetero’s, bisexuals get the same right. That’s not special… That’s equal rights. WTF are you talking about?
I’m not aware of their existance, but they would be covered under the same hate crimes legislation. I would think if there really were a bunch of homosexual militants, they’d be getting the kind of attention that the “Black Panther’s” and “Klu Klux Klan” received. I sincerely doubt there’s some big media/government conspiracy to cover up those homo thugs beating up straights. But, believe what you wish.
I agree - however, laws prevent against discrimination, they do not offer special rights. Remember that descrimination goes both ways… The law makes it so that you’re legitimacy in firing or not hiring a person can’t be “because he was black (or white, or gay, or a woman, or a man, or whatever…)” They make it so you have to say “I fired him because he was constantly late, and couldn’t get his job done.” Fear of these laws, and fear of firing someone because they could potentially sue is completely unfounded. If you get the proper evidence in place beforehand, there’s absolutely no reason that you can’t fire someone for poor performance.
I don’t really think money has anything to do with it, but to make sure money doesn’t have anything to do with it, and since I’m already for changing civil marriage, why don’t we just throw out tax benefits or anything financial out of marriage/union rights. That way, we’re all on the same footing and know what the real issue is, k?
Not being able to marry has nothing to do with utter solitude. I was talking about the gay perspective pre-acceptance. When you don’t know anyone else you can trust or talk to or be intimate on all levels for fear of rejection.
Those are your words, not mine. It doesn’t. Sex is part of any relationship, to be certain. It’s one of Maslov’s basic biological needs. However, there is so much more to life. If you understand that sex is a need which is more important to human existance than self-actualization, you understand that without having sexual needs met, you cannot achieve self-actualization.
Depends on the organization. But, sure you are. But, the you’re confusing the point in all this. So long as there’s an aspect of yourself that you don’t feel fully comfortable sharing, because on some basic level you feel rejection, it becomes clear that you can’t really share any intimate connection with anyone.
The only other possibility I could really see as being a fundamental change to marriage is polygamic marriage. (Marriage between more than one person.) I say this because Mormons, pre-18XX something (conveniantly just before UT was allowed to be admitted into the Union) allowed polygamic marriage. But, I do not believe polygamic marriage could ever happen in a legal sense because it would be next to impossible to determine division of assets, etc, etc, should one person die, or disolution of the contract occur. Again, none of this fear of marriage changing would even be necessary if we just got rid of marriage as a civil institution and work on something else that worked for everyone. And, I’m okay with discussing it. I just think you’re being unrealistic to assume it amounts to anything more than what we are talking about.
“She’s a super freak… super freak… she’s super freaky!” Oh, sorry.
Getting back to that… I sincerely doubt that that a million combinations of marriage are suddenly going to come up just because two fully grown, intelligent, consenting adults are allowed to marry. It hasn’t occured yet in the nations that offer gay marriage already. Are we to allow discrimination just because we fear change? I think that’s awfully silly!
Excuse me while I gasp. YES THEY FUCKING WERE!! I showed you ALL KINDS OF PROOF, and you rebuke me? BAH!! Sure, not 6 million - but considering you don’t exactly wear your sexuality on your sleeve the same way as race, they stood a better chance of escaping than the Jews… But, there were several hundred thousand who were made to suffer the same fate as gays. Homosexuals, in fact, were considered the lowest class at the Nazi death camps. Was I not completely clear before? Ugh… I’m so disgusted…
The only thing that’s foolish is that people can’t seem to see that hate and discrimination on any level for any reason is unjust. Period.
Let me now quote the Spanish prime minister from yesterday regarding the passage of same sex marriage in Spain (beating Canada to the punch as the 3rd nation to legalize same-sex marriage.)
“We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality,” Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber before the vote.
Gays were semarily enslaved and exterminated under Hitler as well. PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH. I have provided plenty of links already. Documented evidence exists in every history book. We make a point of naming the Jews, but there were actually MORE documented Ukranians executed than Jews, but we don’t talk about the Ukranians. The Nazi’s wanted a LOT of people dead, simply because they did not live up to perfect German ideals, but among ALL of these different groups that were enslaved and eventually exterminated, the “lowest class” under German philosophy were homosexuals. Now, I’m not saying that this discounts Jews or Ukranians, or political activists, or handicap, Russians, or any other group targeted by the Nazi’s… Certainly, they paid a high price as well. I’m just saying you CANNOT dismiss that homosexuals have been persecuted because of who they are.
