Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Rubystars]

Oww... I warned you about Ped..
Ok, back to me (it's always about me, I hope you know! )

The issue I'm suggesting is you're basing 'marriage' on what the people involved in the marriage do, not on the fact that they are just 2 human beings. In other words, on 'doingness' not 'beingness'.

It's important who those human beings are. Unless they have a birth defect which gives them an intersex condition, humans are male or female. They're not just generic human beings.

But that's only because you're choosing to make what they do more important than who they are.

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are.

You see, the rest of the laws aren't based on such discriminations which don't actually have a negative impact on society - that's called 'discrimination', and people can get sued for it. Thus, the ultimate question is: if a black person goes into a shop and is refused service because they are black, they sue. If a muslim walks into a shop and gets refused service, they can sue. etc. If a black couple are refused marriage because they are black, they can sue. If a muslim couple are refused to marry for being muslim, then they can sue. So, what's the relevant significant difference here? Ok - it's not 'a man' and 'a woman' to 'each other'...it's still denying their basic right to marry a person of their choosing who is of legal age and consenting.. and that is a form of legal discrimination.

The differnce here is that you consider it a basic right to marry anyone of their choosing regardless of the sex of the other person, and I don't.

Ah, well, you see - I'm not referencing back to any Christian churches. I'm disputing your influence of Judeo-Christian laws and traditions on current 'western' civilisation. We owe far to the Greeks and Romans than we do to the Jews and Christians... our form of government, our laws, legislature, judiciary, court system, philosophy, finances and banking, 'rights', obligations and responsibilities, etc. Judaism has had bugger all to do with our society now (other than a bit of a guilt trip from the last hundred years or so), and Christianity's influence has mainly been about killing people or converting them.. and being the cause of a stack of wars (and shaming and guilting people... and looking down on them). Our philosophy is Greek, our science is Greek, democracy is Greek. Our roads, our sewerage, our senate is Roman. Our language is a combination of Greek and Latin... extremely little is Hebrew (and Christianity doesn't even have it's own language!). Science?? Let's not even go there! (well, ok, let's... Christianity held the sciences back for almost 1000 years...because - perhaps not quite coincidentally - no-one was allowed to question Christian doctrine - on penalty of death or imprisonment).

Bibles... I have it on good authority that the KJB version was the one which introduced 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you' crap... where all others have the translation as 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live amongst you'... bit of a difference!

There were a lot of evil things done by medeival Christians which I can not and will not justify. It's my belief that people who murdered others for not following the same religion went to hell.

There were a lot of good things that came from Greek culture but there were some bad things too. Yes those ancient cultures had an influence on ours, but I don't think that erases the fact that Christianity has also been a prominent influence.

But you are wanting the law to adhere to your religion's tenets! Your religion (apparently... I'll let Ped and the others argue that line) says that homosexuality is bad, and you want the law to say that legal marriages shouldn't be allowed.. and it's only on that basis. So, yes, you are forcing people to 'follow' your religion... certainly to get dragged along behind it. After all, in Wicca, they have handfastings between same sex couples, I don't see anywhere forcing people to make that into law.

I think of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage as being completely different things, that is, not equivalent, not equal, not the same thing at all. Most people on this board just see two adults who want to get married in both situations and can't figure out why I'm so "bigoted". Like I stated in the last thread, to me it's like someone saying they want to marry any number of ridiculous things or people that would be inappropriate.

Actually, no they don't. Anger, maybe. But in reality, bigots are labelled as such because of their attitudes as expressed verbally. A line here, a thought pattern there. A word of advice to someone which is clearly based on... well, nothing except ignorance. Bigots don't get violent.. unless they've got a violent personality. Totally stupid and ridiculous claims that have absolutely no bearing on reality (I had it recently by a couple of friends of mine in regards to going to China... ah, no, they aren't particularly backwards... take a look at where most of the stuff you own is made... you really think they're lacking technologically???)

