BANNED!

[Durandal]

Kinda sucks, I'd like to have a formal debate to put up on my website, especially one dealing with young-earth creationism.

[neoolong]

Damn, I wish I was here for that.

Ah well, here's my two cents on some stuff I saw.

The apocropha has many topics, such as condoning vengeance, that is contrary to the rest of the Bible, thus I do not believe they are true.

Great so basically creationistalltheway gets to decide what's true and what's not. I mean the apocropha could be the part that's true and the rest is bull. Therefore she places her own beliefs in determining what part of the Bible is true and what parts to follow. Unless, she hears voices telling her what is right. So basically, what this ultimately means is that she uses her own bigotry and hatred of homosexuals to decide that if and where the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, which I have not actually seen a quote as saying that, then that part is right. She then justifies this by saying it was God, only her own personal God, not really her.

So, in the end, even she says that she decides what is true in the Bible. And since she decides that homosexuality is wrong in her Bible based on nothing more than her own irrational hatred, she has just admitted she is a bigot, prejudiced.

creationistalltheway you still show that you are basing your bigotry of the homosexual on your own beliefs. Without being able to show any harm that homosexuality causes, it does make you a bigot. Make any justifications by saying some invisible man did it, but it still boils down to the fact that you are basing your actions on your own beliefs and your hatred of the homosexual makes you a bigot.

[The Dark]

Then the Catholic church outranks your cult.

You loose.

It does muchly; The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian church, and it had the first Bible. Therefore, the Apocrypha (sp?) is NOT an add-on...it is one of the original parts of the Bible which Protestants took out because they were bigoted ass-holes.

Erm. Whether the Apocrypha is canonical or not depends on whether you use the Hebrew translation of the OT or the Greek translation. The (original) Hebrew translation (ca. 400BCE-70CE) does not include the Apocrypha, while the Septuagint (first century CE) does include the Apocrypha. While the Catholic Church accepted the Apocrypha, the Temples and Synagogues it split off from did not, and when the Protestants split from the Catholics, they returned to what had been canon. It is neither an add-on nor an original part of the Bible which was removed, but a disputed portion of text that is included in Greek Old Testaments but not the original Hebrew.

[haas mark]

Then the Catholic church outranks your cult.

You loose.

It does muchly; The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian church, and it had the first Bible. Therefore, the Apocrypha (sp?) is NOT an add-on...it is one of the original parts of the Bible which Protestants took out because they were bigoted ass-holes.

Erm. Whether the Apocrypha is canonical or not depends on whether you use the Hebrew translation of the OT or the Greek translation. The (original) Hebrew translation (ca. 400BCE-70CE) does not include the Apocrypha, while the Septuagint (first century CE) does include the Apocrypha. While the Catholic Church accepted the Apocrypha, the Temples and Synagogues it split off from did not, and when the Protestants split from the Catholics, they returned to what had been canon. It is neither an add-on nor an original part of the Bible which was removed, but a disputed portion of text that is included in Greek Old Testaments but not the original Hebrew.

Ah. But it IS in the first Bibles, so therefore, well...yeah.

[The Dark]

Erm. Whether the Apocrypha is canonical or not depends on whether you use the Hebrew translation of the OT or the Greek translation. The (original) Hebrew translation (ca. 400BCE-70CE) does not include the Apocrypha, while the Septuagint (first century CE) does include the Apocrypha. While the Catholic Church accepted the Apocrypha, the Temples and Synagogues it split off from did not, and when the Protestants split from the Catholics, they returned to what had been canon. It is neither an add-on nor an original part of the Bible which was removed, but a disputed portion of text that is included in Greek Old Testaments but not the original Hebrew.

Ah. But it IS in the first Bibles, so therefore, well...yeah.

Concession accepted . (I've been wanting to say that for...ummm...the week that I've been here?) I understand your point, and in some ways I agree with you, it's just that that's not the only interpretation. Personally, I think Luther was a hypocrite for not using them, since he followed the theological principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and then modified the Scripture. However, the non-Apocryphal Old Testament did exist first, so Luther was not completely unjustified. And now I'm confusing myself with my argument, so I'll stop arguing both sides of this and say that nobody's wrong in this case.

