[quote]GumsMagoo wrote:
Sloth wrote:
GumsMagoo wrote:
The problem with a lot of christians (and pretty much all religions) is that they think that their way of life is the only truth.
Of course. Otherwise we wouldn’t follow our faith.
I guess that’s what sheep do.[/quote]
Sheep don’t practice religious beliefs. Nah, I know what you meant. But, it’s been so overused I can only laugh when someone plays the sheep card.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Give me a reference to some one who disagrees with that who is an expert in first century linguistics.
you have yet to answer the question on the other females in the Bible. I have asked you three times. When will I get an answer?
[/quote]
You’re the one claiming every first century linguist says Jesus was being sarcastic. The burden of proof is on you, nice try though.
There are examples of righteous women in the bible, what is your point? You’re assuming that as “God’s unadulterated word”, the bible is perfectly consistent. However, it is filled with contradictions, which I see as just one example of how it was written by men rather than some divine hand.
The point is that Paul told women not to speak in church and to have their heads covered, and said plainly that this was a commandment from God.
Paul also told men not to have sex with one another.
In both cases, Paul is the only person in the new testament to mention either issue. It is well known that Paul argued with Peter and the other apostles, and did not agree with them on all points.
Bottom line: You choose to focus on Paul’s proscription against gays, while ignoring Paul’s proscription against women. You are being logically inconsistent by cherry picking the statements of Paul that you happen to agree with.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I don’t want to hurt gays…I just don’t want gays to hurt society. See the dilemma?[/quote]
Again, I couldn’t care less what you want or don’t want. The point is that your words and actions are homophobic because they hurt gays, regardless of your intent.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Because you know, those organizations like the KKK, that whole holocaust thing, etc…those are all lies. People never get lynched or anything, right?[/quote]
I said we have made progress, not that we are perfect. Blacks, women, and gays clearly enjoy more rights now than ever before…but full equality doesn’t exist yet.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I don’t want to hurt gays…I just don’t want gays to hurt society. See the dilemma?
Again, I couldn’t care less what you want or don’t want. The point is that your words and actions are homophobic because they hurt gays, regardless of your intent.
[/quote]
Homophobic implies fear,
no one here fears homosexuals, I believe we don’t agree with their lifestyle.
I am for what was mentioned about the cage and slap boxing thing, I believe a lot of arguments can be settled in a cage.
Maybe we should start doing that to determine the president.
we could call it the presidential grand prix.
[quote]forlife wrote:
hungry4more wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Because you know, those organizations like the KKK, that whole holocaust thing, etc…those are all lies. People never get lynched or anything, right?
I said we have made progress, not that we are perfect. Blacks, women, and gays clearly enjoy more rights now than ever before…but full equality doesn’t exist yet.
[/quote]
concession entitlements, special interest entitlements far more than equal rights.
Funny how gays could piss in your face but there is nothing wrong with it, but you call them a derogatory term for doing it and it is a hate crime.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Give me a reference to some one who disagrees with that who is an expert in first century linguistics.
you have yet to answer the question on the other females in the Bible. I have asked you three times. When will I get an answer?
You’re the one claiming every first century linguist says Jesus was being sarcastic. The burden of proof is on you, nice try though.
There are examples of righteous women in the bible, what is your point? You’re assuming that as “God’s unadulterated word”, the bible is perfectly consistent. However, it is filled with contradictions, which I see as just one example of how it was written by men rather than some divine hand.
The point is that Paul told women not to speak in church and to have their heads covered, and said plainly that this was a commandment from God.
Paul also told men not to have sex with one another.
In both cases, Paul is the only person in the new testament to mention either issue. It is well known that Paul argued with Peter and the other apostles, and did not agree with them on all points.
Bottom line: You choose to focus on Paul’s proscription against gays, while ignoring Paul’s proscription against women. You are being logically inconsistent by cherry picking the statements of Paul that you happen to agree with.[/quote]
I have not found any that disagree with Jesus using a form of word play to elicit attention. So no there is no burden of proof upon me. I did forget that you are an extreme literalist and should not be surprised that you don’t understand hyperbole.
By stating that I am saying that every linguist that I have read who has commented on that text has said Jesus was using it as a word play in agreement with the common thought of Jews in his day in time. Other wise why would he honor someones request who he thought was a dog.
I gave you a reference for internal clues into the text that point out Paul is using those words to detract from his opponents. Something he is noted for doing as well in I Cor 6.
There are more than just examples of righteous women in the Bible there are examples of women leading in the Bible.
Paul would know that. He is not as sexist as you claim. he is also notorious for commending women that have helped him in his journey’s and calls them fellow labourers in Christ.
