Atheists that support same sex marriages have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they shouldn't also be supporting man-animal marriage and incest marriage. The same logic applied to supporting same sex marriage can also be used to support man-animal marriage and incest marriage, which is as follows:
1. Same sex marriage advocates (henceforth called SSMA) seek to change the status quo(which include but not limited to everything from laws, tradition,policies etc.) that marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women.
2. SSMA's can legally attempt and/or successfully change the status quo from(example only) "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults regardless sexual orientation."
2a. Why can't animal man marriages and incest marriages also attempt to change the status quo from "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults and/or 1 adult and an animal?"
3. The status quo that restrict incest and man animal marriages can be changed to suit their needs and wants no differently than how SSMA's are trying to change the current status quo to suit their needs and wants.
4. Any law the atheist appeals to is irrelevant because of #3.
5. The atheist asserts that marriage is a right.
6. Why shouldn't this right extend to people that want to marry their brothers, fathers, grandmothers etc?
6a. Why shouldn't this right extends to the one adult that wants to marry an animal.
7. Regarding #6, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because Incest marriages cause children to have birth defects.
8. #7 is erroneous and irrelevant because this issue is about marriage and not sex. Incest occurs outside of marriage as does homosexuality, sex is not the issue, the issue is marriage. Furthermore, incest does not always lead to birth defects, if both parents do not possess a bad gene the offspring will not have birth defects.
9. Regarding #6a, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because, laws and legal reasons(animals do not have rights, animals cannot give consent, animals cannot act as executor of estate etc. etc.)
10. #9 is irrelevant, see #3 for reason.
11. If the atheist appeals to society, (society does not accept incest, man animal marriage etc. etc.)then anyone else can appeal to society too, since society does not accept same sex marriage either.
Conclusion: The atheist has nothing but their own personal opinions, feelings, or the personal opinions and feelings of others as to why they are not fighting for #2a, #6 and #6a the same way they are fighting for same sex marriages. If the atheists personal opinion is good enough to deem same sex marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to change the status quo to suit the needs of same sex couples and deem incest marriage and man-animal marriage unacceptable and as a result do not fight to change the status quo to suit the needs of incest marriage and man-animal marriage then anyone elses personal opinion is good enough to deem heterosexual marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to keep the status quo and is also good enough to deem same sex marriage, incest marriage, man animal marriage (and all other marriage except heterosexual marriage) unacceptable.
What atheists cannot do is assert that Christians or anyone else for that matter do not have sufficient or good enough reasons to be against same sex marriages, because by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons(personal opinions, feelings etc.) to be FOR same sex marriage or sufficient or good enough reasons to be fighting for incest marriage and man animal marriage or if the atheist chooses to assert that marriage is a right, by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. If they do assert that they have sufficient or good enough reasons to be FOR same sex marriages then Christians and anyone else have sufficient and good enough reasons to be against it.
Note: I am not promoting incest marriage or man animal marriage, just showing how logically inconsistent atheists are.
Counter punch: BUT TD, WHY DOES THIS APPLY TO ONLY ATHEISTS?!
Because in this particular situation the atheist only has their own personal opinion to rely on. They can't appeal to society because society does not accept same sex marriages(also that constitutes as an appeal to authority) they can't appeal to the law since the law states the government only recognizes marriage between a man and a women, they can't appeal to equal rights because they have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. They have nothing but their own personal opinion, especially on specifics like who should be married and who should not be married. As a Christian, we have something outside of our personal opinion which states quite clearly that incest, man-animal, and same sex are all sins.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Equality.
The question of whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to enter into a LEGAL marriage is not about the right to marry.
It is much more fundamental than that....it is about the right to equal treatment under the law. And that IS a right.
There is a LEGAL government interest in prohibiting incest, pedophilia, beastiality. There is a LEGAL government interest in making sure that those entering into legal contracts are able to consent.
There is no LEGAL government interest in prohibiting homosexuality between consenting adults...thus no LEGAL basis for denying them the benefits of legal marriage.
This IS a basic right. Not talking about the right to marry...but the right to be treated equally by the government.
If you say you can marry, as long as you marry a person of the opposite sex, it's like saying that the government will only one allow one religion: Buddahism. But it's okay, because every single person will have the equal opportunity to worship Buddah.
A word-twisting validation for bigotry. Like the bigotry that pevented interracial marriage in your country for so long.
"[If interracial couples have the right to marry] all our marriage acts between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void" (Perez v. Lippold)
"The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages" (Perez v. Lippold, quoting an earlier court case)
But we both know the ban on interracial marriage ended:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
It shall be the same for same sex marriage in your country one day.