China isn't lacking in technology but it is lacking in regulation, so I would be careful about some things there too if you go there.

Absolutely right there with you on that one!!!

(and, damn, don't ya just hate it when you get a thought, and you forget it cos other stuff gets in the way??? grrr)

ETA: Ok, sorry if this has been covered in the previous 10 pages (this is the fastest growing thread I've seen... rivalled only by Ruby's other thread.. wow!!)

It was surprising to me too.

Anyway, I've seen written a couple of times: "Even if the government hands you a marriage license and officially condones your "marriage", I still won't consider that to be a marriage. It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage."

So, let's look at that...

Google - define: marriage

Nowhere on that page does it say anything about the gender of the people involved! Ergo, the definition of 'marriage' that you are using, Ruby, is not the standard definition, and is in fact a specific one that you are arguing against. This topic has also been brought up elsewhere, when looking back through history (which, I note has not yet been adequately addressed by yourself...).

So, if you wish to say - "Gay marriage would not be a Christian marriage" - ok, fine, you've got grounds for that - particularly if that religious breed happens to be Catholic. If you want to link to what definition you're referring to, that everyone can accept, and is therefore 'valid' in a broader context than your own milieu, please... we would need that!

BUT... you can't just adopt a particular word, use it your own way, and then expect everyone else to follow suit.

I'm not a Catholic, I'm non-denominational. In my opinion it's gays who are fighting to change the standard definition of marriage.

Also, if the government chooses to adopt same-sex marriages, yes that IS a marriage! Totally, absolutely and completely regardless of whether you choose to accept it or not. The world (or at least, the US) doesn't revolve around yours (or any other individual or groups) definitions. It's supposed to be about what is for the benefit of all human beings (granted, we know this isn't actually the way things go, but that's a different thread... ones I believe that have already been covered).

You can call it that if you want to. I still won't consider it to be a marriage.

[Rubystars]

In which case, don't explain it to me. I'll accept a simple link that explains to me what being a slave to a Hebrew really meant. I would recommend having that source tell the limits of the abuse that a good Jew would be allowed to inflict. In addition, it should discuss why Hebrew slavery was a moral thing, instead of what an atrocity, like many in the Western world consider it to be.

Start with this, and if you need more, there's always google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade

Ah, but you're perfectly capable of inferring what he said when it matches what you want to believe. Here, allow me to quote you:

So, when you hope that Jesus would have said what you want him to have said, then he probably said it.

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

However, when he is documented to have said something contrary to what you want him to have said, then we have to adjust for the times, plus not everything he said is written down.

What did he say that was contrary to what I would have wanted him to say?

Again, I say that this is a very convenient line for you. You basically get to tell everybody what Jesus said and believed on the grounds that you know what he said and believed better than everybody else. This even includes the people who did what they could for documenting his life.

They didn't write down "Gay is bad, and Jesus said so!" ? Oh well, they probably just left it out. Bob's copy of Word crashed that day, and he forgot to retype that segment up. They did write down about Jesus condoning slavery? This time, Zach's copy of Word crashed, and he didn't have any backup copies, so that time when Jesus opened up the can of whoopass on the slave trader just got left out of the final save.

This is extremely convenient for you. Unfortunately, for those of us who are aiming for a little bit of consistency, it tends to be a bit of a thorn, since the answer from you becomes "Jesus felt the way I would have wanted him to feel. Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong."

If something's not there, it's not there. Never did I say I knew exactly what was said if we don't have documentation of it.

Interesting. I wonder, do we have anything in common from the time of Jesus, where Jesus specifically told us what to do, and we are ignoring it? Think... think... think...

Ah, yes, we do! Children disrespecting their parents, cursing them out, etc. Now, let's ask the Bible how Jesus feels about this, shall we?

