world population

Um, no you dismissed them for some other reason I suppose.
Yes, much of their culture was violent and based on myths and taboos with no grounding in our reality. I don't mind that they lived the way they did, I object to people trying to live that way now for the same reasons.

I have not condemned gays. Go ahead and find a quote. But remember that condemning a gay person is very very different than disagreeing with their agenda.
So you have not voted to deny legal equality to gay and trans people? And you would vote to support equality? If this is true, then you have remained very quiet about it while posting to me.

Aren't you the one who said that ancient cultures were accepting of gays?
Not the nomadic goatherders, going all the way back to Hammurabi who wrote much of the Mosaic Law, but he called it the Code of Hammurabi. The South Sea Islanders, the Japanese, indigenous American cultures, many tribal cultures all over the world, most of the various goddess religions accepted gay and trans people. In Elizabethan England they recognized 4 sexes: male, female, tommies, and mollies. Remember the Molly Maguires? How about Tomboys? Even the Catholic church married gay people, including some of the saints.

I don't advocate punishing gay or TG people. And I do attempt to follow the 6 words.
Do you support equality? If not, you are de facto supporting our persecution.

You have been wrong so many times and have based what you say on so many myths that I suspect if we started a thread for each of those we would find them not to be as egregious as you think.
Again I am sure those include exaggerations of the truth.
You sound like a Holocaust Revisionist. Do you know I'm wrong? Have you checked? Or are you just indulging in wishful thinking? Why don't you tell me which of the things I have wrong? Did Joan of Arc get burned at the stake for refusing to wear women's clothing? Have you read the trial transcript? I have. Vague denials are not evidence, Who.
 
Werbung:
If the bible is the inspired word of God then all that was in the original is inspired
and therefore 100% credible. If on the other hand it was not inspired then even what you consider to be a gem holds no God given credibility at all.

There is no basis to accept only a part of the original book - it must be all or nothing. Once you start voting on what to take out and what to leave in based on your own sensibilities you might as well just start from scratch and write your very own work.

Not everyone who took pen in hand to write the words that appear in the Bible was inspired by god. The Bible is a collection of ancient books, nothing more or less. There is both wisdom and dross there, just as there is in any modern library. No, I disagree that the Bible has to be all or nothing.

Was the part of the Bible I cited here inspired by god?
 
The point was that just because a lot of people believe something, that doesn't make it right. The goatherder point was that we don't have to continue to believe the myths and taboos of primitive people. You are only offended by the "goatherder" reference because you hold them in contempt, you don't like to think of yourself in that context despite the fact that you are pushing the same taboos and myths that they did. At least they had an excuse: they were primitive and had no education. What excuse do you have? They didn't have Jesus' two most important commandments either, but you do, so why are you ignoring Jesus and emulating goatherders?

I believe that the people who were given the command to love god and each other had a rich culture and that you know little about the reality of it other than the myths you think are true.

I hold some of the same ideas because the ideas came from God and stand regardless of who believes them.

I do my best to be consistent with the teachings to love God and neighbor as best I can and how I see it. You see things very differently. Because you see things differently that does not mean that I am ignoring Jesus. Both the Hebrews and I and most Christians see things the same - you are the outlier.
 
Yes, much of their culture was violent and based on myths and taboos with no grounding in our reality. I don't mind that they lived the way they did, I object to people trying to live that way now for the same reasons.

Sure their culture had problems. I can recognize that and separate the problems from what God expected of them. I would embrace the best that God wanted for them as well as the what God wants for us. Which is to love God and neighbor as well as more.

So you have not voted to deny legal equality to gay and trans people? And you would vote to support equality? If this is true, then you have remained very quiet about it while posting to me.

I am not a legislature, I have never had a chance to vote on it either way.

I would certainly support equaility - in pay, in recognition, in free access to the fruits of society, etc.. I would not want them to be restricted by the same marriage laws that restrict breeders because those laws would not be approprite for them. I have said that maybe a hundred times here on this forum.

