[Supes]

Wow, lots of vitriol in here... and anger, too.

No Ferris Wiel there is definitely no vitriol in my statments nor anger. It is expressive, yes, but angry, I'm afraid not. I am sorry if you are reading it that way. Jordan, Civ & I have been involved in a number of different discussions and we are all quite friendly. We each respect that the other has a point of view. I'm fairly sure that Jordan is not offened by anything I've written, but if he has been I will certainly apologise.

Expressing a different opinion does not constitute anger. If I'd made personal attacks etc then I could say that you may have had something, but the worst I elieve I did was mention that to me Jordan's posts did seem to come across as intollerant, which he originally raised.

[Supes]

Well, Christians aren't bound by the ten commandments or the Levitical law in the sense of everlasting fire and all that. As a matter of fact, they don't even need to observe the washings, feasts and tithing practices.

I completely agree with what you've said here FW. In fact it is almost identical to something I said in a seperate conversation with a friend when discussing the idea of following the 10 Commandments and how Christian's were committed to follow these.

I still have an issue with arguing against homosexuality from a religious stand point. Sure, if it is a person's interpretation that Jesus was against homosexuality then it is fine that they do not accept it. However, I have encountered a number of inconsistencies in regards to this in actual practice. The primary reason being that when the term homosexuality is used it is generally only attributed to men.

I have quite a few male Christian friends and the majority of the will denounce homosexuality as immoral and unnatural. However, to a man they will all advocate lesbian activities because these turn them on. Now I am aware that this is a personal choice on the part of each individual and follows what you said about Christian's shunning such activities and potentially those people involved if they do not change their ways. However, I am still forced to question this dichotomy. How can one rationalise this stand point if one is claiming to take their stand from the scriptures?

[Jordan]

I find debating with you guys to be a big challenge. My area of experitse is not in debate, I feel I have some strong arguments but am unable to express them in a well delivered manner.

I do enjoy debating, and have thought about getting a degree in Philosophy after I graduate. One person who I refer to alot is NORMAN GIESLER. He has great knowledge in Christian Apolegetics.

I'm currently searching some of his work to see if I can find a good rebuttle to the book of Mark being fraudlent.

And debating with Civil has actually opened my eyes in a way. I find it humiliating and pathetic, that he, a none Christian, knows more about the bible's scriptures than I do. It has given me a wake up call. I can' t sit on the fence. I need to hit the book more and be prepared when questions are asked.

I've spend to much time with evolutionary debates than with actual Christian related ones.

I usually defend the existence of a God, rather than Jesus being God. Two very different subjects.

Ferris Wiel, it's nice to see you here, I enjoy reading what you put. There is no anger though. Chefelf commrades are bonded by their hate for Lucas, and other stupid trival things. So far we all get along well. Except for that one guy who came on for a couple of days and insulted me by means of rapping.

Anyways, back on with the show.

[civilian_number_two]

Hi, my name is Ferris Wiel and I'd like to say a few words about my earlier comments. My "reductio ad absurdem" and other attempts like it were an attempt to inject a degree of levity in these debates if only to amuse myself because I know that if I get too serious I'll end up alienating nice people ...

Huh. All right; I'll allow that. But you have to acknowledge that every single time you use a technique like that it invalidates youtr entire argument. So you have to decide whether you want to make a point (if you have a point to make), or whether you want to crack wise about your opponent's position. Personally, when a fellow says "I really have strong points ot make, but I don't want to get too serious," it sets off my recently-lauded bulshit detector. Get serious. I can take it, and Supes is the Man of Tomorrow.

Noone cares whether Jordan can take it or not. He's just our mascot anyway =)

I would point out that incest occurs in the animal kingdom with high frequency as does pedophilia, the answer to those, of course being, who cares? Cannibalism also occurs in nature, it doesn't make it right, particularly for humans.

Yeah, uh huh. And where did I ever argue in FAVOUR of what is "Natural?" See, this is a case of you arguing against the wrong point. MURDER and RAPE occur in nature, and yet they are illegal. get ready for it: I agree that they should be.