Bottom line I am not ignoring it at all. I am stating it isn’t a sin. I am stating that sexual immorality in any form is a sin.
They should be charged with hate crimes.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
They should be charged with hate crimes.[/quote]
Who?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Bottom line I am not ignoring it at all. I am stating it isn’t a sin. I am stating that sexual immorality in any form is a sin.
[/quote]
You’re stating it isn’t a sin, while Paul directly and irrefutably says it is contrary to the commandments of God. If that isn’t twisting the words of scripture, I don’t know what is.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They should be charged with hate crimes.
Who?[/quote]
Those that were involved in the attack.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Bottom line I am not ignoring it at all. I am stating it isn’t a sin. I am stating that sexual immorality in any form is a sin.
You’re stating it isn’t a sin, while Paul directly and irrefutably says it is contrary to the commandments of God. If that isn’t twisting the words of scripture, I don’t know what is.
[/quote]
It isn’t and no I am not twisting it. I am using exegesis to understand Paul’s original meaning.
Through out the ages women have assisted and taught in many different forms in church gatherings. Nuns have set up missions all over the world for hundreds of years. The church as a whole would be in violation of your so called understanding of the scripture.
I have quoted a source, I have linked to the source, and have stated several times why you are wrong on this issue.
You are denying Paul the ability to use Literary devices that you use every day. There were people in that Church that were looking to divide the church so that is where the “command of the lord” comes from. No Biblical scholar that is worth his salt agrees with you.
So I have to ask what credentials do you have that would make me think your exegessis of the text is worth considering?
I understand this is your flag ship argument against the Bible, but unless you are dealing with an ardent fundamentalist who will read the Bible the same way you do and plays by those same rules, then you don’t have an argument.
Well, the militant gays succeeded recently on (yet another) front: eHarmony.
It appears that eHarmony will now be offering “Adam and Steve” services to the small percentage of homosexuals interested in committed relationships. Perhaps the settlement should have demanded that eHarmony build bathhouses as well? We wouldn’t want them discriminating against the promiscuous homosexuals either.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Funny how gays could piss in your face but there is nothing wrong with it, but you call them a derogatory term for doing it and it is a hate crime.[/quote]
Funny how that’s not true at all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They should be charged with hate crimes.
Who?
Those that were involved in the attack.[/quote]
No, they should be charged with assault. No matter the provocation, assault remains unacceptable.
A hate crime implies no provocation. I’d be pretty pissed off if someone came up to me and started preaching about how being a Hindu is immoral and will get me stuck in hell.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, the militant gays succeeded recently on (yet another) front: eHarmony.
It appears that eHarmony will now be offering “Adam and Steve” services to the small percentage of homosexuals interested in committed relationships. Perhaps the settlement should have demanded that eHarmony build bathhouses as well? We wouldn’t want them discriminating against the promiscuous homosexuals either.[/quote]
Boo hoo, the nasty gays are now looking for each other.
Are you sad that they aren’t interested in you or something?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, the militant gays succeeded recently on (yet another) front: eHarmony.
It appears that eHarmony will now be offering “Adam and Steve” services to the small percentage of homosexuals interested in committed relationships. Perhaps the settlement should have demanded that eHarmony build bathhouses as well? We wouldn’t want them discriminating against the promiscuous homosexuals either.
Boo hoo, the nasty gays are now looking for each other.
Are you sad that they aren’t interested in you or something?[/quote]
I think the next order of business should be for the Muslims to sue to have a Muslim installed as the priest of some Hindu temple in your area. That would be hilarious.
I can see him declaring all of your idols haram and having them burned, whilst inviting his co-religionists to come to services where he preaches jihad against you. We can’t have any discrimination of any type, after all.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think the next order of business should be for the Muslims to sue to have a Muslim installed as the priest of some Hindu temple in your area. That would be hilarious. I can see him declaring all of your idols haram and having them burned, whilst inviting his co-religionists to come to services where he preaches jihad against you. We can’t have any discrimination of any type, after all. [/quote]
Sure. I don’t go to a temple though.
Just like how I don’t think gays have any right to force a church to marry them, they can still go to a church that DOES do gay marriage ceremonies.
Do you see what I’m getting at here? YOU and your Church still should be able to turn away people for marriage based on your beliefs, but you can’t say they can’t go somewhere else to get married.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They should be charged with hate crimes.
Who?
Those that were involved in the attack.
No, they should be charged with assault. No matter the provocation, assault remains unacceptable.
A hate crime implies no provocation. I’d be pretty pissed off if someone came up to me and started preaching about how being a Hindu is immoral and will get me stuck in hell.[/quote]
no that makes a double standard