Ouch. Looks like the child who fails to properly honor his father and mother is to be put to death according to Jesus. He is, after all, upset about failure to follow the law in that passage.
Now, I don't hear of a whole lot of people following that particular law. Kids still do it, though. Seems that, again, we are finding ourselves dealing with changing standards of behavior. Again, ignoring the documented words and instructions of Jesus himself. Oh, and just
for good measure, again, Jesus condoning immoral behavior. Wait, condoning? That's a poor word choice here. He's not just condoning it, he's demanding it.

Now, I'm sure you're going to tell me that the timeless, ineffable word of God must be evaluated in the context of the time in which man wrote down these words. Which leads us back on the merry go round of showing you the pick-n-mix you engage in every day. Me saying "Look, here's a direct contradiction!", and you saying "Nope, no contradiction. la-la-
la" etc. Still, I'll try.

Are you being sarcastic this time? Do you really think that Jesus is demanding the deaths of children? He was being given a hard time by religious Pharisees for what they saw as violating the laws of Moses by not washing his hands. He used what you posted to point out their hypocrisy. Basically he's saying "you don't follow this, so don't give me a hard time about this, hypocrites." Then he went on to explain why washing his hands wasn't necessary. He never told them to actually start killing children.

I see you missed the note from Slytovhand: I'm very sarcastic. That entire line was meant to point out to you that I have shown numerous contradictions to you, and your answers have been stubbornly refusing to acknowledge them. For example, you defend the biblical buying and selling of people by stating that Hebrew slavery was different from what we call slavery, and therefore that's why it's okay with Jesus. All the while, you ignore that buying and selling people is, prima facie, an immoral act, and therefore should never have been condoned by Jesus, ever, under any circumstances. I fully expect your reply to this to amount to "You just don't understand". Well, I'm here, I'm reading. I'm backing up my assertions. You are just telling me I don't understand. Show me why I'm wrong. Explain it to me. And if you can't, get someone else to do so. Because I'll tell you, right now, Jesus is sounding a lot less morally upright than he should have been.

Servitude in various forms has been around for all of human history. The main problem I see is with abusive treatment of people rather than people being a servile position. As I mentioned before, we put people in penitentiaries to hard labor and they're not allowed to leave. By technical definition, they would be slaves, because they're not free workers. I don't think it's immoral to put people into penitentiaries.

And by putting the word proof in quotes, you neatly show your contempt for something you have not even read. You also attempt to discredit it using the same notation. If you want to debate it, I've got the thread. I've given the link. Do so. Don't choose the cowardly option of trying to discredit something without any backing. At least pretend to have something other than "because I said so".

Basically I feel that just because God knows what you will choose, that doesn't mean you don't have a choice to make. There are certain debates I try to stay out of, that's one of them. Another is abortion. I try not to debate that anymore because arguments get way too heated and they go nowhere. Sorry if I seemed contemptuous.

[Nyoibo]

I was just thinking, we'll give you marriage, if you give us pagans back our holidays.

[Flyndaran]

I really don't get you Ruby. It seems as if this is the ony form of hate you have. I always thought bigots never hated only one group. Is this true, or do you dislike some other group of people?

[Rubystars]

If others get to enjoy what I do, then no one should?

By acknowledging gay marriage the government would be taking the side of the gay activists against the conservatives. I suppose one could argue that by not acknowleging it, it's taking the side of the conservatives against the gay activists. That's why I'm saying if it comes down to it, then I'd rather see neither be recognized than to have gay marriages recognized.

[Rubystars]

Try the word 'acceptance' instead of 'approval'.

I can see the distinction you're trying to make, but to me acceptance would by default be a form of approval.

I've sat back and I've watched with interest for the last two or three days. Ruby, I said I admired you for two things, one of them being that you weren't a pick'n'mix believer. It turns out that I can only now admire you for creating atheists.

It seems more and more to me that buttsex squicks you out and you're holding onto the biblical verses that support your views.

Are there Bible verses that oppose my views?

[Rubystars]

Then you really should re-read and re-evaluate some things, because there's a whole heap of nasty stuff in there that is illegal today yet advocated in the bible.

So you want me to reject parts of the Bible because you find them offensive?