[Non Catenatum]

Great so basically creationistalltheway gets to decide what's true and what's not.

No, I get to decide what I believe is true. The point is, Catholics believe in both the old testament, the new testament, and the books from the apocrapha. You're saying I have a choice to believe one or the other. Is one of the choices to believe both?

Therefore she places her own beliefs in determining what part of the Bible is true and what parts to follow.

The Apocrapha are not necissarily parts of the Bible.
Oh and just wondering, why does everyone call me a she? Am I that femenine?

So basically, what this ultimately means is that she uses her own bigotry and hatred of homosexuals to decide that if and where the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, which I have not actually seen a quote as saying that, then that part is right. She then justifies this by saying it was God, only her own personal God, not really her.

Alright, you want a quote?

1 Cornithians 6: 9&10:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God


LEviticus 20: 13 (a):
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

There are more but you get the point.

creationistalltheway you still show that you are basing your bigotry of the homosexual on your own beliefs.

What would I have to gain or lose from believing homsexuality is a sin? Do you really think I"d be baised against something I am in so little in contact with? What bais would i get from that?

your hatred of the homosexual makes you a bigot.

I do not hate homosexuals!! Do I need to say it again? Love the sinner hate the sin.

[Stormbringer]

Do you do anythinking for yourself? Or have you substitued the Bible for a brain?

[haas mark]

Alright, you want a quote?

1 Cornithians 6: 9&10:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God


LEviticus 20: 13 (a):
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

There are more but you get the point.

That depends on your translation...wait till I actually decide to get out my Catholic Bible later tonight...

creationistalltheway you still show that you are basing your bigotry of the homosexual on your own beliefs.

What would I have to gain or lose from believing homsexuality is a sin? [/quote]

You tell us.

Do you really think I"d be baised against something I am in so little in contact with?

Yes; you seem to not like homosexuality, even with no contact with it other than the Net.

your hatred of the homosexual makes you a bigot.

I do not hate homosexuals!! Do I need to say it again? Love the sinner hate the sin.[/quote]

If oyu hate the sin, inherently you hate the sinner. In the back of your mind, you will always be prejudiced against that person becuase of the sin.

[The Dark]

Alright, you want a quote?

1 Cornithians 6: 9&10:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

Apology in advance for the appeal to authority, but I do not (yet) know Greek.

Footnotes from the New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "The Greek terms translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to "homosexuals," as in the inappropriate earlier translations; "masturbators" and male prostitutes might be a better translation."

[neoolong]

Great so basically creationistalltheway gets to decide what's true and what's not.

No, I get to decide what I believe is true. The point is, Catholics believe in both the old testament, the new testament, and the books from the apocrapha. You're saying I have a choice to believe one or the other. Is one of the choices to believe both?

No, I'm saying that your saying that you get to decide whats true.

Therefore she places her own beliefs in determining what part of the Bible is true and what parts to follow.

The Apocrapha are not necissarily parts of the Bible.
Oh and just wondering, why does everyone call me a she? Am I that femenine?

Doesn't matter, you just decide for yourself what parts are true and what parts are contradictory and so are false. Of course the opposite may be the case, but since you decide that it must be right. Oh and I was told you were female, is that right or not?

So basically, what this ultimately means is that she uses her own bigotry and hatred of homosexuals to decide that if and where the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, which I have not actually seen a quote as saying that, then that part is right. She then justifies this by saying it was God, only her own personal God, not really her.

Alright, you want a quote?

1 Cornithians 6: 9&10:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God


LEviticus 20: 13 (a):
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

There are more but you get the point.

Wow, so much interpretation. The first quote says homosexual offenders. That is a subsection of all homosexuals. You assume that it means all homosexuals, but given the modifier homosexual and the noun offenders, that is not the case. You just use your own bigotry to interpret the Bible to say what you want.

The second quote is technically impossible. A man cannot have sex with a man like a woman, there is a lack of parts. That is the literal meaning. Of course you can interpret it to mean that homosexuality is bad, but that is your interpretation based on your irrational bigotry.

creationistalltheway you still show that you are basing your bigotry of the homosexual on your own beliefs.

