theworldofdreams.com

Joram Lionheart wrote:Bayn, that statement is so hypocritical it's almost nauseating.

Calm down, take a pill or two or three and take a DEEP breath. You don't wanna puke on your keyboard.

It was YOU that went to the trouble of frabricating a (supposedly) Biblical argument against homosexuality.

Actually, it was all about homosexuality -not- being an issue in the Bible. Please remember that you are the one that was giving a Biblical argument "against" homosexuality.

Not a fabrication either. If you claim that you haven't encountered the same evidence in your then you aren't being honest, with us or with yourself.

It was YOU who kept insisting the Bible was wrong and you were right.

You are taking this way too personally. I never said -I- was right. I do agree that the bible is a oft edited construction that has been subject to purposeful or innocent mistranslations and changes.

And now that I've refuted your arguments, you're going to say that you can't really argue this?

Didn't say that either, Joram. You really need to learn to look at things objectively and accurately. I said that religion cannot really be argued seriously because it involves faith. When you start doing that it isn't a "serious" argument, it is mere mental masturbation.

First of all, you don't know the first thing about me.

I only know how you have presented yourself in the forums since I've been around. That is enough for me to form a tentative opinion.

... if my arguments which are based on verifiable facts

That is conjecture at this point.

If you feel my analysis is unsatisfactory you are going to have to prove it.

Why do I have to prove it? Do you feel a need to "prove" yourself, Joram? Do you need someone else to "prove" you?

I find it very suspicious though, that for a man who claims to have no religion you went through great pains to argue a point in a religious book that should have significance for you whatsoever.

I was very religious for a good deal of my life. Hmmm, probably the first 30 years of my life I was very religious. I've studied all the major religions as well as most of the less popular ones. I majored in Religion and Philosophy in college. Although I switched my profession to the computer field, I have kept abreast of religious studies since they relate to my main love which is history.

You don't have to be convinced that I know what I am talking about because I am. After all, these are all just opinions, right?

Relax, bubba, God loves you. *hug*

Few are those who choose the path to righteousness

That is because the path of righteousness requires unswerving personal honesty and integrity. It requires personal sacrifice. It requires a sense of true spirituality that transcends man made religions. It is much easier to be a follower, a feeder at the trough, than to walk forward in life with open eyes.

Joram Lionheart wrote:Umm, that doesn't make much sense, Orion. How would a sinner who is dead be any more repentant than when he was alive (i.e truly be repentant, not choose simply because the alternative is awful)? It sounds like anyone can be a sinner, then die, then repent, and enjoy heaven like those who were not sinners and repented before they died. No real incentive for leading a Christian life here on earth if you're getting a get-out-jail-free-card after death. I mean if you're dead and your only options are hell and heaven, of course you're going to choose heaven. It would make more sense for your last chance to repent be before you die, because no one knows the time and the hour when they're going to die and it is impossible to cheat the system.
What's more, if people can repent after death, what time will there be for them to come to know Jesus and learn to be like him so that in heaven they will actually fit in. Is someone teaching the gospel in the afterlife? Remember that Christian living is not about just whether you sinning or not but about growing spiritually and becoming more and more like Christ. It is hard to see how people who do not know Christ or do not have his character can actually feel comfortable in heaven.

If you aren't understanding what I said or meant I am sorry. The last line of my post makes the point that you are making. If you live your life willy-nilly believing that you can just repent in the end, you lose. God Knows.

The thing I believe in is a lot more complicated than what I typed and is too much for me to even consider trying to type out. I'm sorry that it doesn't make sense to you but I guess it's just going to continue to be that way.

Either way, I'm now sick of talking religion. This was my dose for the next while.

ANYWAYS, back on topic please.

Ok. As far as I can tell, the ONLY reason to deny gays the right to marry is the Christian belief that it is wrong...hence the discussion of various Biblical verses. Not being a Christian, I fail to see why gays should not be allowed to marry if they so choose. If it were a question "man and woman coming together for the production of offspring", infertile people and the elderly should not be allowed to marry. Besides, I don't notice marriage being a prerequisite for having kids now-a-days anyway.

I have one point to make that I haven't seen brought up yet. There has been a lot of talk about gays wanting equal rights, which most people seem to equate solely with financial benefits. Certainly, that is part of it, but only one part of it.

What is marriage? To me, it is two people announcing to the world that they love each other enough to "make it permanent." It is two people (or more if one or both have kids)becoming a family. It is society recognizing your deep commitment to each other and honoring it. I have noticed this recognition in many subtle ways. People treat my husband and I differently since we have been married. They take us more seriously, treat us with more respect as adults. Even more importantly, WE take our commitment more seriously. We aren't just "living together" anymore...we are legally, spiritually, and emotionally "family" although it is just the two of us and likely to remain so. Whether you are religious or not, for many, marriage is a deeply emotional and truly binding ritual.

Gays are not yelling just to make noise. One of the posters here made a comment to the effect of just love who you love and stop making a big deal about it. I disagree. I am not gay, but if I were, I would want the same recognition and respect from society that any straight couple who makes a life time commitment to each other receives.

Bayn wrote:Actually, it was all about homosexuality -not- being an issue in the Bible. Please remember that you are the one that was giving a Biblical argument "against" homosexuality.

If you use the Biblical text to argue that homosexuality is not an issue in the Biblical text then yes you are making a Biblical argument. What else could you call it?

Not a fabrication either. If you claim that you haven't encountered the same evidence in your then you aren't being honest, with us or with yourself.

Bayn, you said that yada has no sexual connotations. You said the arsenokoitoi and malakoi are not found in the NT. Both are FALSE statements. I'm being completely honest when I state that. There simply IS not evidence for me to deny. You haven't shown any evidence, either. All you have done is make baseless affirmations. If I come out and say the declaration of independence has no mention of liberty and freedom, wouldn't you call me a lier?
For you to claim the Bible says nothing about homosexuality is downright false and misleading.

