April 6, 200719 yr Let's just take Bubsa's advice and call it "speculation". 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.
April 6, 200719 yr Stop nit-picking over the smalest details, Locke. He already stated multiple times that he doesn't have any scientific base on it. Now you're just trying to get him to sound as stupid as possible it seems. I mean, what do you want him to say? :?
April 6, 200719 yr Let's just take Bubsa's advice and call it "speculation". 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. Oh stop acting all high and mighty. It's a hypothesis added to the debate merely for the sake of discussion, and I'd say its credible to a degree considering the source. We all have opinions, and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows when to post them and when not to. Seriously, stop acting like you can tell everyone whether they're worthy of posting or not. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
April 6, 200719 yr Stop nit-picking over the smalest details, Locke. He already stated multiple times that he doesn't have any scientific base on it. Now you're just trying to get him to sound as stupid as possible it seems. I mean, what do you want him to say? :? 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. It's a hypothesis added to the debate merely for the sake of discussion, and I'd say its credible to a degree considering the source. 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.
April 6, 200719 yr 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. And I loathe people who try to do nothing more than discredit their 'opponent' in a debate. Honestly this is not a strict debate, again, get over yourself please. And unless I am blind he has stated it has no sceintific value and that it is only a portion of what he has gathered that he belives so far. He's said that he should not have stated as fact. What else do you want him to do?
April 6, 200719 yr And I loathe people who try to do nothing more than discredit their 'opponent' in a debate. I'm not trying to discredit anyone - I'm trying to discredit the position that I believe is wrong. Honestly this is not a strict debate, again, get over yourself please. No. But that doesn't mean it should be an "anything goes" process either. And unless I am blind he has stated it has no sceintific value and that it is only a portion of what he has gathered that he belives so far. He's said that he should not have stated as fact. What else do you want him to do? 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.
April 6, 200719 yr I have a question for any Conservative Christian, is it immoral to live your life and not have children. As God has said "Be fruitful and multiply" going against what God says would be immoral? So is it immoral to not have children? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr I have a question for any Conservative Christian, is it immoral to live your life and not have children. As God has said "Be fruitful and multiply" going against what God says would be immoral? So is it immoral to not have children? 1. Did God say it was immoral? 2. Are you taking into consideration the context of where, when, and whom that was said to?
April 6, 200719 yr Said in Genesis to Adam and Eve. So it could be argued he was addressing only these people, and what he said was not applicable to ever man and woman. God does not say it is immoral. However he obviously commands men to be fruitful and multiply. Going against his commandment is going against the word of God. So not being fruitful and multiplying would be against Gods command? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr Said in Genesis to Adam and Eve. So it could be argued he was addressing only these people, and what he said was not applicable to ever man and woman. God does not say it is immoral. However he obviously commands men to be fruitful and multiply. Going against his commandment is going against the word of God. So not being fruitful and multiplying would be against Gods command? 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?
April 6, 200719 yr So, what God says is not universal truth for man and can be taken to mean in certain situations certain actions are forbid/encouraged? But not always. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr I have a question for any Conservative Christian, is it immoral to live your life and not have children. As God has said "Be fruitful and multiply" going against what God says would be immoral? So is it immoral to not have children? ...way to take things out of context you can prove many points about different subjects taking things out of context... take loose change for example..many of his quotations in his video were taken out of context to prove his point...just like you just did stop trying to trap us with that
April 6, 200719 yr I have a question for any Conservative Christian, is it immoral to live your life and not have children. As God has said "Be fruitful and multiply" going against what God says would be immoral? So is it immoral to not have children? I'd advice you to read 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul speaks about marriage.
April 6, 200719 yr I see nothing about being fruitful and multiplying. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr So, what God says is not universal truth for man and can be taken to mean in certain situations certain actions are forbid/encouraged? But not always. 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
April 6, 200719 yr I see nothing about being fruitful and multiplying. Marriage is the place where you can be fruitful and mulitply. It's okay not to be married thus it's okay not to be fruitful and multiply.
April 6, 200719 yr A universal command: "And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination." Would have been more valid in the times when population of the world was more important. Universal command> With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr A universal command: "And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination." Would have been more valid in the times when population of the world was more important. Universal command> 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. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
April 6, 200719 yr Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Doesn't say "homosexual offenders". Infact, there are only a handful of passages condemming homosexuality. Jesus does not mention it, so why should it not be more of a cultural law? Edit: lets also keep in mind the Bible likes to throw the word abomination around a lot. e.g Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Do you eat whatsoever goeth upon all four? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 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. Infact, there are only a handful of passages condemming homosexuality. Jesus does not mention it, so why should it not be more of a cultural law? 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.
April 6, 200719 yr 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. I'm linking back to the issue at hand. Infact, there are only a handful of passages condemming homosexuality. Jesus does not mention it, so why should it not be more of a cultural law? 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 managed to mention a lot of what we conceive to be really immoral acts, wouldn't the fact that he never preached about the wrongs of homosexuality mean that it wasn't an issue then? Edit: To the bold - People have said to stop being condecending, it has no place within a debate. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr 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.
April 6, 200719 yr 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. And the word for homosexual offender also was used in the Bible to mean pervert. 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. Jesus said; It is the thought-life that pollutes. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts of lust, theft, murder, adultery, wanting what belongs to others, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, pride, and all other folly. All these vile things come from within; they are what pollute you and make you unfit for God. I see many acts Jesus mentioned there, none are homosexuality, why? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 6, 200719 yr 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.
April 6, 200719 yr Ok, it may take awhile to find a sutible one. So I will leave that for tommorow and start it up again then. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
Create an account or sign in to comment