[Slytovhand]

Oww... I warned you about Ped..

Ok, back to me (it's always about me, I hope you know! )

I don't see the dichotomy there. Homosexuals are human beings

The issue I'm suggesting is you're basing 'marriage' on what the people involved in the marriage do, not on the fact that they are just 2 human beings. In other words, on 'doingness' not 'beingness'.

I just don't want official approval of gay marriages because I don't believe that they're equivalent or equal to straight marriages.

But that's only because you're choosing to make what they do more important than who they are. You see, the rest of the laws aren't based on such discriminations which don't actually have a negative impact on society - that's called 'discrimination', and people can get sued for it. Thus, the ultimate question is: if a black person goes into a shop and is refused service because they are black, they sue. If a muslim walks into a shop and gets refused service, they can sue. etc. If a black couple are refused marriage because they are black, they can sue. If a muslim couple are refused to marry for being muslim, then they can sue. So, what's the relevant significant difference here? Ok - it's not 'a man' and 'a woman' to 'each other'...it's still denying their basic right to marry a person of their choosing who is of legal age and consenting.. and that is a form of legal discrimination.

Some of the earliest Christian churches were also in Greece, and I'm pretty sure that they weren't promoting pedophilia or homosexuality. There were good things and bad things from ancient Greek philosophers.

Ah, well, you see - I'm not referencing back to any Christian churches. I'm disputing your influence of Judeo-Christian laws and traditions on current 'western' civilisation. We owe far to the Greeks and Romans than we do to the Jews and Christians... our form of government, our laws, legislature, judiciary, court system, philosophy, finances and banking, 'rights', obligations and responsibilities, etc. Judaism has had bugger all to do with our society now (other than a bit of a guilt trip from the last hundred years or so), and Christianity's influence has mainly been about killing people or converting them.. and being the cause of a stack of wars (and shaming and guilting people... and looking down on them). Our philosophy is Greek, our science is Greek, democracy is Greek. Our roads, our sewerage, our senate is Roman. Our language is a combination of Greek and Latin... extremely little is Hebrew (and Christianity doesn't even have it's own language!). Science?? Let's not even go there! (well, ok, let's... Christianity held the sciences back for almost 1000 years...because - perhaps not quite coincidentally - no-one was allowed to question Christian doctrine - on penalty of death or imprisonment).

Bibles... I have it on good authority that the KJB version was the one which introduced 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you' crap... where all others have the translation as 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live amongst you'... bit of a difference!

I'm not going to force anyone to follow my religion.

But you are wanting the law to adhere to your religion's tenets! Your religion (apparently... I'll let Ped and the others argue that line) says that homosexuality is bad, and you want the law to say that legal marriages shouldn't be allowed.. and it's only on that basis. So, yes, you are forcing people to 'follow' your religion... certainly to get dragged along behind it. After all, in Wicca, they have handfastings between same sex couples, I don't see anywhere forcing people to make that into law.

Yet when most people use that word, it has those types of connotations.

Actually, no they don't. Anger, maybe. But in reality, bigots are labelled as such because of their attitudes as expressed verbally. A line here, a thought pattern there. A word of advice to someone which is clearly based on... well, nothing except ignorance. Bigots don't get violent.. unless they've got a violent personality. Totally stupid and ridiculous claims that have absolutely no bearing on reality (I had it recently by a couple of friends of mine in regards to going to China... ah, no, they aren't particularly backwards... take a look at where most of the stuff you own is made... you really think they're lacking technologically???)

They probably shouldn't have asked her that question or any other specific political question. It's a beauty contest, not a campaign for political office.

Absolutely right there with you on that one!!!

(and, damn, don't ya just hate it when you get a thought, and you forget it cos other stuff gets in the way??? grrr)

ETA: Ok, sorry if this has been covered in the previous 10 pages (this is the fastest growing thread I've seen... rivalled only by Ruby's other thread.. wow!!)