What would I have to gain or lose from believing homsexuality is a sin? Do you really think I"d be baised against something I am in so little in contact with? What bais would i get from that?

You have an irrational hatred that you try to justify to make yourself feel good. Of course you would be biased against something if your dogmatic belief system said it was wrong. You just blindly follow it because of your own dogmatic acceptance of that irrational hatred.

your hatred of the homosexual makes you a bigot.

I do not hate homosexuals!! Do I need to say it again? Love the sinner hate the sin.

Please, that's semantics. What someone does makes up what they are. That means that if you hate the "sin" you hate the person. Stop trying to justify your hatred.

[Frank Hipper]

Hate the sin and not the sinner. I`m suprised it took you so long on that one. What a cheap cop-out! Some people ARE capable of compartmentalisation in their morals, I suppose.

[neoolong]

Alright, you want a quote?

1 Cornithians 6: 9&10:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

Apology in advance for the appeal to authority, but I do not (yet) know Greek.

Footnotes from the New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "The Greek terms translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to "homosexuals," as in the inappropriate earlier translations; "masturbators" and male prostitutes might be a better translation."

Hmm. That is interesting. Throws the whole against homosexuality out of the window.

[The Dark]

Hate the sin and not the sinner. I`m suprised it took you so long on that one. What a cheap cop-out! Some people ARE capable of compartmentalisation in their morals, I suppose.

I'm not sure I totally agree here. I can dislike the actions of a person but not dislike the person. Are you saying that you only like people whose every action you agree with? (I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and present a different view on an old saying).

[Non Catenatum]

You tell us.

I have nothing to gain or lose, so my own bias would not even think about it.

If oyu hate the sin, inherently you hate the sinner. In the back of your mind, you will always be prejudiced against that person becuase of the sin.

Just as I hate my own sin but don't necissarily hate myself. Thank you for thinking for me, by the way.

Footnotes from the New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "The Greek terms translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to "homosexuals," as in the inappropriate earlier translations; "masturbators" and male prostitutes might be a better translation."

I"m interested in this, though you hbaven't mentioned the Leviticus quote.

[/quote]

[haas mark]

But it does not say that all God's followers should go out and harass, beat up, lynch or murder gays.

Where in this whole thread have I remotely said I condoned the discrimination of gays. Theres a big difference between believing they're lifestyle is wrong, and harassing, beating up, or murdering gays! I am 100% against using violence, verbal or physical, against gays. Do I need to be clearer before everyone stops misquoting me?

Where have we said that you do?

In fact, your Jesus defended a prostitute by reminding the angry mob that they each had sins of their own to contemplate; it is also not Man's place to judge but God's.

I agree, and I am not judging gays. I am merely stating that according to God, it is a sin. I admit I have no less sin in my own life. How many times do I need to restate I don't think myself better then them??

But you do by saying that it is such a horrible sin and that you are better because you don't participate in it. You don't say it outrightly, but you sure do imply it well enough.

. By judging someone you dare to take God's place, which is apostasy-- the first sin listed in the Commandments! Are you sure you want to be a bigot?

This is a total strawman. I say homosexuality is a sin, I"m accused of 1. judging them, 2. condoning the harassing or discrimination of them, and 3. being biggoted against them.

1) you are. 2) I don't personally see this. 3) you are.

Can you read all of my posts next time, not just the ones that say its wrong??

Can you make posts that don't say it is wrong?

BTW, this is the post I said you ignored.

[haas mark]

If oyu hate the sin, inherently you hate the sinner. In the back of your mind, you will always be prejudiced against that person becuase of the sin.

Just as I hate my own sin but don't necissarily hate myself. Thank you for thinking for me, by the way.

Thanks for speaking for me. I never intended to think for you, and you know it.[/quote]

By the way, I'm going to go get my Catholic Bible in a bit,a nd see what it says.

[Non Catenatum]

No, I'm saying that your saying that you get to decide whats true.

Yes, but your argument implies "either new testament and old is true, or the apocrapha is true"

Doesn't matter, you just decide for yourself what parts are true and what parts are contradictory and so are false. Of course the opposite may be the case, but since you decide that it must be right. Oh and I was told you were female, is that right or not?