(Note: my country already recognizes same sex unions and has for years.)
The same logic applied ...which is as follows:
I wish to purchase one of these fine straw men,
for placement in my cornfield.
It is much more fundamental than that....it is about the right to equal treatment under the law. And that IS a right.
Look at #3, what do you have besides your personal opinion as to why you aren't fighting to change the law to suit the needs of incest and man animal couples the same way you're fighting to change the law for gays?
There is a LEGAL government interest in prohibiting incest, pedophilia, beastiality. There is a LEGAL government interest in making sure that those entering into legal contracts are able to consent.
These are all laws, why aren't you fighting to change those laws or legal government interests to suit the needs of man animal marriage and incest marriage the same way you are fighting to change the laws to suit the needs of same sex couples?
There is no LEGAL government interest in prohibiting homosexuality between consenting adults...thus no LEGAL basis for denying them the benefits of legal marriage.
Flat out wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
Even if you WERE right, why aren't you fighting to change those the governments legal interests to suit the needs of man animal marriage and incest marriage the same way you are fighting to change the governments legal interests to suit the needs of same sex couples? what do you have other than your own personal opinion to answer that?
If you say you can marry, as long as you marry a person of the opposite sex, it's like saying that the government will only one allow one religion: Buddahism. But it's okay, because every single person will have the equal opportunity to worship Buddah.
No it is not saying that, not at all, the U.S. has laws that separeate church and state.
You have nothing but your own personal opinion.
When I was younger, interracial marriage was illegal in your country.
Do you think interracial marriage should be legal?
Is there a legal government interest in prohibiting homosexuality between consenting adults?
the same way you're fighting to change the law for gays?
I'm not "fighting to change the laws for gays". Same sex unions are legal in my country. And have been for years. No-one's tried to marry a cat. No-one's tried to marry their sister. (Like Strong says Cain and Able did). Keep beating up the straw man!
When I was younger, interracial marriage was illegal in your country.
Do you think interracial marriage should be legal?
Yes, it isn't a sin.
Is there a legal government interest in prohibiting homosexuality between consenting adults?
Yes, I just showed you the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419.
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
I'm not "fighting to change the laws for gays". Same sex unions are legal in my country. And have been for years. No-one's tried to marry a cat. No-one's tried to marry their sister. (Like Strong says Cain and Able did). Keep beating up the straw man!
You not being in this country this argument obviously does not apply to you, how ignorant are you seriously? like honestly, on a scale of 1 - 10, 1 being the most ignorant, I bet you rate like an 11 or 12.
People thought interracial marriage was a sin.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" Lovings v. Virginia.
Yes, I just showed you the law.
Has nothing to do with prohibiting homosexuality between consenting adults.
You not being in this country this argument obviously does not apply to you, how ignorant are you seriously? like honestly, on a scale of 1 - 10, 1 being the most ignorant, I bet you rate like an 11 or 12.
I know injustice when I see it. I know inequality when I see it. Thanks for the vote of confidence!
As a Christian, we have something outside of our personal opinion which states quite clearly that incest, man-animal, and same sex are all sins.
Why be a Christian when there's no proof this YHWH exists? Why force your law onto people who may not even believe in your god? Are you fighting to change the law to stop people working on the Sabbath?
People thought interracial marriage was a sin.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" Lovings v. Virginia.
Wow are you serious? just because people said or thought it was a sin does not mean it really is a sin. Too bad the same can't be said for homosexuality huh?
Has nothing to do with prohibiting homosexuality between consenting adults.
No it doesn't, in America people are free to do what they want, that doesn't mean the government has to recognize it.
I know injustice when I see it. I know inequality when I see it. Thanks for the vote of confidence!
It is readily obvious that should 1 should be a 10. You are deeply ignorant, you have no sense of logic coherent thought. No vote of confidence, only an obvious mistake.
Why be a Christian when there's no proof this YHWH exists? Why force your law onto people who may not even believe in your god? Are you fighting to change the law to stop people working on the Sabbath?
Are you really that ignorant? you have effectively displayed your inability to read. That paragraph you quoted was about why that argument doesn't apply to Christians, no one is trying to force beliefs on anyone else, I was explaining why that argument doesnt apply to Christians and you were simply too ignorant to comprehend that.
just because people said or thought it was a sin does not mean it really is a sin. Too bad the same can't be said for homosexuality huh?
Just because you think homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean it really is a sin. Or even that "sin" exists.
Now, you have acknowledged that homosexuality is NOT illegal. I assume you understand incest and bestiality ARE illegal. You can now understand how they are different.
Which is the reason why this paragraph -
they can't appeal to equal rights because they have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages...
- is not valid.