Anyway, I've seen written a couple of times: "Even if the government hands you a marriage license and officially condones your "marriage", I still won't consider that to be a marriage. It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage."

So, let's look at that...

Google - define: marriage

Nowhere on that page does it say anything about the gender of the people involved! Ergo, the definition of 'marriage' that you are using, Ruby, is not the standard definition, and is in fact a specific one that you are arguing against. This topic has also been brought up elsewhere, when looking back through history (which, I note has not yet been adequately addressed by yourself...).

So, if you wish to say - "Gay marriage would not be a Christian marriage" - ok, fine, you've got grounds for that - particularly if that religious breed happens to be Catholic. If you want to link to what definition you're referring to, that everyone can accept, and is therefore 'valid' in a broader context than your own milieu, please... we would need that!

BUT... you can't just adopt a particular word, use it your own way, and then expect everyone else to follow suit.

Also, if the government chooses to adopt same-sex marriages, yes that IS a marriage! Totally, absolutely and completely regardless of whether you choose to accept it or not. The world (or at least, the US) doesn't revolve around yours (or any other individual or groups) definitions. It's supposed to be about what is for the benefit of all human beings (granted, we know this isn't actually the way things go, but that's a different thread... ones I believe that have already been covered).

[Rapscallion]

It is worse than being heterosexual. Why can't it just be said that it's a controversial topic and leave it at that? Saying it's no better or worse than being heterosexual is automatically giving it a nod of approval.

Try the word 'acceptance' instead of 'approval'.

I've sat back and I've watched with interest for the last two or three days. Ruby, I said I admired you for two things, one of them being that you weren't a pick'n'mix believer. It turns out that I can only now admire you for creating atheists.

It seems more and more to me that buttsex squicks you out and you're holding onto the biblical verses that support your views.

This leads me onto an internal debate that I'm going to vocalise in another thread.

Rapscallion

[Pedersen]

I am aware of the Scriptures you posted but I don't have a problem with them. Hebrew slavery was not what you think it is, and many of these verses only make sense within that framework. I don't completely understand it all myself, but I have heard others explain it better than I could. No matter what I say, you're not going to accept this, and I don't know everything there is to know about it myself, so it would be difficult for me to explain it all to you.

In which case, don't explain it to me. I'll accept a simple link that explains to me what being a slave to a Hebrew really meant. I would recommend having that source tell the limits of the abuse that a good Jew would be allowed to inflict. In addition, it should discuss why Hebrew slavery was a moral thing, instead of what an atrocity, like many in the Western world consider it to be.

We don't know everything that Jesus said, as you already discussed with me.

Ah, but you're perfectly capable of inferring what he said when it matches what you want to believe. Here, allow me to quote you:

I've answered the question twice. Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality, but Paul does. Jesus does, however, reinforce man/woman marriage.

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

Turning it around, I think you'd have a real stretch trying to say that Jesus was pro-gay though.

So, when you hope that Jesus would have said what you want him to have said, then he probably said it.

However, when he is documented to have said something contrary to what you want him to have said, then we have to adjust for the times, plus not everything he said is written down.

Again, I say that this is a very convenient line for you. You basically get to tell everybody what Jesus said and believed on the grounds that you know what he said and believed better than everybody else. This even includes the people who did what they could for documenting his life.

They didn't write down "Gay is bad, and Jesus said so!" ? Oh well, they probably just left it out. Bob's copy of Word crashed that day, and he forgot to retype that segment up. They did write down about Jesus condoning slavery? This time, Zach's copy of Word crashed, and he didn't have any backup copies, so that time when Jesus opened up the can of whoopass on the slave trader just got left out of the final save.

This is extremely convenient for you. Unfortunately, for those of us who are aiming for a little bit of consistency, it tends to be a bit of a thorn, since the answer from you becomes "Jesus felt the way I would have wanted him to feel. Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong."

We don't have Hebrew slavery in this day and age but we do have homosexuality. That's the difference.

