MollyHendrix Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 There is more than one way to exterminate people. If you stopped people from practicing Buddhism, wouldn't you be exterminating Buddhists? The people would live on, but there would be no more Buddhists. If you do that you are exterminating the religion, not the people. Big difference, and completely different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 If you do that you are exterminating the religion, not the people. Big difference, and completely different topic. So if the planned parenthood person strove to find a way to genetically turn black people white that would be ok??? You are only exterminating the skin colour, not the people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 So if the planned parenthood person strove to find a way to genetically turn black people white that would be ok??? You are only exterminating the skin colour, not the people... That would only be the case if it were immoral to be black. The argument here is over morality, not peripheral differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 A rose by any other name... Take the word "homosexuality" and put black, Jew, Muslim, white, Christian.....anything else in its place, and does it make the statement any less or more disgusting? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 People can attempt to "save" homosexuals (from what, I'm not exactly sure) all they want but they have practiced homosexuality since the beginning of time and will continue to do so throughout eternity. Nothing is ever going to change that, nor should it. The Jesus I'm familiar with taught love and acceptance, not condemnation and hatred. Any attempts to alter that are futile and are a complete and utter waste of time. As I've seen it, a religious proselytizer is not so much interested removing a particular behavior from existence when they attempt to "save" someone but are rather more focused on the reform of the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 [lets pause a moment] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 That would only be the case if it were immoral to be black. The argument here is over morality, not peripheral differences. But why do you get to decide what is immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 How about Christians that are openly homosexual such as the Indigo Girls? They obviously don't see homosexuality as a sin. When and if "judgement day" comes, who's going to hell, them or the people that have condemned to dwell in hell for all eternity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 I remember the first time I ever read the Bible. I nearly crapped myself because of how harsh, condemning and hell obsessed Jesus was. The idea he was this gentle loveable teddy bear who wants to give the whole world a hug is ridiculous. It doesn't excuse people being jerks in the name of Jesus or the Bible (Westboro Baptists for example) but Jesus was very much a hell-fire preacher. I'd really like it if everyone could put this idea that Jesus was a peace and love hippie type behind because it doesn't square with what the book says so it it doesn't really make for a good argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Obviously everyone interprets the Bible in very different ways. There is no one interpretation that everyone agrees on. Some say that homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible at all while there are others that say it is explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Who's right and who's wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 But why do you get to decide what is immoral? I didn't say whether or not I even believe homosexuality is immoral. What I'm saying is that the debate is over the morality of practicing homosexuality. No one is debating whether or not it is immoral to be black. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. People will argue with that but I don't care. I've read the book it is crystal clear. I have nothing to gain one way or the other. Because the book says this Christians will argue that it is immoral. That is what they use as their authority to determine the morality of homosexuality. So there is a legitimate debate to be had over whether or not homosexuality should be practiced. There is not a legitimate debate to be had over whether or not people should be black. Unless of course your name is Adolf Hitler or Margret Sanger (or whatever eugenicist you prefer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 [You've got to make your desent, slowly]. [Oiled up and sticky keys, and I will still love my propeller]. [A man stands on top of the rocks, with more commandments]. [it's a necessary evil and though there's no cause for an urgency, soon the walls of water will crash down in a moment of synergy]. [Coax it out of it's robe, sink into my world and have a spin of my propeller]. [My propeller wont spin and I cant get it started on my own]. [i've heard he's turning a few of these fish in to more fish]. [When will the water arrive]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Because the book says this Christians will argue that it is immoral. That is what they use as their authority to determine the morality of homosexuality. So there is a legitimate debate to be had over whether or not homosexuality should be practiced. A legitimate debate? Because a book says so? They can have whatever belief they want, but that does not make it legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 So if the planned parenthood person strove to find a way to genetically turn black people white that would be ok??? You are only exterminating the skin colour, not the people... But they were not doing that... If the people that want to take the chance to change their genes it is not my problem. Skin color is not going to take away or add anything to their personality or beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 Obviously everyone interprets the Bible in very different ways. There is no one interpretation that everyone agrees on. Some say that homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible at all while there are others that say it is explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Who's right