You are deeply ignorant, you have no sense of logic coherent thought. No vote of confidence, only an obvious mistake.
You're opinion of me is not a rebuttal of any of my statements. I don't think you are illogical or ignorant.
no one is trying to force beliefs on anyone else You're trying to make your Christian beliefs, or your beliefs about Christianity, law. Yes, you are trying to force your beliefs on other people.
Besides, are you fighting to change the law to stop people working on the Sabbath? That's a commandment! Why ignore this?
Hope you are well,
Flute.
Just because you think homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean it really is a sin. Or even that "sin" exists.
More ignorance from you. Those people believed that interracial marriage was a sin, but there was no evidence of that in the bible whatsoever. Homosexuality however, it is quite clear that it is a sin. So not only do I think homosexuality is a sin, it is quite clear and proven that homosexuality is a sin. Myself and countless other Christians beleive sin exists and base our morals accordingly, whether or not you think it exists is irrelevant to that fact.
Now, you have acknowledged that homosexuality is NOT illegal. I assume you understand incest and bestiality ARE illegal. You can now understand how they are different.
Which is the reason why this paragraph -
they can't appeal to equal rights because they have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages...
- is not valid.
Whoopsie, homosexuality being legal and incest bestiality being illegal are irrelevant, those are nothing but laws which can be changed to suit the needs of incest marriage and bestiality marriage no differently than how laws can be changed to suit the needs of gays. The atheist has nothing other than their own personal opinion as to why they're fighting to change laws for same sex couples but not for incest bestiality marriages. Still valid.
You're opinion of me is not a rebuttal of any of my statements. I don't think you are illogical or ignorant.
I never once tried to make my opinion of you as some sort of a rebuttal to any of your statements. Glad you don't think I am illogical or ignorant, can't say the same about you as you have not displayed that you are logical or knowledgeable.
You're trying to make your Christian beliefs, or your beliefs about Christianity, law. Yes, you are trying to force your beliefs on other people.
It is not FORCING our beliefs on anyone anymore than atheists and secularists are forcing their beliefs on us.
Besides, are you fighting to change the law to stop people working on the Sabbath? That's a commandment! Why ignore this?
I suggest you stop being ignorant of Christianity. Jesus healed on the sabbath and made it quite clear that you can find rest in Him any day of the week.
it is quite clear and proven that homosexuality is a sin.
Proven? I'll pretend sin is real for the sake of argument, now let's see your proof.
Whoopsie, homosexuality being legal and incest bestiality being illegal are irrelevant, those are nothing but laws which can be changed to suit the needs of incest marriage and bestiality marriage no differently than how laws can be changed to suit the needs of gays.
I'll show you how that's a strawman by building a strawman like it.
Homosexuality being legal and murder being illegal are irrelevant, they are nothing but laws which can be changed to suit the interests of murderers!
I never once tried to make my opinion of you as some sort of a rebuttal to any of your statements.
Did I say you did?
It is not FORCING our beliefs on anyone anymore than atheists and secularists are forcing their beliefs on us.
How are secularists and atheists forcing their beliefs on you?
Jesus healed on the sabbath
Isn't it strange that Jesus broke the law and healed on the Sabbath. Jesus got angry, yet said anger condemns one to hellfire. Jesus called people "fools" one day and said whoever calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire the next.
And yet was still "perfect"!
Proven? I'll pretend sin is real for the sake of argument, now let's see your proof.
Leviticus 18:22
22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 20:13
13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.
Romans 1:26-27
26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.
I'll show you how that's a strawman by building a strawman like it.
Homosexuality being legal and murder being illegal are irrelevant, they are nothing but laws which can be changed to suit the interests of murderers!
wow, just....wow. I thought you were ignorant before but this just takes the cake. Murder has nothing to do with marriage at all, is murder a right like you claim marriage to be? furthermore there was no straw man, atheists have nothing but personal opinion as to why they're not fighting to change the laws for man animal marriages and incest marriages like they are for same sex marraiges. How on earth is that a straw man, do you even know what a straw man is?
what you said is nowhere near analogous to what I said, you're just.... you're pitiful.
Did I say you did?
Flute: You're opinion of me is not a rebuttal of any of my statements.
How are secularists and atheists forcing their beliefs on you?
Trying to allow same sex couples to get married.
Isn't it strange that Jesus broke the law and healed on the Sabbath. Jesus got angry, yet said anger condemns one to hellfire. Jesus called people "fools" one day and said whoever calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire the next.
And yet was still "perfect"!
Isn't strange how you are so completely and utterly ignorant of the bible that you think taking scripture out of context is a valid or effective argument?
22 "Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."