Not the nomadic goatherders, going all the way back to Hammurabi who wrote much of the Mosaic Law, but he called it the Code of Hammurabi.

That is conjecture. I say it is equally possible that both the law of hammurabi and the mosaic law reflect another earlier law. Which is why there are similarities.

The South Sea Islanders, the Japanese, indigenous American cultures, many tribal cultures all over the world, most of the various goddess religions accepted gay and trans people. In Elizabethan England they recognized 4 sexes: male, female, tommies, and mollies. Remember the Molly Maguires? How about Tomboys? Even the Catholic church married gay people, including some of the saints.

So I take it you would not dismiss the ideas of these people. How convenient.

Do you support equality? If not, you are de facto supporting our persecution
.

yes. all people should experience the same benefits of society except for criminals who lose their freedom. But at times laws must restrict peoples rights and it must do so in the least restrictive way possible. To apply laws that restrict the rights of breeders to non-breeders is excessive restriction. I do not support granting manay priveleges to breeders just becase they also have been restricted by marriage laws. In fact I would prefer that the state did not engage in writing any marriage laws at all - but pragmatically they must regulate the raising of children and the care of dependent spouses.



You sound like a Holocaust Revisionist. Do you know I'm wrong? Have you checked? Or are you just indulging in wishful thinking? Why don't you tell me which of the things I have wrong? Did Joan of Arc get burned at the stake for refusing to wear women's clothing? Have you read the trial transcript? I have. Vague denials are not evidence, Who.[/QUOTE]


Yes Joan was burned. It was almost all politically motivated. It was king Charles vii who ordered her burned and it was pope Callixtus iii who found her innocent and declared her a martyr. Had she not engaged in rallying armys in the French/English war no one would have cared enough to imprison her and kill her. I still suggest tht you start a new thread for any one you think you can win.
 
I believe that the people who were given the command to love god and each other had a rich culture and that you know little about the reality of it other than the myths you think are true.

I hold some of the same ideas because the ideas came from God and stand regardless of who believes them.

I do my best to be consistent with the teachings to love God and neighbor as best I can and how I see it. You see things very differently. Because you see things differently that does not mean that I am ignoring Jesus. Both the Hebrews and I and most Christians see things the same - you are the outlier.

That's what they said about Jesus too because He refused to be a member of the herd. His teachings were extremely radical for His time and culture. For some reason you want to cling to all the crap along with the gems, whereas I wish to cull the gems from the crap and let the crap go down the drain of history.

We know better now than to stone women who are not virgins on their marriage beds, not to have slaves, not to sell children, not to take women as spoils of war, not to torture mentally ill people to drive out demons, not to persecute left-handed people, not to stigmatize crippled people or people with birth defects (unless they happen to be transsexuals--and then it's still acceptable), not to deny women equality, not to condemn interfaith or interracial marriages, not to stigmatize women while they are having their period, not to worry about mixing fibers in clothes or crops in fields, we stopped labeling foods as unclean (like pigs and shellfish), but with all our advancements we still have this taboo about being homosexual despite all the scientific evidence that points to it being a non-issue.

Loving others as yourself can hardly be expressed by disenfranchisement, stigmatization, and denial of legal equality against people who are doing no harm.
 
Not everyone who took pen in hand to write the words that appear in the Bible was inspired by god.

That is conjecture.


The Bible is a collection of ancient books, nothing more or less.

Conjecture.

There is both wisdom and dross there, just as there is in any modern library. No, I disagree that the Bible has to be all or nothing.

If inspired it must be all good. Since you do not think it was inspired obviously you would hold that idea.

If not inspired when Jesus says that the most important thing is to love the d of the Hebrews on what basis could anyone agree with that? One can only believe that is a great statement if the words of Jesus were inspired.

In fact, Lewis wrote a whole treatise called "liar, lunatic, or Lord". since Jesus claimed to be God he either was God and therefore Lord or he was not in which case he was a liar or a lunatic. If He was Lord then clearly the bible is inspired. If liar or lunatic then He was completely wrong in claiming to be God.

Was the part of the Bible I cited here inspired by god?