The parts of the text I believe are the real Bible (a.k.a, the Protestant version leaving out the apocrapha), contradict with the apocrapha(sp). The catholic version adheres to the "protestant" version, along with the apocrapha. Both believe the original version is true, therefore the sect in question is the Apocrapha, not the rest of it. And I'm a guy, for the record.

Wow, so much interpretation. The first quote says homosexual offenders. That is a subsection of all homosexuals. You assume that it means all homosexuals, but given the modifier homosexual and the noun offenders, that is not the case. You just use your own bigotry to interpret the Bible to say what you want.

Homosexual offendors, I believe, is an implication that homosexuality is in itself offensive to God. What would an offender mean had it been standing alone?

The second quote is technically impossible. A man cannot have sex with a man like a woman, there is a lack of parts. That is the literal meaning. Of course you can interpret it to mean that homosexuality is bad, but that is your interpretation based on your irrational bigotry.

I'll concede to your point about the lack of parts, but since obviously sex was known back then, the author would not mean it in the completely literal way.

You have an irrational hatred that you try to justify to make yourself feel good. Of course you would be biased against something if your dogmatic belief system said it was wrong. You just blindly follow it because of your own dogmatic acceptance of that irrational hatred.

I don't blindly follow it. If God revealed Himself to you, would you call it blind because He hasn't revealed Himself to everyone?

Please, that's semantics. What someone does makes up what they are. That means that if you hate the "sin" you hate the person. Stop trying to justify your hatred.

So if you hate bigotry, do you necissarily hate all bigots?

[Non Catenatum]

Verilon:

Where have we said that you do?

I answered that quote I believe. ONe of the members said something like "so its ok to lynch, murder, harass homosexuals because..." Sorry for the paraphrasing, I'll find the quote in a sec.

But you do by saying that it is such a horrible sin and that you are better because you don't participate in it. You don't say it outrightly, but you sure do imply it well enough.

I am not better then them. I may as well sin just as often as they.

1) you are. 2) I don't personally see this. 3) you are.

1) God is judging, I am just believing in that judgement. 2) read the post that I was quoting. 3) I am not bigotted any more then you're a bigot towards bigotry(tongue twister)

[neoolong]

Hate the sin and not the sinner. I`m suprised it took you so long on that one. What a cheap cop-out! Some people ARE capable of compartmentalisation in their morals, I suppose.

I'm not sure I totally agree here. I can dislike the actions of a person but not dislike the person. Are you saying that you only like people whose every action you agree with? (I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and present a different view on an old saying).

There's a difference. It's a justification of irrational hatred in this case. I can say I dislike the actions of a guy, never rewinding videotapes, and not necessarily dislike the guy. However, there is still a "harm" being done that is changeable. However, in the case of homosexuality hating the sin amounts to hating the sinner because it is not a choice to be homosexual. In this case you can't just partition the sin vs. the sinner because the sin in this case makes up the character of the sinner at a fundamental level.

[weemadando]

You have an irrational hatred that you try to justify to make yourself feel good. Of course you would be biased against something if your dogmatic belief system said it was wrong. You just blindly follow it because of your own dogmatic acceptance of that irrational hatred.

I don't blindly follow it. If God revealed Himself to you, would you call it blind because He hasn't revealed Himself to everyone?

So God has revealed himself to you. Right. Any proof of this or do we have to take your word for it.

Remember that for many years Christians burnt people who claimed to have seen and heard things beyond the earthly pale. Anyone have some matches? Or a hessian sack and a pond?

Please, that's semantics. What someone does makes up what they are. That means that if you hate the "sin" you hate the person. Stop trying to justify your hatred.

So if you hate bigotry, do you necissarily hate all bigots?

I wouldn't use the word hate all the time. But I feel that anyone who is bigoted is certainly not deserving of my respect.

[Non Catenatum]

Thanks for speaking for me. I never intended to think for you, and you know it.

Sorry, just seemed it when you said

If oyu hate the sin, inherently you hate the sinner. In the back of your mind, you will always be prejudiced against that person becuase of the sin.

That is claiming to know my heart, which you do not.

[Non Catenatum]

So God has revealed himself to you. Right. Any proof of this or do we have to take your word for it.