Okay, you are using a different old translation of the Bible. As more research was done, more was found out about the meanings of the words in the verses you quote:
Here's some Hebrew:
"qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
"to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.
-----------
but personal opinion as to why they're not fighting to change the laws for man animal marriages and incest marriages like they are for same sex marraiges.
Homosexuality is legal. Bestiality and incest are illegal.
You quoted: "You're opinion of me is not a rebuttal of any of my statements."
Do you think your opinion of me IS a rebuttal of my statements then?
Trying to allow same sex couples to get married.
No one is forcing you to marry a man.
Okay, you are using a different old translation of the Bible. As more research was done, more was found out about the meanings of the words in the verses you quote:
Here's some Hebrew:
"qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
Flute you're making things up now. The word qadesh is not even found in Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=18&v=22&t=NKJV#conc/22
So who knows what you're babbling about there. Furthermore, all the new translations have homosexuality in there, so who knows what you're even talking about?
"to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.
What on earth are you talking about? to'ebah means:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8441&t=NASB
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
It can be a cult practice or a disgusting thing, homosexuality falls under all of those.
Homosexuality is legal. Bestiality and incest are illegal.
Homosexual marriages are illegal too.
Bestiality and incest are illegal, but atheists have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they're fighting to change the laws to suit gay marriage but not bestiality and incest marriages.
What part of change the law don't you understand?
Do you think your opinion of me IS a rebuttal of my statements then?
you're so ignorant you can't even understand the basics of conversation. You asked if you said that, I provided the evidence that you did.
No one is forcing you to marry a man.
No one is forcing same sex couples to marry heterosexual couples. Same logic applies, but you being void of any logical thought don't see that.
Furthermore, all the new translations have homosexuality in there, so who knows what you're even talking about?
"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean." NGPA
Newer translation do not prohibit male to male sexual behavior but it limits where the act can be performed. And it only says that it is ritually unclean, like coming too close to a dead body, having a wet dream, or eating shellfish, or getting a tattoo. Having sex with your wife when she has a period was another ritual law, worthy of death.
Most Christians believe Jesus did away with the ritual law.
Anyways, I was saying, don't even try Deuteronomy 23:17. Original Hebrew is a condemnation of male and female prostitution in the temple (a common Pagan practice). I'm giving you some historical perspective.
What on earth are you talking about? to'ebah means: ...
Biblical research and study of Hebrew has continued from the days of Strong. We have learnt more over the last hundred years. If he is your authority, I'd point out that he disagrees with you on other matters.
Homosexual marriages are illegal too.
Bestiality and incest are illegal, but atheists have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they're fighting to change the laws to suit gay marriage but not bestiality and incest marriages.
Homosexuality is legal. Bestiality and incest are illegal. Keep beating up that straw man.
What part of change the law don't you understand?
Did you see my illustration of why that's a straw man? Homosexuality is legal. They just want to be treated with equality.
No one is forcing same sex couples to marry heterosexual couples. Same logic applies, but you being void of any logical thought don't see that.
Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yes, against interracial marriage.
“Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
Against the status quo, America eventually lifted the ban on interracial marriage. For the sake of equality.
"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean." NGPA
Thats homosexuality. Wow. Both the act and where they're doing the act are both wrong.
Newer translation do not prohibit male to male sexual behavior but it limits where the act can be performed. And it only says that it is ritually unclean, like coming too close to a dead body, having a wet dream, or eating shellfish, or getting a tattoo. Having sex with your wife when she has a period was another ritual law, worthy of death.
Most Christians believe Jesus did away with the ritual law.
You are stunningly ignorant, Leviticus 20:13 says the act is bad as well, not to mention the new testament condemns it as well. You have no point. The difference between a man having sex with his wife and homosexuality is the former is wrong at one point it time, the latter was wrong ALL the time. You're so ignorant.
Anyways, I was saying, don't even try Deuteronomy 23:17. Original Hebrew is a condemnation of male and female prostitution in the temple (a common Pagan practice). I'm giving you some historical perspective.
Where on earth did I reference deuteronomy 23? I suggest you stop copying and pasting from religious tolerance you ignorant atheist. Way to go, not only can you not think for yourself, but when you copy and pasted a rebuttal, it was to a point I never even MADE!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm
The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
Your whole paragraph was pasted from there, which is quite funny as it proves your inability to even follow the conversation correctly and do your own thinking. It also proves that you're just copying and pasting without any regard to the conversation as I never used any scripture that had the word qadesh in it, nor did I even reference deuteronomy 23. You're so ignorant and now you've been caught plagerizing as well.
Biblical research and study of Hebrew has continued from the days of Strong. We have learnt more over the last hundred years. If he is your authority, I'd point out that he disagrees with you on other matters.
