Homosexuality decoded

Page 9 of 11 [ 169 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

24 Apr 2011, 11:01 pm

HerrGrimm wrote:

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Within their limited scope of understanding, that is.

This would also entail they would know how to write. God picked a pretty bad place to try to spread his message.

*nod*

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

24 Apr 2011, 11:04 pm

HerrGrimm wrote:

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Within their limited scope of understanding, that is.

This would also entail they would know how to write. God picked a pretty bad place to try to spread his message.

Problem with that argument is that there actually have been written documents from that time period discovered.

Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

24 Apr 2011, 11:05 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Within their limited scope of understanding, that is.

This would also entail they would know how to write. God picked a pretty bad place to try to spread his message.

Problem with that argument is that there actually have been written documents from that time period discovered.

Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Just checking... you're not trying to cite the Dead Sea Scrolls as proof the Bible is correct, are you?

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

24 Apr 2011, 11:19 pm

HerrGrimm wrote:

There was no Greek word for 'homosexuality' back in those days. All they knew was pederasty. Those New Testament verses you are referencing are against PEDERASTY, not homosexuality. There is no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels.

You are also talking only about men. There is one lesbian reference in the Bible and it was thought they they were just included with the men as a blanket reference to all Pagans.

And if it is such a sin, why is it mentioned only sparingly then?

Since we are having all this Bible talk, I can repost since no one decided to answer the first time around....

And the Dead Sea Scrolls were written around AD 70. It's not like anyone was trying to crush Jews and Christians during that time. I mean, if there was, that message would have a hard time getting around...

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Apr 2011, 12:49 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

LKL wrote:

The controlled, published, physiological pubmed study doesn't count as 'scientific fact?' Care to elucidate just what you would accept as 'scientific fact'?

A scientific fact is a fact that has been scientifically proven, plain and simple.

*snort*
Two problems with that. First, it shows that you don't know how science works. Second, it completely rules out evidence, scientific or otherwise.

Quote:

There hasn't been any consensus on the idea of homophobia being caused mainly by those in the closet who are projecting. And how can I claim something doesn't count as scientific fact if you haven't even mentioned it or sourced it?

I posted the link on my previous submission.

Quote:

And you know what would be better for everyone?

As opposed to everyone else who is arguing on this debate forum?

Quote:

If we didn't reinforce barriers that kept people in the closet. Then they won't have to shut up once they go from hurting the cause to supporting the cause.

You mean, if they felt neither shame nor embarassment from being hypocrites, they would be more likely to be gay advocates after they accidentally outed themselves? Somehow I doubt that.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Apr 2011, 12:52 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

What is it with people trying to impose clearly wrong ideas that the Bible (including the NT) doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Who cares if the Bible condemns it anyway?

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

25 Apr 2011, 12:56 am

MCalavera wrote:

What is it with people trying to impose clearly wrong ideas that the Bible (including the NT) doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Who cares if the Bible condemns it anyway?

It's not wrong. Read supplemental material on the matter.

Christian conservatives try to stop gay marriage on that basis. The entire point of stopping gay marriage is to try to get the Bible to be the law of the land implicitly. This is what is happening in America.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 25 Apr 2011, 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Apr 2011, 12:58 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

What is it with people trying to impose clearly wrong ideas that the Bible (including the NT) doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Who cares if the Bible condemns it anyway?

Actually, it's wrong. If you have a problem with conservative Christians using the Bible as a basis to attack homosexuality, don't misuse the Bible to do it. Use better arguments.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

25 Apr 2011, 1:02 am

MCalavera wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

What is it with people trying to impose clearly wrong ideas that the Bible (including the NT) doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Who cares if the Bible condemns it anyway?

Actually, it's wrong. If you have a problem with conservative Christians using the Bible as a basis to attack homosexuality, don't misuse the Bible to do it. Use better arguments.

No, I'm telling you, it's right. There was no word for it back then. They had no clue what that was. Here is my source. He is well-known and used at my college in a class. What source do you have?

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Apr 2011, 1:04 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

What is it with people trying to impose clearly wrong ideas that the Bible (including the NT) doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Who cares if the Bible condemns it anyway?

Actually, it's wrong. If you have a problem with conservative Christians using the Bible as a basis to attack homosexuality, don't misuse the Bible to do it. Use better arguments.

No, I'm telling you, it's right. There was no word for it back then. They had no clue what that was. Here is my source. He is well-known and used at my college in a class. What source do you have?

My source is the Bible (taken literally, that is).