Interesting. I wonder, do we have anything in common from the time of Jesus, where Jesus specifically told us what to do, and we are ignoring it? Think... think... think...

Ah, yes, we do! Children disrespecting their parents, cursing them out, etc. Now, let's ask the Bible how Jesus feels about this, shall we?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

Ouch. Looks like the child who fails to properly honor his father and mother is to be put to death according to Jesus. He is, after all, upset about failure to follow the law in that passage.

Now, I don't hear of a whole lot of people following that particular law. Kids still do it, though. Seems that, again, we are finding ourselves dealing with changing standards of behavior. Again, ignoring the documented words and instructions of Jesus himself. Oh, and just for good measure, again, Jesus condoning immoral behavior. Wait, condoning? That's a poor word choice here. He's not just condoning it, he's demanding it.

Now, I'm sure you're going to tell me that the timeless, ineffable word of God must be evaluated in the context of the time in which man wrote down these words. Which leads us back on the merry go round of showing you the pick-n-mix you engage in every day. Me saying "Look, here's a direct contradiction!", and you saying "Nope, no contradiction. la-la-la" etc. Still, I'll try.

Answering questions is what this thread is all about. What do you think I missed? I'll try to revisit it.

I see you missed the note from Slytovhand: I'm very sarcastic. That entire line was meant to point out to you that I have shown numerous contradictions to you, and your answers have been stubbornly refusing to acknowledge them. For example, you defend the biblical buying and selling of people by stating that Hebrew slavery was different from what we call slavery, and therefore that's why it's okay with Jesus. All the while, you ignore that buying and selling people is, prima facie, an immoral act, and therefore should never have been condoned by Jesus, ever, under any circumstances. I fully expect your reply to this to amount to "You just don't understand".

Well, I'm here, I'm reading. I'm backing up my assertions. You are just telling me I don't understand. Show me why I'm wrong. Explain it to me. And if you can't, get someone else to do so. Because I'll tell you, right now, Jesus is sounding a lot less morally upright than he should have been.

I used to get into threads about that topic but I don't do it anymore because people take something that seems so simple to me "God does not dictate what you choose" and try to complicate it so much that it doesn't make sense anymore. Therefore I'll just let you think what you want to on that. I've never had any luck explaining the topic so I'm probably not the best one to disprove your "proof".

And by putting the word proof in quotes, you neatly show your contempt for something you have not even read. You also attempt to discredit it using the same notation. If you want to debate it, I've got the thread. I've given the link. Do so. Don't choose the cowardly option of trying to discredit something without any backing. At least pretend to have something other than "because I said so".

[Nyoibo]

I really don't have a problem with anything in the Bible.

Then you really should re-read and re-evaluate some things, because there's a whole heap of nasty stuff in there that is illegal today yet advocated in the bible.

[Rubystars]

Are those really the sorts of things you want to say that Jesus was okay with? Is that seriously the image of Christ that you want people to have? To back up my statement about splitting apart families:

I am aware of the Scriptures you posted but I don't have a problem with them. Hebrew slavery was not what you think it is, and many of these verses only make sense within that framework. I don't completely understand it all myself, but I have heard others explain it better than I could. No matter what I say, you're not going to accept this, and I don't know everything there is to know about it myself, so it would be difficult for me to explain it all to you.

Are you seriously telling me these are not immoral acts, because Jesus didn't condemn them in the NT?

We don't know everything that Jesus said, as you already discussed with me.

Interesting. We have to adjust how we interpret what the Bible said based on the time in which it was written, unless we are speaking about homosexual marriage, in which case the Bible is absolute.

That's a pretty convenient line you've got going there.

We don't have Hebrew slavery in this day and age but we do have homosexuality. That's the difference.

In which case, I have to wonder whose been typing up your replies to my posts, because it hasn't been you. I've pointed out, so far, numerous contradictions in what you've said. To date, your best reply has amounted to "la-la-la! I can't hear you, and you're still wrong!"