Ignorant, refute what I said. Does homosexuality fall under all of those yes or no?
Homosexuality is legal. Bestiality and incest are illegal. Keep beating up that straw man.
Keep avoiding the question you ignorant atheist. All of that is a law that can easily be changed, atheists have nothing but personal opinion as to why they're fighting to change one set of laws but not others.
Did you see my illustration of why that's a straw man? Homosexuality is legal. They just want to be treated with equality.
Homosexual marriage is illegal. Man animal marriage is illegal, they just want to be treated with equality. Incest marriage is illegal, they just want to be treated with equality. This is about marriage not sex. You have no point, again. You have nothing other than your own personal opinion as to why you're fighting for one but not hte other you ignorant atheist.
Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yes, against interracial marriage.
How ignorant are you? first you start out with 'Christians are forcing their beliefs on others' then when it is shown that by following that logic atheists are forcing their beliefs on others. Your rebuttal to the argument about forcing beliefs on others is about interracial marriages? how ignorant are you? where is your point? As a Christian I can be for interracial marriages and against homosexual marriages, the latter being a sin. As an atheist you have nothing other than your persoal opinoin as to why you're fighting for one but not the other. Congratulations on giving an argument that does not apply to me.
Let it also be known that the arguments the ignorant atheist flute took from religious tolerance do not even mention, include, or even refute the scriptures I quoted in Leviticus while they mention Romans they take it completely out of context stating it means "Heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts which are against their essential nature," this refers to everybody, insinuating that if you're homosexual already to begin with Romans does not apply to you. Outstandingly incorrect and silly.
Flutes straw man and ignorance has once again been exposed.
Flute must be a sodomite. a monkey agaisnt a sodomite, flute knows its wrong.
Both the act and where they're doing the act are both wrong.
That's not the way some understand it. And it can mean ritually unclean, and no-one follows the ritual laws and purity codes anymore.
The difference between a man having sex with his wife and homosexuality is the former is wrong at one point it time, the latter was wrong ALL the time. You're so ignorant.
Wait, who decided that having sex with your wife (when she has her period) is no longer worth of death?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm -
What do you have against Religious Tolerance?
From the Leviticus 20 wiki page:
Johns (2004) claims that these texts were purity codes to keep Israel separate from the Canaanites and that as Jesus rejected the whole purity code they are no longer relevant. West (2005, p.2) argues that "These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender", speculating that these laws were to prevent sexual abuse. However, most traditional Christian theologians hold that the New Testament classifies ceremonial and dietary laws as typological in nature and fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 4:10; Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 9:10), and thus abrogated as to their religious observance "according to the letter," while the moral law is seen as upheld. (Romans 13:9; 1Corithians 6:9-10)
nor did I even reference deuteronomy 23
But you were just about to, weren't you? Admit it!
You're so ignorant and now you've been caught plagerizing (sic) as well.
You're right, that paragraph should have had a reference link.
while they mention Romans they take it completely out of context...
How is that out of context?
Outstandingly incorrect and silly.
With what do you back up this assertion?
Flutes straw man and ignorance has once again been exposed.
Everytime you use the word "ignorant" I think of the poetry of Shakespeare when he uses it to mean "unknown or undiscovered"
"Alas, what ignorant sin have I committed?" which is from Othello, I think.
That's not the way some understand it. And it can mean ritually unclean, and no-one follows the ritual laws and purity codes anymore.
Wrong, we're not to follow the ritual laws that were spoken of and clarified in the NT. Homosexuality being one of them. Example, if the OT spoke of not eating certain foods and the NT clarified this to state we CAN eat all foods we go with the NT. Regarding homosexuality the OT condemns it and the NT also condemns it. So you're outstandingly incorrect.
Wait, who decided that having sex with your wife (when she has her period) is no longer worth of death?
What are you even talking about and what does this have to do with homosexuality being condemned?
What do you have against Religious Tolerance?
I have nothing against the site nor the practice, however I do have something against you plagiarizing the site and trying to refute arguments with it I never even tried to make.
From the Leviticus 20 wiki page:
Whoopsie, the counter argument is just as ignorant of Christian theology as you.
however, most traditional Christian theologians hold that the New Testament classifies ceremonial and dietary laws as typological in nature and fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 4:10; Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 9:10), and thus abrogated as to their religious observance "according to the letter," while the moral law is seen as upheld. (Romans 13:9; 1Corithians 6:9-10) [23][24][25][26] Such theologians maintain that this abrogation does not extend to homosexuality, which remains one of the few sins unconditionally condemned, with no evident provision of marriage being given in the Bible to sanctify it.