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

25 Apr 2011, 1:05 am

MCalavera wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

What is it with people trying to impose clearly wrong ideas that the Bible (including the NT) doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Who cares if the Bible condemns it anyway?

Actually, it's wrong. If you have a problem with conservative Christians using the Bible as a basis to attack homosexuality, don't misuse the Bible to do it. Use better arguments.

No, I'm telling you, it's right. There was no word for it back then. They had no clue what that was. Here is my source. He is well-known and used at my college in a class. What source do you have?

My source is the Bible (taken literally, that is).

Oh, I see,,,name and year published?

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Apr 2011, 1:07 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

What is it with people trying to impose clearly wrong ideas that the Bible (including the NT) doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Who cares if the Bible condemns it anyway?

Actually, it's wrong. If you have a problem with conservative Christians using the Bible as a basis to attack homosexuality, don't misuse the Bible to do it. Use better arguments.

No, I'm telling you, it's right. There was no word for it back then. They had no clue what that was. Here is my source. He is well-known and used at my college in a class. What source do you have?

My source is the Bible (taken literally, that is).

Oh, I see,,,name and year published?

Exactly.

It was too long ago. Your source is just a recent book misinterpreting what the Bible says.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

25 Apr 2011, 1:09 am

No, really, it matters, name and year published?

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Apr 2011, 1:10 am

LKL wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

LKL wrote:

The controlled, published, physiological pubmed study doesn't count as 'scientific fact?' Care to elucidate just what you would accept as 'scientific fact'?

A scientific fact is a fact that has been scientifically proven, plain and simple.

*snort*
Two problems with that. First, it shows that you don't know how science works. Second, it completely rules out evidence, scientific or otherwise.

Ok I honestly dunno where the hell to start here. How does my statement rule out evidence? All I've ruled out is armchair psychoanalysis. And what does it have to do with me not knowing how science works? You stated that without even showing me where I'm wrong.

LKL wrote:

Quote:

I posted the link on my previous submission.

Then post it again cuz I haven't been able to find it anywhere in the thread.

LKL wrote:

Quote:

And you know what would be better for everyone?

As opposed to everyone else who is arguing on this debate forum?

Well not engaging in petty crap is much more productive to the cause than rubbing it in their faces and saying "Haha I knew you were gay all along!" doesn't it? It's common sense. Like if you're debating on a forum and someone doesn't wanna admit they're wrong, is egging em on to admit it in a condescending tone gonna make em wanna do so?

LKL wrote:

Quote:

If we didn't reinforce barriers that kept people in the closet. Then they won't have to shut up once they go from hurting the cause to supporting the cause.

You mean, if they felt neither shame nor embarassment from being hypocrites, they would be more likely to be gay advocates after they accidentally outed themselves? Somehow I doubt that.

No and how do you know I'm specifically talking about people who have accidentally outed themselves? Shame and embarrassment is more likely to keep em in the closet since they're motivated by shame in the first place. All it's gonna do is make their complex even worse and make em even more defensive. wtf does rubbing it in their face accomplish?

On a side note, I'm tired of all this BS talk about equality. It seems that people wanna tackle the big things when it comes to equality yet they wanna do nothing to put an end to the petty BS.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Apr 2011, 1:26 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

No, really, it matters, name and year published?

Why does it matter exactly?

Even if it's a collection of books written by various authors, what does it show? The NT teachings were generally in alliance with the OT laws concerning perceived moral issues like homosexuality, adultery, lying, murder, stealing, taking God's name in vain, idolatry, and so on.

You would have a case if Jesus and/or his disciples actually said that the OT was wrong/misinterpreted concerning homosexuality. But you don't see that. That's because it was unarguably considered an abomination by the religious Jews at that time.

It's only people like you trying to forcefully make the Bible say that homosexuality is not an abomination.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

25 Apr 2011, 1:42 am

MCalavera wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

No, really, it matters, name and year published?

The translation. The translation depends on the name and the year of the Bible. The verses have consistently changed meaning over the years, more so to please whoever is reading it at the time. You would need to show that the Bible is the ACTUAL translation at the time. I do not know that translation. But what I do know is there was no word for 'homosexuality' back in Paul's time, and Greeks throughout history showed PUBLIC signs of pederasty. It is extremely plausible that Paul was writing about pederasty, not homosexuality. I did not just pick up a book and believed whatever was in it. My basis is on the culture at the time.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

Page 9 of 11 [ 169 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Homosexuality decoded Post Reply New Topic

Homosexuality decoded