The argument goes like this: Homosexuality is unnatural, says Mr Falwell, and therefore against the Lord, and so should be illegal. then Mr Humanist pipes up, "Who cares about what is natural? We're trying to define human rights here." And then Mr Falwell jumps in with "Well if we're supposed to declare that homosinuality is Natural, then let me how you some examples of other "Natural" things that you don't like. hah! QED!"

Pay attention: my stand aginst rape and incest and pedophelia has the common thread of coersion. Yes, I believe that if an adult wants to make the whoopie with his/her adult parent, and there is no evidence that they made the whoopie when one was a minor, then no coersion is evident (I am also pretty sure this will just about never come up); (I also would not stone consensual brother-sister or brother-brother incest). My stand in favour of gay marriage is that if it is recognozed and made legal couples will literally trip over one another to get to the altar (yes; literally!). This is something people want, and it is something that hurts noone. And my point of view, like my opinion on say, the driving age, has nothing to do with what is "NATURAL." If I speak of nature, it is only after you have brought it up. But it's not your main point. You argue that even if homosexuality is "natural," it is STILL "Wrong."

This is the thing you need to prove.

Every word Paul wrote, per his claims, was on authority of Jesus.

My thumb is on my nose, my tongue is out, I am waving all my fingers in the air. I don't care about Paul's claims to divine inspiration. Paul basically invented Christianity; a set of the inspired and often beautiful statements of a peaceful man were warped by this ruthless demagogue into a typically hierarchical and frequently restrictive religion. Paul made up some vulgar story about God speaking to him directly, and used this as the basis of his teaching. Others have done the saem since him, with similar success (recent examples being Charles Russell, Joseph Smith, Oral Roberts and David Koresh).

But you've made my point for me. Jessus never said anything about homosexuality. He also never said anything about for how long a woman is "unclean" during her period. So, yes, this doesn't mean that he didn't have opinions about these things. Jesus did not come along to be a lawgiver. He had other things on his mind. But that's no argument that we should listen to Paul, just because the Council of Nicea preserved his letters. There's all sorts of other stuff that could have made the cut but didn't. Jeez; none of this ought to be the basis of civil lawmaking.

So yes, while Jesus did not verbatim speak on homosexuality (or any of the other topics I cited), he gave implicit support and lent credence to the law of Moses.

Except for all that stuff he said about working on the sabbath and what he MAY have said about eating whatever you want (I disagree on this, and insist that Jesus kept kosher, but I'm not going to rehash that one. Chefelf archivists remember it well). Oh, and all that stuff about resurrection, which isn't in Moses. ANYWAY, if Jesus lent "implicit" support to the moasic law, then should we also stone adulterers and outlaw divorce?

Where's your Moses now?

I would like to point, though, out that the seeming outrage with the comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and incest exposes biases in some ways, though.

Hmm. Yes. I am biased in favour of honest argument! You got me! =)

The most mainstream of attacks on homo-sin-uality is that homosexuals are pedophiles and killers. BUT! Most pedophiles are straight, along with most rapists. Even in jail, male-to-male rape is committed by straight men. And this business about incest is out of left field, since again, most of it is father-daughter or brother-sister. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, even if we ignore that a couple of the things you are talking about involve coersion, while homosexuality does not. It's a false association, like say the business of connecting mass murder with video games. Homosexual rape and homosexual incest I oppose. I am not arguing to make those thigs legal; in fact, we already have laws against rape and incest that will work quite wel for any gender preference. I'm talking about gay marriage. Is my bias becoming more clear?

[Ferris Wiel]

It is taxing to generate any arguments against homosexuality without an agreement on terms of objective morality. Since we don't have that, it is a difficult (but not impossible) task to lay out a logical course of reason as to why it isn't acceptable behavior.

Unfortunately, I have resigned myself to what appears plainly to me to be a continuing downward spiral of humanity. As such, I withdraw my arguments and instead stake a basic claim -

Based on literal translation of the Bible, which I take, homosexuality is immoral and wrong, both in Levitical law and in Christ's revelations to the body in the age of Grace. The endorsement of a "marriage" between two homosexual individuals is giving a cultural blessing to an act as misguided and evil as pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy. As such, I can, with full confidence state that a death knell is near to being sounded on western culture and can only hope for either a return to Godly values based on a literal Biblical interpretation or a quick and painless end to the culture that embraces such behavior.