Looks like you're wrong. Not only is homosexuality the act and the 'ritual' condemned in the OT and NT, the biblical definition of marriage does not support homosexuality either. Matthew 19:4–6, Mark 10:6–9, Genesis 2:24. So you're once again outstandingly incorrect.
But you were just about to, weren't you? Admit it!
No I wasn't. Stop trying to justify your failures, you've been caught red handing plagiarizing and using that plagiarism to refute an argument I never even tried to make.
How is that out of context?
See above, homosexuality in all its forms is condemned that's why.
Everytime you use the word "ignorant" I think of the poetry of Shakespeare when he uses it to mean "unknown or undiscovered"
"Alas, what ignorant sin have I committed?" which is from Othello, I think.
Ignorance means lack of knowledge. So your lack of knowledge is exposed every time I use the word. I don't have a problem with ignorance as I am ignorant in many things, what I do have a problem with is when people being ignorant try to act like they're NOT ignorant and act like they know what they're talking about. So far flute you've been wrong on every single point you've attempted to make, aside from 2 insignificant mistakes I made that you pointed out. Not only that but you have been caught in numerous fallacies, plagiarizing, and using a plagiarized document to refute an argument I never even tried to make.
Wrong, we're not to follow the ritual laws that were spoken of and clarified in the NT.
Jesus doesn't agree with you.
Matthew 5:18
I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle (smallest written marks) shall in no way pass from the law, until the end of time.
"however, most traditional Christian theologians hold that the New Testament classifies...
But why most theologians hold that Abraham had an incestuous relationship, they are not worth listening to!
So you're once again outstandingly incorrect.
Do you have any proof that I'm "outstandingly incorrect"?
See above, homosexuality in all its forms is condemned that's why.
That's not the way other read it. Did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality? Or you are listening to what you think Paul is saying? Do you let women speak in church? "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission" Do women have to cover their hair? "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
Ignorance means lack of knowledge.
Also means "Unknown or undiscovered" although that usage is pretty obscure.
So your lack of knowledge is exposed every time I use the word.
!
I do have a problem with is when people being ignorant try to act like they're NOT ignorant and act like they know what they're talking about.
You're right, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
So far flute you've been wrong on every single point you've attempted to make...
If you're asserting I'm wrong "on every single point", why don't you try to prove it?
Not only that but you have been caught in numerous fallacies, plagiarizing...
I admitted I should have put a cite on that paragraph ages ago, catch up. And if you are asserting I've been using fallacies, where, why not prove it?
I think laws should be secular. This is different than laws being "atheist" obviously.
I also believe in equality, not that all are equal but that all have the right to be treated equally. I don't think the Bible should hold sway over the law anymore than the Koran should.
"But why most theologians" should read "But when most theologians"
Thanks
Jesus doesn't agree with you.
Matthew 5:18
I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle (smallest written marks) shall in no way pass from the law, until the end of time.
Ignorance, you've taken that completely out of context. He didn't come to abolish the law, He just came to give the true interpretation of it, to show that it points to Him. If you read the whole thing and not just one word you would realize that Christ never went against the law nor did He break any law, He only broke the religious leaders incorrect interpretations of that law, not the law as it was intended to be.
Do you have any proof that I'm "outstandingly incorrect"?
Yes, the 30 counts of your ignorance in the last thread and all of the counts of your ignorance in this one. You have not proved a single point, not one. You were also incorrect thinking that religious tolerance link refuted my argument. You're pathetic.
But why most theologians hold that Abraham had an incestuous relationship, they are not worth listening to!
Ignorance, where on earth did I say that they are not worth listening to? How pathetic are you? you must twist my words to think you can prove a point? I simply said I disagreed with them and gave a valid reason as to why I disagreed with them, you ignorant atheist, so incredibly ignorant that you confuse 'not worth listening to' with 'I disagree.'
Also means "Unknown or undiscovered" although that usage is pretty obscure.
How ignorant are you?, you are trying to tell me the way I am using my own words? now you're so desperate to prove a point that you are trying to tell me the way I am using my own words. You're pathetic.
That's not the way other read it. Did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality? Or you are listening to what you think Paul is saying? Do you let women speak in church? "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission" Do women have to cover their hair? "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
Read what? Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality? He did say marriage is between a MAN AND A WOMEN, He also didn't say anything about karate, chalk boards, planes, trucks, railroads? you've given NOTHING but an argument from silence. please show me where pro homosexuality or pro homosexual marriage can be found in Romans 13:9, 1Corithians 6:9-10, . Matthew 19:4–6, Mark 10:6–9, Genesis 2:24, or Leviticus?
Or you are listening to what you think Paul is saying?