You are taking this way too personally. I never said -I- was right.

If not you then who? Roger Rabbit? Listen, if you say something it's your word and no one else's (unless you're citing someone else, of course).

You really need to learn to look at things objectively and accurately.

No Bayn, you are the one that needs to look at things objectively and accurately (especially the last one). You come here and try to make an argument about something, and then when you can't argue it anymore you claim that it's not possible to argue it at all. If it's not possible to argue Biblical text-critical issues, why did you even try in the first place? That's why I'm charging you with hypocrasy, and rightly so.

I said that religion cannot really be argued seriously because it involves faith.

Actually, I've been saying that way before you did (though in different words). My response to Simon concerning a theological matter was that I wasn't prepared to argue theology with him simply because we do not have a share understanding of it. In other words, I cannot argue faith issues with someone who does not know about faith.

Your comment about religion not being argueable was in response to Atei's post (which asked you whether you planned to continue the discussion with me). Your comment had a context, and I took it in its right context.
Am I to assume that you did not mean that comment to be a response to Atei's question (in spite of the fact that you quoted Atei and then replied)?

That is conjecture at this point.

Newsflash: A statement does not become conjecture just because Bayn said so. A statement is conjecture if the evidence does not force such a conclusion.

Why do I have to prove it? Do you feel a need to "prove" yourself, Joram? Do you need someone else to "prove" you?

Do you always ramble mindlessly and without purpose?

That is because the path of righteousness requires unswerving personal honesty and integrity. It requires personal sacrifice. It requires a sense of true spirituality that transcends man made religions.

First thing you've said that makes any sense in this post. By the way, I agree wholeheartedly.

It is much easier to be a follower, a feeder at the trough, than to walk forward in life with open eyes.

And that's why God has called us to be the "light" of the world, and the "salt" of the earth. "The spiritual man makes judgment about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement . . . But we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16)

Nia Atei wrote:It is society recognizing your deep commitment to each other and honoring it. . . .
Gays are not yelling just to make noise. One of the posters here made a comment to the effect of just love who you love and stop making a big deal about it. I disagree. I am not gay, but if I were, I would want the same recognition and respect from society that any straight couple who makes a life time commitment to each other receives.

I agree. Same-sex marriage isn't just about love like someone said. You do not need a legally binding piece of paper to tell you you love someone. Same-sex marriage is about legitimazing homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle in the eyes of America. It's not enough to be merely accepted and tolerated. Gay couples want to feel as legitimate as heterosexual couples when they go out on street. Gays want people to acknowledge them as being "normal." In other words, same-sex marriage is a political statement as much as it is about economic and legal benefits.

Joram,

Your response was somewhat inarticulate which is not quite normal for you. I'll do you the favor of not pointing out the contradictions. I imagine you and I could cheerfully post back and forth for days, misunderstanding, assuming and whatnot.

I am happy we agree on a couple things. Still, do me a favor and get back to me in 10 or 20 years. I'll be quite interested to see where your seeking mind has taken you.

Don't be too long though. Even though my great grandmother lived to 101 and my grandmother to 97, the male side generally goes out extravagantly with heart attacks somewhere in their 80s.

I think in your case bayn the gods my have other plans

Joram Lionheart wrote:It's not enough to be merely accepted and tolerated. Gay couples want to feel as legitimate as heterosexual couples when they go out on street. Gays want people to acknowledge them as being "normal." In other words, same-sex marriage is a political statement as much as it is about economic and legal benefits.

If gay couples were truly "accepted" there would not be a debate about gay marriage. Sometimes they are tolerated...sometimes they are not...but who wants to be "tolerated" anyway? Why SHOULD being "tolerated" be enough? Who does not want to be "acknowledged as being normal?" What is "normal?"

As human beings and tax paying citizens of the "Land of the Free" - on what grounds should we deny them the right to "legitimize" their relationship? If we have separation of church and state, what is the argument? So what if some people think they are going to hell? So what if some people think it isn't normal? If a person does not agree with gay marriages, they have the right to never marry someone of the same sex. Their right to dislike it should not infringe on other people's right to marry whomever they choose.

I personally see it as less of a "political statement" and more of a question of equal rights for all.

Nia Atei wrote:I personally see it as less of a "political statement" and more of a question of equal rights for all.

Right on, if you ever leave atei, look me up

simon wrote:

Murder, stealing, adultery,

But you guys still do those things. The clergy in your church gets in touch with young boys, so who are you to preach to us?

simon this is low and uncalled for. i don't remember joram stating his affiliation and even if he had this is at best irrelevant to the discussion at hand. fie on ye.

Bayn wrote:

Ehran wrote: Another claim i have seen is that when the bible says thou shalt not suffer a witch to live is that witch was poorly translated and should say poisoner. that was for bayn and his fellow cauldron circlers hehe.

Actually, I regard Wicca as a pretty cool religion but I don't really follow any particular religion. I'll admit to dancing around a bonfire all naked on Samhain once or twice but that was years ago and I was mainly watching the ladies.

sorry got you and atei mixed up in the heat of the moment. was invited one time to one of those ceremonies in the woods but there was the whole "skyclad" thing and it was hunting season at the time so i figured best not to tempt fate that way.

My dear Ehran, my point was who are the immoral to preach to those of us with not only morals, but higher morals. But I digress, there are more problems in the USA then gays right now. Its just flash and aww to take your mind off the fact that your jobless and worse off then you were 3 years ago.

I really think you should all take a break from this thread and vote for our shard!

Also, there's a Buffy/Angel thread going, why not check that one out? No religion, no politics, just good old-fashioned smut.