Answering questions is what this thread is all about. What do you think I missed? I'll try to revisit it.

Actually, I do understand logic quite well. I'm a computer programmer by trade, training, and passion. Logic matters a great deal to me. Logic has shown me that any monotheistic religion with an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creator god can not allow for the possibility of free will. Go, check out that thread, I've proven it. Disprove it for me

I used to get into threads about that topic but I don't do it anymore because people take something that seems so simple to me "God does not dictate what you choose" and try to complicate it so much that it doesn't make sense anymore. Therefore I'll just let you think what you want to on that. I've never had any luck explaining the topic so I'm probably not the best one to disprove your "proof".

[Pedersen]

Lastly - debating against Pedersen.... ooohhhhh.... courageous! (he's good at picking holes in arguments!) Oh, he's good at sarcasm too.

Heh. I'm not sure if this is good that I have that reputation or not. I've tried to tone down my sarcasm lately, since I have gone overboard with it at times.

I suppose it's good that I can pick apart many arguments, though.

I think you will find if you delve into the issue of Biblical slavery that there were many prohibitions about doing excessive harm to slaves.

Your original point was that Jesus was advocating something immoral. I don't agree with this. Traditional Christianity sees Jesus as having lived a life free of sin and that's what I believe too.

Now, I'm not going to quote the Bible at you, not for this. Please, seriously consider what you have just agreed to by stating just these two things. Here's a few of the implications:

• Jesus is okay with slavery as ordered in the OT.
• The buying and selling of people is an acceptable thing to do, according to Jesus.
• The separation of families who happened to be slaves is also acceptable (okay, I haven't brought this in before, so Bible verse time in a moment).
• It is okay to take someone away from a family member (fathers can be sold, and their sons kept, for instance), and sell that person to someone else, purely for the profit of the slave owner.
• Beating of a slave is acceptable, as long as you do not do excessive harm. Going by Exodus 21:20, the only edict regarding excessive harm is that the slave must be able to get up after a day or two. If you know other citations to show further restriction on the level of harm, please do tell.

Are those really the sorts of things you want to say that Jesus was okay with? Is that seriously the image of Christ that you want people to have? To back up my statement about splitting apart families:

If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Are you seriously telling me these are not immoral acts, because Jesus didn't condemn them in the NT?

The verse you quoted here is one of them. You have to look at these things in the context of the time they were written.

Interesting. We have to adjust how we interpret what the Bible said based on the time in which it was written, unless we are speaking about homosexual marriage, in which case the Bible is absolute.

That's a pretty convenient line you've got going there.

I may be hypocritical in some respects but I haven't seen anyone point anything out really yet that would demonstrate that.

In which case, I have to wonder whose been typing up your replies to my posts, because it hasn't been you. I've pointed out, so far, numerous contradictions in what you've said. To date, your best reply has amounted to "la-la-la! I can't hear you, and you're still wrong!"

I usually avoid those threads not because I don't think I can argue in them, but because they go nowhere. If you don't understand it, it's hard to explain it.

Actually, I do understand logic quite well. I'm a computer programmer by trade, training, and passion. Logic matters a great deal to me. Logic has shown me that any monotheistic religion with an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creator god can not allow for the possibility of free will. Go, check out that thread, I've proven it. Disprove it for me.

[Rubystars]

122??? We're up to 122 posts in only a couple of days! What's going on here??

Ok... obviously, I've got some catching up to do, so, firstly (cos I've got the link saved on ctrl-C)

I actually had to get a spreadsheet and mark all the post numbers I hadn't replied to yet and match them up with post numbers where I had replied to them on the next column just to try to keep up. No wonder I missed some posts in the last thread!

So, at best, the first Gospels were written about 40 years after JC's passing (and, recall, what we have is incredibly small). I'm sure there is an immense amount of stuff he said that we'll never know about. (Gospel of Thomas is a good but different view... and the other Non-Canonical Gospels...). As it says at the bottom of the first link, there is debate about the accuracy of those dates mentioned. I've seen stuff to indicate the first books were written even later. Well, the official stuff, at any rate. Some of the unofficial stuff was more contemporary. (On a side note, I will 'suggest' a book called 'Messengers', just as a completely different take on the Saul/Paul angle).