You quoted at least 12 different verses. Much to much to discuss just now. Feel free to start a new thread on any one of them. All of them were inspired, though often misunderstood by today's reader.
 
That's what they said about Jesus too because He refused to be a member of the herd. His teachings were extremely radical for His time and culture. For some reason you want to cling to all the crap along with the gems, whereas I wish to cull the gems from the crap and let the crap go down the drain of history.

We know better now than to stone women who are not virgins on their marriage beds, not to have slaves, not to sell children, not to take women as spoils of war, not to torture mentally ill people to drive out demons, not to persecute left-handed people, not to stigmatize crippled people or people with birth defects (unless they happen to be transsexuals--and then it's still acceptable), not to deny women equality, not to condemn interfaith or interracial marriages, not to stigmatize women while they are having their period, not to worry about mixing fibers in clothes or crops in fields, we stopped labeling foods as unclean (like pigs and shellfish), but with all our advancements we still have this taboo about being homosexual despite all the scientific evidence that points to it being a non-issue.

Loving others as yourself can hardly be expressed by disenfranchisement, stigmatization, and denial of legal equality against people who are doing no harm.

It is an impressive list from someone who seems to have a messiah complex. I would warn the reader to be aware that a large list of garbage is still just garbage. MT rarely understands any biblical passage the way the rest of the civilized world does.

I too do not like the negative attitudes people have toward gay people. I think everyone should be treated with love to the best of ones ability. But thta does not mean that they are treated like breeders- because they re just not biologically able to breed and marriage laws would be a restriction of their rights to have sex with anyone they want to.
 
Sure their culture had problems. I can recognize that and separate the problems from what God expected of them. I would embrace the best that God wanted for them as well as the what God wants for us. Which is to love God and neighbor as well as more.
Yes, save the good and dispose of the useless or bad things.

I am not a legislature, I have never had a chance to vote on it either way.
You aren't a registered voter? Lots of amendments have been voted on by the people.

I would certainly support equaility - in pay, in recognition, in free access to the fruits of society, etc.. I would not want them to be restricted by the same marriage laws that restrict breeders because those laws would not be approprite for them. I have said that maybe a hundred times here on this forum.
And every time you post that you duck the real question that arises from your statement: Do you support marriage ONLY for people having children? Will you make marriage a legal contract for ONLY the people who are willing and able to have children and deny it to all others? If not, then you are still punishing us. You continually avoid the truth in that just as many sterile hetero couples use science to help them have children, so do many gay couples--especially lesbians. Do these people merit marriage or are their families "less than" your family and not deserving of equality. I am highlighting the piece above so that you will perhaps address it instead of running away as you have every time before.

That is conjecture. I say it is equally possible that both the law of hammurabi and the mosaic law reflect another earlier law. Which is why there are similarities.
It's not actually conjecture, Hammurabi predated Christianity by nearly 2500 years and he is credited with the first codified law that was applied to everyone in his empire. I have even explained why we have a double standard in relation to male and female homosexuality in our culture and that this too stems from Hammurabi's edicts.

So I take it you would not dismiss the ideas of these people. How convenient.
No, that's not the point at all, over and over again I hear that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that gays and transsexuals have never been accepted as normal people, my point is that this view of history is wrong. This narrow view of history is based on a lack of historical knowledge. There used to be people here in the US who said that dark skinned people had always been slaves because dark skin was the Mark of Cain and God condemned these people to servitude because of Cain's murder of Abel. That too is a demonstration of poor historical knowledge.

yes. all people should experience the same benefits of society except for criminals who lose their freedom. But at times laws must restrict peoples rights and it must do so in the least restrictive way possible. To apply laws that restrict the rights of breeders to non-breeders is excessive restriction. I do not support granting manay priveleges to breeders just becase they also have been restricted by marriage laws. In fact I would prefer that the state did not engage in writing any marriage laws at all - but pragmatically they must regulate the raising of children and the care of dependent spouses.
Ducked it again, didn't you.