Other than that, I will provide links and quotes from others, but fully realize that I am either too lazy to or incapable of engaging in a "rational" debate on the topic of homosexuality.

In that vein, it is now clear I'll likely fail in other endeavors, so perhaps I'm better off to just accept that I should spend the rest of my life allowing myself to be trod underfoot and earning an income slightly higher than that of a video store clerk. Likely, I should also refrain from my present efforts to go to college, too, as that will prove another environment where I shall, without a doubt, pound my forehead against a system that is unjust and immoral and the work to unravel which would prove too weighty a burden, largely due to the sleight-of-hand and obfuscation of fact through a wealth of too much "information" weighted, in large part, on the biases of those individuals presenting, yet accepted as fact because, since the institution is larger, it is therefore right. I lose to the mob. Due to this, I quit, yet maintain that I am right, but the fight isn't worth fighting any longer.

--FW

[Jesus Christ]

THEY HAVE GAY PENGUINS.

[SkinnedAlive]

Quite

[Ferris Wiel]

THEY HAVE GAY PENGUINS.

Stirring.

--FW

[sinister grinner]

there are too many good points, observations, and arguments here for me to produce an opinion, seeing how i admit that all of your intelligence is beyond me.

but if anything is not "natural" then should we automatically ban it. driving, clothes, houses made with asbestos. none of these things are natural, but we allow them. and yes, any guy who doesnt like homosexuality, but likes lesbian sex cause it turns them on, is a complete dickhead. homosexuality isnt limited to males. so if you want to get rid of it, the girl on girl action has to go.

i cant remember who stated the few facts that i used, but i thought they were good observations.

[civilian_number_two]

Based on literal translation of the Bible, which I take, homosexuality is immoral and wrong, both in Levitical law and in Christ's revelations to the body in the age of Grace.

I appreciate that you're bowing out here, and I don't want to kick a dying dog, but you go too far with your whole "end of western culture is nigh" and "I may as well give up on life" crap.

The idea that denial of homosexual marriage is the lynchpin holding together western culture is overarching and insane. Western culture will fail at some place in out future, but it will be an economic failure, when everyone sees (once again) that capitalism doesn't work because unlimited gowth is not possible. If your argument is that freedom for homosexuals to marry will not itself cause the death of society, but will act as a"gateway event," then again this is the false "slipery slope" argument common to people who have nothing really bad to say about the thing they oppose. "Well, I don't have anything to say about marijuanna, but what about that heroin?"

On to your main point: why do you take the position that the Bible is the LITERAL word of God? Isn't it pretty clear, from the two contradictory creation stories right at the start of the book, that it is going to be a collection of the myths and occasionally the history of an ancient people?

On to your other main point: why do you believe we should base our laws on the Bible?

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 13 March 2004 - 09:29 PM

[Jordan]

Maybe we should have a Thread dedicated to Debates. Just a thought. Anyone up for that?

If so we should make one in the lobby forum. I don't want to create it if no one else is interested.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 March 2004 - 06:02 PM

[civilian_number_two]

I thought that's what "fully ramblomatic" was all about.

Anyway, if it wasn't, that's what it is now!

[Mist]

I second LP's statement about what fully ramblomatic was about, but I love this thread. It's gambling. I never know what my reaction will be. Right now, for some reason, I'm pissed (angry not drunk), so I'm not as amused as I usually am. This is a bit random and off topic, but this place is for rambling, so here I go.

I love eating nutritional yeast, I spent the weekend at a band member's house with a bunch of random people, and they're all vegan. Wow. Yeast. Yum. I'm not vegan or even vegetarian, so they were amazed as I put yeast in EVERYTHING I ate. Yum. One mentioned that he worried that perhaps he shouldn't have introduced me to yeast since I was so addicted to it.

FW: Why do you sign your name after every post? We can see who you are to the left of your post. Just wondered if you knew about that nifty portion of the board or not.

[SkinnedAlive]

I once got bored and ate live baking yeast.
It was not pleasant. :yuck:

This post has been edited by SkinnedAlive: 15 March 2004 - 11:16 AM