I’m not degenerating anyone. It is you who are degenerating homosexuals.
Consider that gays made a much smaller minority of the populace in than Jews in the Nazi era, and significant smaller minority than blacks in this nation, and it’s clear why they’re overlooked. So, their persecution doesn’t have the sheer volume, but given the minority group is not nearly the size, it wouldn’t.
You keep refering to “gay is an action.” Please stop. Gay is NOT an action. Having anal sex is an action. Having sex at all is an action. Being gay, or being heterosexual is NOT an action. As I said before, the thing that gays have going for them versus other minority groups is the ability to hide. You can’t hide your sex (you have an adam’s apple if your male, none if you’re female.) You can’t hide the color of your skin. You can’t hide a handicap status. But most every homosexual can hide their homosexual identity. That has served them well to avoid the level of persecution of other minorities. The only reason people are coming out at all is because there is no longer fear to do so in this nation. Sure, it might mean harassment, or problems in general, but it’s not like you’re going to go to jail anymore. Gays around the globe who must still live in fear hide there status. This is why you’ll likely not see any gay marches in Egypt any time soon.
I agree. Please, no more of this disregard of other human beings.
Then you are for legal discrimination, which has been pretty clear from the state. I think that’s bigotry, sorry to say.
If you fired someone because they were unqualified, you should have proof to protect yourself from lawsuit. Period. If you did not hire someone because they were not qualified for the position, if you had not filled the position, they wouldn’t have a legal foot to stand on, and if you did fill the position with someone who was more qualified, than they wouldn’t have a foot to stand on either. Period. We live in a letigious society. I hate that it is, but it is. Those laws are still for good reason. They ensure that you are not discriminating on any basis. It’s your right to hate people for any reason (protected by free speech). But, you cannot prevent a person from their right to survive based on that hate.
See above. We live in a letigious society, but there is little we can do to prevent someone from suing someone, even if the law is not on thier side. I agree - there are TONS of nutty lawsuits out there. But, we can’t throw out legitimate cases just cause there are a bunch of crap cases out there. What I think we should do is have more financial responsibility pinned on the accuser if their case doesn’t fly. That would cut down on the number of crap lawsuits, while letting ones that are legitimate move forward. But, that’s for another discussion.
Exactly my point from above. Gays avoided persecution largely because you can’t necessarily tell that a person is gay. I suspect a lot more Jews would have survived the holocaust if they could somehow hide they were Jewish (some did in fact survive, pretending to be German and denouncing Jews, often made to murder their own people/family.) Now, moving on to your point here, we’re protecting all sexual orientation. That means that some idiot could say “you fired me cause I’m straight” to a straight employer. It most certainly could happen. This is why you need documentation of everything you do in business. It sucks, but we’re a beaurocratic society. If you dont’ take the time to document, it will eventually come back to bite you in the ass for something. An interesting aside here, if gay marriage were legitimized, at least you’d know the homosexuals who were married! Again, you have said nothing that discredits the legitimacy of the laws. Merely stated your disatisfaction that you must document, or face eventual consequences. These laws do not change that. It’s just the way our system works.
I agree. But, fix the system, not the laws against discrimination.
I hardly think calling your bible “precious” was name calling, but point taken on sarcastic tone. I’ll try to be more respectful of your beliefs. The sarcasm was meant to drive home a point, certainly, to provoke a bit.
How arrogant! You realize that Christians only amount for 33% of all religious people on the planet, right? I think 2/3rds the world’s populace (as well as 25% of this nation, who are not Christian) would be pretty upset by assuming that the bible is the ultimate moral authority. So, more appropriate, the morals of 33% of the world are based upon the bible. THAT is more correct, my friend.
Morality is a matter of perspective. I’m not wrong, and it’s no assumption.