I don't intend for you to agree with it, just know that I am not believing these out of bais, but what I at the very least believe I've been shown.

Remember that for many years Christians burnt people who claimed to have seen and heard things beyond the earthly pale. Anyone have some matches? Or a hessian sack and a pond?

I'm not gonna speak for every Christian who's ever done something in the name of God, but they may have well burnt all the apostles (not that I equate myself with them per se), because they all claimed to have seen God as well.

[Non Catenatum]

By the way, I'm going to go get my Catholic Bible in a bit,a nd see what it says.

School night, so I really gotta go, but post your findings and I'll get back to you tomorrow from 1-8 p.m (Pacific time)

[neoolong]

No, I'm saying that your saying that you get to decide whats true.

Yes, but your argument implies "either new testament and old is true, or the apocrapha is true"

No. My argument means that any of it could be true. But you decide what is true based on what you want to be true.

Doesn't matter, you just decide for yourself what parts are true and what parts are contradictory and so are false. Of course the opposite may be the case, but since you decide that it must be right. Oh and I was told you were female, is that right or not?

The parts of the text I believe are the real Bible (a.k.a, the Protestant version leaving out the apocrapha), contradict with the apocrapha(sp). The catholic version adheres to the "protestant" version, along with the apocrapha. Both believe the original version is true, therefore the sect in question is the Apocrapha, not the rest of it. And I'm a guy, for the record.

Right and you can prove that the "original version" is true how?

Wow, so much interpretation. The first quote says homosexual offenders. That is a subsection of all homosexuals. You assume that it means all homosexuals, but given the modifier homosexual and the noun offenders, that is not the case. You just use your own bigotry to interpret the Bible to say what you want.

Homosexual offendors, I believe, is an implication that homosexuality is in itself offensive to God. What would an offender mean had it been standing alone?

And you know this how? Oh wait, your interpretation. As seen by the "I believe."

The second quote is technically impossible. A man cannot have sex with a man like a woman, there is a lack of parts. That is the literal meaning. Of course you can interpret it to mean that homosexuality is bad, but that is your interpretation based on your irrational bigotry.

I'll concede to your point about the lack of parts, but since obviously sex was known back then, the author would not mean it in the completely literal way.

Why not? If you want to take the Bible literally then you have to accept it literally. You cannot say well it's literal when I want it to be, and not literal when I don't want it to be so that it will then justify my own beliefs.

You have an irrational hatred that you try to justify to make yourself feel good. Of course you would be biased against something if your dogmatic belief system said it was wrong. You just blindly follow it because of your own dogmatic acceptance of that irrational hatred.

I don't blindly follow it. If God revealed Himself to you, would you call it blind because He hasn't revealed Himself to everyone?

So what, God revealed himself to you and told you that he hates homosexuals? Right, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn likes to sleep under my bed. Do you actually have proof that he came and told you that homosexuality is wrong and that he decided to make gay sheep and homosexuality not a choice as a lark?

Please, that's semantics. What someone does makes up what they are. That means that if you hate the "sin" you hate the person. Stop trying to justify your hatred.

So if you hate bigotry, do you necissarily hate all bigots?

When the bigotry is based on an irrational hatred then I would feel animosity to that particular bigot of group of bigots. You on the other hand are generalizing what I said to mean that there are not different forms of bigotry.

[neoolong]

So God has revealed himself to you. Right. Any proof of this or do we have to take your word for it.

I don't intend for you to agree with it, just know that I am not believing these out of bais, but what I at the very least believe I've been shown.

So you have no objective proof that you were even shown that homosexuality is wrong. In fact, you say that would you in fact hold your beliefs to be based in, is what you believe yourself. That means you are justifying your actions and belief system through your own irrational beliefs. You think homosexuality is wrong because you believe so, not because you have actually been shown that it is wrong.

Remember that for many years Christians burnt people who claimed to have seen and heard things beyond the earthly pale. Anyone have some matches? Or a hessian sack and a pond?

I'm not gonna speak for every Christian who's ever done something in the name of God, but they may have well burnt all the apostles (not that I equate myself with them per se), because they all claimed to have seen God as well.

So you've seen God. Okay and you can prove this how? Or does this fall into you deciding something true because you wanted yourself to believe it?