and who's wrong? After debating with you about everything in every thread I know you are smart enough to already understand how stubborn and self involved people are. Whatever someone wants to believe they will and whatever religion they want to adopt they will force to agree with their presuppositions. You would be shocked the totally stupid things people have read into the Bible, Koran, Constitution, and every other document regarded with any authoritative value whatsoever. So this person vs that person is pointless battle. The only thing I will argue is that historically the Christian position has been that it is immoral and this has been accepted by nearly every single theologian, denomination and individual throughout it's history. If you genuinely want to know what any document says it's not hard to figure out. I've read the Bible and it's plain as day. Some people don't want to accept that so they will try to change it around to say what they want. They do that with everything. You would be shocked some of the things people claim to read, especially in regards to sexual ethics. Their is actually a nationwide group that believes in free sex between anyone, male and female, male and male, female and female, brother and sister, parent and young elementary aged child. Surely it would be clear that the Bible does not support raping your 5 year old to any sane person but they insist the Bible approves. We certainly aren't going to debate child rape because some perverts want to do it so they insist the Bible approves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Obviously everyone interprets the Bible in very different ways. There is no one interpretation that everyone agrees on. Some say that homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible at all while there are others that say it is explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Who's right and who's wrong? Obviously whoever says it is not mentioned in the Bible has never read the entirety of it. Leviticus 20:13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This is very explicit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 A legitimate debate? Because a book says so? They can have whatever belief they want, but that does not make it legitimate. If a book as influential on human history states something, then yes, it is a legitimate topic of debate imo. Furthermore the fact that the history of mankind has seen this behavior as a perversion as so do nearly all other religions and the majority of social organizations to ever exist. You can't just come along with a belief contrary to thousands of years of human history and say the accepted position is not even legitimate enough to debate. It could be wrong, oh yes. But neglecting the seriousness of the debate is silly. Imagine if someone like Copernicus or Newton had come along and because they knew they were right had just said the accepted position of their day was not legitimate enough to debate. Their theories would have never gotten off the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Skin color is not going to take away or add anything to their personality or beliefs. How about sexual orientation? Would changing that take away anything from a person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 Obviously whoever says it is not mentioned in the Bible has never read the entirety of it. Leviticus 20:13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This is very explicit. You know quoting the Old Testament draws out the people who don't understand the three fold division of the law. They'll lump it all into one and say "It also says you can't eat shell fish! Am I going to hell for eating seafood?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 [ive seen your eyes as they fix on me what on earth is he doing]? [he is the big mighty creator and I'm not like you] [i dont want your advice or your praise, or to move in the way that you do] [and i never will] [ive seen him with girls of the night, he needs roxeanne to put on her red light] [i bet shes delighted when she sees him] [a'put it in and give and early eye] [because she must be fucking freezing] [they say he changes when the sun goes down around here] [god's a scumbag, don't you know]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 The Bible also says wearing blended fabrics and eating shellfish is immoral. The Bible also says that women should marry their rapists, and that the rapist should pay 25 shekels to the woman's father, because she's now defiled property that he can't marry off for a larger sum. The Bible also condones beating your wife, slavery, and of course there's the wonderful story of Lot's daughters and how they got him drunk on wine and then fucked him. Or the story of how that same man offered his daughters up to be gang-raped by a mob of angry men, provided said angry men didn't kill two angels. Only they didn't want the daughters, they wanted to rape the angels. What does all that mean? It means there's a lot of incredibly disturbed things in the Bible. It should be taken at face value. Also, I find it quasi-hilarious that the people who beat the Bible the most, and use it to justify anything and everything, never focus on the New Testament at all. You know, the book with that new guy, Jesus. The one who said love thy neighbor, do unto others, help the poor, shit like that. No, fuck that guy.....we need the angry God of Leviticus! The one who damned people to hell and ordered them around like a dominatrix with PMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 Told you so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 You know quoting the Old Testament draws out the people who don't understand the three fold division of the law. They'll lump it all into one and say "It also says you can't eat shell fish! Am I going to hell for eating seafood?" True, that would start an entire different discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Told you so. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Back before Amendment One was passed into law in North Carolina, this minister spoke out in favor of gay marriage and he is not the only one from the church who has done so. http://youtu.be/JimZGLFAxYU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.