SO ignorant, you've taken those verses COMPLETELY out of context, those verses were about women adorning themselves in modesty, the prostitutes of that time would where curly hair, earings, etc. etc, paul is advising them not to do that. Once again you're nothing but an ignorant atheist who thinks he has a clue, you're incredibly pathetic.
You're right, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
That is exactly what you have, little knowledge.
If you're asserting I'm wrong "on every single point", why don't you try to prove it?
It has been proven, you have not been right at anything at all except for 2 insignificant things in the last thread. You're like 90 and 2 flute. Every single thing is a figure of speech by the way you ignorant atheist, so nice try putting quotes around that to try and think I meant it literally.
I admitted I should have put a cite on that paragraph ages ago, catch up. And if you are asserting I've been using fallacies, where, why not prove it?
You used a straw man you ignorant athiest. You tried to refute an argument I never tried to make which is a straw man. You quoted the paragraph in religious tolerance with "quedeshaw" and Deuteronomy in a response to an argument I never tried to make. You're ignorant.
Matthew 5:18
I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle (smallest written marks) shall in no way pass from the law, until the end of time.
If you read the whole thing and not just one word you would realize that Christ never went against the law nor did He break any law, He only broke the religious leaders incorrect interpretations of that law, not the law as it was intended to be.
Which is different that not the smallest mark of it being changed for all time.
You're pathetic.
You sound a little angry but at least you've learnt a new word besides "ignorant". :-)
How pathetic are you?
What, on a scale of one to ten?
How ignorant are you?,
Didn't you ask that before?
you are trying to tell me the way I am using my own words? now you're so desperate to prove a point that you are trying to tell me the way I am using my own words. You're pathetic.
Valid interpretation. Not that I'm telling you how to use your own words.
Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality? He did say marriage is between a MAN AND A WOMEN, He also didn't say anything about karate, chalk boards, planes, trucks, railroads? you've given NOTHING but an argument from silence.
Wiki: When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning.
Once again you're nothing but an ignorant atheist who thinks he has a clue, you're incredibly pathetic.
Ignorant and pathetic, ay? My!
That is exactly what you have, little knowledge.
Thanks, no-one can know it all. It's good to have some knowledge.
so nice try putting quotes around that to try and think I meant it literally.
How I am meant to know what you mean literally or otherwise?
You're ignorant.
Do you really think I'm ignorant or is this an attempt to insult me? If you're trying to insult me I should tell you that I grew up in Australia, a land where "ya dumb cunt" is a MILD insult (between men). If it wasn't intended as an insult then I should say that you're opinion of me has no bearing on my statements, their truth, validity or otherwise.
Thanks, I'll address any other points after I get back from town.
:-)
Thanks,
Flute.
Which is different that not the smallest mark of it being changed for all time.
What are you babbling about now you ignorant atheist? this is not a refutation at all. Jesus didn't change the smallest mark, He kept all the marks added new marks and gave the original purpose, meaning and interpretation of all of the marks.
You sound a little angry but at least you've learnt a new word besides "ignorant". :-)
This is not a refutation, once again you're ignorant.
What, on a scale of one to ten?
That was a rhetorical question. Your response is not a refutation.
Valid interpretation. Not that I'm telling you how to use your own words.
Doesn't matter you ignorant atheist. I am the originator of that statement, every time I use it it means lack of knowledge.
Wiki: When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning.
Yes you ignorant atheist, it says it CAN BE, keyword CAN, you have obviously not used the valid and convincing form of the argument from silence. You're so ignorant it's hilarious.
Thanks, no-one can know it all. It's good to have some knowledge.
You have yet to show you have any.
Do you really think I'm ignorant or is this an attempt to insult me? If you're trying to insult me I should tell you that I grew up in Australia, a land where "ya dumb cunt" is a MILD insult (between men). If it wasn't intended as an insult then I should say that you're opinion of me has no bearing on my statements, their truth, validity or otherwise.
No, it is the truth. You are ignorant, you show lack of knowledge, you have not show you have a shred of it, everything you've said here has been WRONG.
How I am meant to know what you mean literally or otherwise?
You know after you assume, you assumed wrong and now you know. Not my problem, your problem for ignorantly assuming things.
It should also be clarified that Jesus personally choose Paul to keep all the marks add new marks and give the original purpose, meaning and interpretation of all of the marks.
"He didn't come to abolish the law, He just came to give the true interpretation of it, to show that it points to Him."
Why didn't YHWH be clearer about the law in the beginning? If He is all-powerful, He would be able to give laws in ways that could not be misinterpreted. (unless you don't believe YHWH is all-powerful)
This is not a refutation, once again you're ignorant.