Secondly, staying on a similar path, we all know (hopefully) about the Nicean Council, and all the wheeling and dealing and paying off to have what is now the Bible - basically, a religion that was 'bought' by the ruling cities and nobles... not the sort of thing that an altruistic person would want to have handed over to...


But, back to other stuff...

There was a pretty good gap there, as you mentioned.

I don't think you've adequately answered the question: Why should homosexuals be treated as homosexuals, rather than as human beings?

I don't see the dichotomy there. Homosexuals are human beings.

You are passing a judgement (and wanting the government to endorse such a judgement) based on what a person does outside of its effects on the community (which is relatively small), rather than on the fact that the person is a human being who is entitled to be free to make choices that have no direct impact on other human beings.

I don't really care what they do as long as it involves consenting adults. I might not like it, but I'm not going to stop them. I keep repeating myself on this point but I suppose I have to say it again. I just don't want official approval of gay marriages because I don't believe that they're equivalent or equal to straight marriages.

Also, as you have expressed, you are coming from a Judeo-Christian perspective, claiming it is our Western heritage. Well, historically, that's a little blinkered. Our 'Western heritage' comes via Greece, and one of the cornerstones of our civilisation is the writings of Plato... who 'wrote' Phaedrus, in which is (paraphrases, cos I couldn't be bothered looking it up) "The love between a man and his boy is greater and deeper than the love between a man and a woman". Thus.. it can be suggested that the cornerstone of western civilisation not only condones homosexuality, but actually fully endorses it as a preference! Plato is not alone in this thinking!

Some of the earliest Christian churches were also in Greece, and I'm pretty sure that they weren't promoting pedophilia or homosexuality. There were good things and bad things from ancient Greek philosophers.

Also on a vaguely similar line, what about those of a different religion? Will you automatically require them to have to submit to Judeo-Christian teaching and tradition as well? If my religion permits something, and your's doesn't - why should yours take precedence (in the eyes of the law)?

I'm not going to force anyone to follow my religion. I don't agree with forced conversions or a religion-based state. I think homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are just different things altogether, so that's why they should be treated differently. Others on this board see them as being just the same, and that's why you feel that I'm not being fair.

FTR from when I did the google - "define: bigot". Doesn't mention a thing about hate, nor violence, nor anger.

Yet when most people use that word, it has those types of connotations. If I'm a bigot by strict definition, then I'm ok with that. It still won't mean that I hate people or want to do them harm though.

Lastly - debating against Pedersen.... ooohhhhh.... courageous! (he's good at picking holes in arguments!) Oh, he's good at sarcasm too.

It's good when I get someone who's more difficult to debate with because it helps me for the next time I debate with someone else or the same person.

Btw - (ok, so the above wasn't lastly... even though I could have cut and pasted, or inserted this above it... instead of typing this sentence...) the original Miss California thread was about the decision of various people based on whether they should have condemned her based on the answer to a question, and whether the question should even have been asked. So, it wasn't as much about the actual answer, but more about the legitimacy of a question to the event itself. Glad this long (now over 300 posts on the subject) have since come out... (ooh! coming out... a pun!)

LOL

They probably shouldn't have asked her that question or any other specific political question. It's a beauty contest, not a campaign for political office.

[Rubystars]

Why, he disagreed with them on so many other things, why would he agree with them on that?

Jesus had respect for the halacha. I hate to get into it too much because I don't want to offend any Jewish people who might be reading this. I really respect their religion and people. So I apologize if what I post is in any way offensive to them. Jesus saw some corruption in the Jewish leaders of his day which were going against what God really wanted. That's why he was so harsh in criticizing them. However Jesus never said he was opposed to the laws of Moses.