Locke

Have you ever been on a Royal Caribbean ship? I went on Sovereign 2 weeks after it was remodeled. That's the ship I was talking about, I consider it small because most of its sisters, Liberty, Freedom are much bigger. First off, the Sovereign isn't in the same family as the Liberty and Freedom. Second off - do you think, in your experience, that the Royal Caribbean ships are "economic?"

Have you ever been on a Royal Caribbean ship?

Wait. You haven't even been on one? No wonder you think the Royal Caribbean cruises are "economic."

Have you ever seen pictures of the inside of a Royal Caribbean liner, Viktor? They are absolutely elegant and far from "economic."

I'd be happy to discuss that with you later, after you have answered my challenge I proposed earlier, that you are not trying to detract the attention from.

You are making the mistake of taking English translations at face value. Although abomination appears in the translations of both of those verses, a closer look at both of them will show you they translate to mean two different things. When speaking about the animals, the translation is using "abomination" in way that means "disgusting," whereas in the other verse, it is being translated as "perversion," a word used often to describe other sexually immoral acts. I'm ignoring your last post for two reasons: It is a sidetrack from the point and you have clearly not read the Gospel in depth if you believe what you are writing. Jesus did not come down and preach about sins, and his sermons reflected that. To the edit: Please read the Gospel before you talk about what Jesus said. Someone who read the Gospel would know that all of his sermons circulated around one sin; one point. Is that better? As well: I would like to reiterate the point that the ONLY universal truth you have brought up as a complaint is the one that the Chrisitian community can't agree on. Why don't you pick one with a solid base? One that actually serves as a good example? I'm also waiting for the opposite.

Doesn't say "homosexual offenders". The translation is up for debate by many scholars. The Greek word being translated there is Aresenokoitai, which many scholars (until recently) have believed to be referring homosexual offenders. I do think what's interesting is that the only "universal" truth you came up with as an example is one that is so very unclear in the Bible due to translation issues that not everyone in the community even agrees on the issue. That's not a very strong example of a universal command. EDIT: These edits are confusing me. Give me a second to read. Jesus didn't mention a lot of things - as it wasn't the nature of his mission. You would know that if you knew very much about the nature of the Gospel.

He is not just saying not to do it - He is saying the act is an abomination. Does the act then later become not an abomination? Notice he is describing the sin, not giving pertinent and cultural instructions. Not to mention that the verse you are speaking of is not a solo condemnation of homosexuality. You will notice that most commands in the Bible considered universal are talked multiple times over thousands of years.

Give me an example of a universal command in the Bible that would make more sense as a cultural command. And vice versa. Take into consideration these things: 1. Exact wording 2. Time and place 3. Audience

So logically, to you, it doesn't seem to make more sense that telling the only 2 people on Earth to "be fruitful and multiply" is directed towards those two people?

Yeah, pretty much There's nothing like a big giant spoonful of teen angst.

1. Did God say it was immoral? 2. Are you taking into consideration the context of where, when, and whom that was said to?

I guess we just disagree with the intent of the Iranians in this situation. All of the actions you described seem much fishier to me than they seem to for you. Oh well.

I feel like that occasionally. It usually just means that I am very tired and need to catch up on sleep (combined with) something that upset me.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone - I'm trying to discredit the position that I believe is wrong. No. But that doesn't mean it should be an "anything goes" process either. Please read my above posts if you don't understand the problem I have. EDIT: Let me explain this in further detail, so you understand my qualm. Pretend with me that we are discussing evolution. Person A proposes a theory about evolution with no scientific (factual) support that they don't know enough about to defend. Then people start discussing the theory and a few people actually catch on to it. The Person B starts questioning Person A and it is revealed that the "theory" is entirely baseless and Person A does not know enough about his "theory" to even defend it. Would people say, "oh well that's just his opinion. This isn't a serious debate." Of course not! They would say, "We're trying to discuss actual science. Please quit proposing your made up "speculation" in a discussion where it doesn't belong." There is no difference here, and I don't think that it should be justified.

I want him to quit trying to use his last breath to have the last word and attempt to justify it. There is nothing I loathe more than someone who does everything they can to try and minimize the mistake they made instead of just admitting it and moving on. Every admission that was made was just a shallow attempt at justification and attention-diverting. That is a terrible way to debate. If it's credible than why did it fail so dramatically once questioned? You wouldn't be committing the fallacy of an appeal to authority would you? EDIT: I formally apologize to both you and Nadril for being such an advocate for responsible dialogue. Silly me. I think you all wanted serious discussion.

I'm slightly confused. You think that them changing their mind was evidence of their confusion, not of them being "caught red handed?"

It's a nice idea, but what's to stop those people bombing in? They could avoid a thread just the same, but alas.. A very active Mod who is quick with the delete button.

The only excuse the Iranians could have for making a mistake like that is the fact that the territory is in dispute. "Unsure" is the most reasonable excuse they could give.

Why would the Iranians take them captive? Because they were mistaken about their position. That would also explain why they released them - when they realised their mistake and they wanted to stop it becoming more embarrassing. So when a British Naval ship is in waters that might be Iranian but also might not be - their first instinct is to kidnap them, strip off their clothes, and isolate them?

--- I don't know. You tell us.

Unfounded speculation. What's the point of posting it then? What's the point if all you have to do is make up a "speculation" with no facts to support it? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of an intellectually stimulating discussion? Imagine the scenario that you propose, where anyone can just suggest their unfounded beliefs into a serious discussion. How many 13-year-olds browsing this forum are you going to accidentally convince that your "speculation" is even worth reading (which it isn't)? Point: If you don't have facts and evidence to make your "speculation" worth discussing, keep it to yourself.

Cars still crash. Plane's still crash. Rockets still crash. Trains still crash. Why would a boat be exempt from failure? The technological advances we have made is shown through the number of survivors we now have when something like that happens.

One homosexual male has given an opposing unsound (as Locke pointed out) theory that says it is not genetics. Thats not cleared up. Satenza's right, I'm not a scientist. Sorry for making my opinion sound like more than an opinion. It should not even be labeled as an opinion. What would you say if someone proposed a random theory in a different scientific field without any support for it, calling it "their opinion?" You would laugh at them because that's silly. Science is science. You don't have "opinions" about science, you create theories based on facts. There is no room for opinions in science. Period.

Yes, it is. Care to tell me, PurpleCrayon how it's right because of his or her religion? How many of the 19 hijackers during the 9/11 attacks were non-Muslims?