This is not a refutation.
You're so ignorant it's hilarious
Glad you're happy. :-)
It should also be clarified that Jesus personally choose Paul to keep all the marks add new marks and give the original purpose, meaning and interpretation of all of the marks.
Where?
Why didn't YHWH be clearer about the law in the beginning? If He is all-powerful, He would be able to give laws in ways that could not be misinterpreted. (unless you don't believe YHWH is all-powerful)
Are you going to refute what I said? why wasn't clearer? asking why God wasn't clear about the law is not a refutation of what I said, does your ridiculous assertion prove that Jesus did come to abolish the law? does it prove He did not come to give it's correct interpretation? you're obviously confused as to what a refutation is you ignorat atheist.
A clear message is not evidence that people won't purposely misinterpret it or do what they want anyway you ignorant atheist. Loftus was a pastor and it says quite clearly in the bible you're not to engage in adultery, Loftus engaged in adultery. Clear messages do not guarantee anything you ignorant atheist.
This is not a refutation.
Wow, thanks for proving my point that you are confused as to what an refutation is. Such a pathetic ignorant athiest, I was not even refuting you, I was pointing out your inability to gave a coherent refutation of what I said. You're simply too ignorant to tell the difference.
Where?
How ignorant are you? Jesus appeared to Paul knocking him off his horse. I am growing tired of your ridiculous question, either refute what I said or stop posting.
Could you stop using the word the 'ignorant' constantly in your posts...that's all I see, I can't even read this because all I see is the word ignorant ignorant ignorant.
Could you possibly use some different words? Possibly go to a thesaurus or something. I'm going to be dreaming the words "You ignorant athiest" for months now,. I can just see it.
What reason could you have for repeating yourself so many times in one responce?
Kerri,
Stop being so ignorant and provide a refutation or else stop posting, you ridiculously pathetic ignoramus.
How did I do, TD? That was pretty good, right?
A clear message is not evidence that people won't purposely misinterpret it or do what they want anyway you ignorant atheist. Loftus was a pastor and it says quite clearly in the bible you're not to engage in adultery, Loftus engaged in adultery. Clear messages do not guarantee anything you ignorant atheist.
I do not know of Loftus but did he, as a pastor, argue that adultery was right?
I doubt it.
The message can be clear and can be disregarded.
The Biblical message is unclear. I'd expect more for a deity.
Jesus appeared to Paul knocking him off his horse.
If you want to be a follower of Paul, please have at it. Jesus seemed adamant that ALL the ritual law still applied to the Jewish people. Paul seems to have had a hallucination and disagreed.
Oh... Peter had a dream that God removed the ritual laws, too, if I remember rightly.
Looks like Jesus VS hallucinations and dreams to me.
~Flute
What reason could you have for repeating yourself so many times in one responce?
I would not have to repeat the word so much of flute wouldn't display his ignorance so much.
I do not know of Loftus but did he, as a pastor, argue that adultery was right?
I doubt it.
What are you talking about?
1. You didn't even refute my initial assertion about Jesus.
2. What does Loftus arguing that adultery was right have anything to do with him disobeying a CLEAR MESSAGE that it was wrong? can you even respond coherently to a point? due to you being an atheist I suspect you cannot.
The message can be clear and can be disregarded.
The Biblical message is unclear. I'd expect more for a deity.
Another argument from personal standards, exactly what I would expect from an ignorant atheist.
If you want to be a follower of Paul, please have at it. Jesus seemed adamant that ALL the ritual law still applied to the Jewish people. Paul seems to have had a hallucination and disagreed.
Yes, He was quite adamant as was Paul. Now what part of ORIGINAL INTERPRETATIONS AND MEANING OF RITUAL LAW don't you understand?
Paul seems to have had a hallucination and disagreed.
No, you're just too ignorant too see that Paul was in full agreement with Jesus about the Law. Btw, prove Paul had a hallucination or retract the statement.
Oh... Peter had a dream that God removed the ritual laws, too, if I remember rightly.
Looks like Jesus VS hallucinations and dreams to me.
What part of original interpretations of Laws don't you understand?
Flute said "Paul seems to have had a hallucination and disagreed."
TD said "...prove Paul had a hallucination or retract the statement."
I say "Hold up Champ, Flute said 'seems to have had' keyword: 'seems'"
Flute said "Paul seems to have had a hallucination and disagreed."
TD said "...prove Paul had a hallucination or retract the statement."
I say "Hold up Champ, Flute said 'seems to have had' keyword: 'seems'"
Correct, my mistake, you're right though, the keyword is 'seems.' Of course something 'seeming' to be does not constitute proof of error. Flute fails again.
Post a Comment