The seperation of church and state precedent has been in place well over 100 years (though I don’t know the exact date, I know it was in the 1800s.) It was an intelligent decision. If you want to put people on the moral track, perhaps you’d better start by trying to get more people to convert to Christianity, rather than determining that Bible law be the law of the land. We are not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocratic state, there are plenty of them out there. Perhaps you should join one of them.
The law is supposed to be American societal moral compass, yet laws of this nation are not to interfere with liberty as the constitution clearly states. You have every right to determine your own moral code within which to live within this code of law. Our consitution protects your right to do such.
It’s because school/parents do not sufficiently teach the law. Also, if you feel the morality of law is inadequate, I sugest converting more people to your belief. You have the ability to spread your opinion of moral value, just as anyone else does. It’s your constitutionally procted freedom of religion and speech.
You take issue with my suggesting some laws, like murder, are pretty universal (though not completely universal as I stated), yet you say morals are based upon the bible. What an interesting paradox!
You are clearly a Christian moralist who hops on every bandwagon the moralists decides is it’s next target. I’ve never heard mothers crying out that they want to be legally allowed to kill their child at birth. If you’re speaking about partial-birth abortions, that was clearly outlawed in a bi-partisan vote. Clearly, there is a difference between stopping a child to develop and killing an infant who has come out of the womb! There are ways of knowing whether birth defects exist long before a mother comes to term. Usually, a mother is informed of such issues. If the mother does carry the baby to term, she can always give her baby up for adoption if she is unwilling to live with the consequence of such defects (though I can’t imagine someone being so cruel.) While we’re on the subject, I myself am against abortion as it is currently allowed. I believe that it’s not just a womans body. It took a father to create a child, too, and I feel that should a woman want an abortion, she should need the father’s consent before hand. If she cannot name the father, she cannot have an abortion. But, that’s my opinion. I personally feel abortion is wrong, period. But, I’m also not for stripping away people’s rights, either. We certainly don’t need to go back to the days of coat hanger abortions in the back alleys of America. There has to be some comprimise here, even if it makes us all very uncomfortable. But, again, we’re getting off subject.
I half agree. Elected judges in the highest positions of America could be disasterous. It’s hard to say, really. Keep in mind that local judges are elected, which are the first line of defense against the stupid cases. Once a case has been heard, a higher case can choose not to hear it. People don’t organize to vote as it is. Are they really going to do the research to find out what judges are liberal and conservative? At least with politicians, you can see their party affiliations pretty quickly on the ballot, which kind of helps. (There are nut jobs on each side, I’m afraid.) The realist in me says American’s are sheep and don’t do the kind of research they should do before elections. It’s hard to say what is in our better interest. I think if a person has enough cash, they can win an election by making their name popular. The last thing we need is a supreme court justice “Michael Jackson” cause his name is popular. Perhaps I’m being a pessimist here, but I think we should really consider before making that level of rash decisioning.
Again, you’re assuming that people will do the research. A judge is not allowed to state their personal beliefs, either. It’s illegal. All we can do is base our decisions upon prior judgements. I do agree with you on term limits. I don’t think there should be such a thing as “life time appointments” for any position. I suspect that such a decision was put in place to begin with to try and keep the courts more conservative. (It has… 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices are conservative.) But, I also think it gives judges way too much power without being accountable to the people they are suppose to serve.
More republican terms thrown around… You’re making yourself far too obvious here. Anyway, the gist of what your saying… I agree - they should be accoutable to the people through term limits… But elections… I’m kind of afraid of that one.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have always counted on Canada to do the wrong thing and they have (so far) not let me down!
They are also very socialistic and we have not gone in that direction, and won’t.[/quote]
Perhaps you should watch Canadian news and politics some time before you judge. It’s very interesting to see how much more civilized they really are about most things. Honestly, I think I started really looking at the world different when I had the pleasure of watching Canadian news. I wanted to see how other news viewed us (and the rest of the world) as well, so I started reading the BBC. Later, I started doing internet searches for english news sites from around the Globe. When you stop thinking like American media and really open your eyes to the world around you, you really start to see how different your perceptions about life as you know it have been as compared to the rest of the world around us. I blame American media’s irresponsibility for much of the injustice that we currently see in America. So, before you start judging Canadians, perhaps you’d better have a closer look…
What a completely moronic statement.