Yes Joan was burned. It was almost all politically motivated. It was king Charles vii who ordered her burned and it was pope Callixtus iii who found her innocent and declared her a martyr. Had she not engaged in rallying armys in the French/English war no one would have cared enough to imprison her and kill her. I still suggest that you start a new thread for any one you think you can win.
Your description runs counter to the trial transcript. According to the prosecutor she was burned for basically what we would call crimes against God because she refused to wear women's clothing or act like a woman.
 
That is conjecture.
Conjecture.

If inspired it must be all good. Since you do not think it was inspired obviously you would hold that idea.

If not inspired when Jesus says that the most important thing is to love the d of the Hebrews on what basis could anyone agree with that? One can only believe that is a great statement if the words of Jesus were inspired.

In fact, Lewis wrote a whole treatise called "liar, lunatic, or Lord". since Jesus claimed to be God he either was God and therefore Lord or he was not in which case he was a liar or a lunatic. If He was Lord then clearly the bible is inspired. If liar or lunatic then He was completely wrong in claiming to be God.

You quoted at least 12 different verses. Much to much to discuss just now. Feel free to start a new thread on any one of them. All of them were inspired, though often misunderstood by today's reader.

All religion is conjecture, you have zero proof that God had anything to do with the writing of the Bible.
 
It is an impressive list from someone who seems to have a messiah complex. I would warn the reader to be aware that a large list of garbage is still just garbage. MT rarely understands any biblical passage the way the rest of the civilized world does.
Cheap shot, Who, I have noted that Hitler was a trail breaker too. Your cheap shots like that do nothing to enhance your credibility.

None of those things need to be supported by scripture, all of them are things done by Christians in historical literature with no reference to the Bible at all. Some of those things cannot be supported by any scripture that I've ever found, but that didn't stop Christians from doing them--in much the same way that transsexuals are attacked and condemned despite the fact that there is no mention of transsexuals or gender identity in the Bible.

I too do not like the negative attitudes people have toward gay people. I think everyone should be treated with love to the best of ones ability. But thta does not mean that they are treated like breeders- because they re just not biologically able to breed and marriage laws would be a restriction of their rights to have sex with anyone they want to.
You are being deliberately disingenuous here, you've posted this argument several times, but you have not supported it nor have you addressed my responses to the argument. You seem to be operating on the theory that a lie told often enough will soon gain the substance of truth.

I've asked before, but I will ask again. What about the large number of children that gay parents have the same way that sterile heteros have them?
I would also like you to delineate the "restrictions" that hetero suffer under and that you wish to rescue homosexuals from. Part of what makes your argument disingenuous is that you catagorically refuse to address the more than 1000 rights and privileges guaranteed to legally married people under US law. I'm waiting, Dr. Who.
 
That is conjecture.




Conjecture.



If inspired it must be all good. Since you do not think it was inspired obviously you would hold that idea.

If not inspired when Jesus says that the most important thing is to love the d of the Hebrews on what basis could anyone agree with that? One can only believe that is a great statement if the words of Jesus were inspired.

In fact, Lewis wrote a whole treatise called "liar, lunatic, or Lord". since Jesus claimed to be God he either was God and therefore Lord or he was not in which case he was a liar or a lunatic. If He was Lord then clearly the bible is inspired. If liar or lunatic then He was completely wrong in claiming to be God.



You quoted at least 12 different verses. Much to much to discuss just now. Feel free to start a new thread on any one of them. All of them were inspired, though often misunderstood by today's reader.

Yes, I quoted at least 12 different verses, none of which are inspired, and all of which are just downright silly, regardless of how they are read and interpreted.

The Bible is a collection of ancient books, as I just said. They were written by men, mostly in languages now dead, and translated into modern tongues by the hand of man, and with the errors that are inevitable in human enterprises.

Some of them are allegories (the great flood), some are accounts of legends (the raising of Lazerus) some are accounts of ancient myths (the garden of Eden), some have words to live by (love thy neighbor), some are accounts of actual historical people, but none of them were written by the hand of god. Like anything else, the Bible has to be read and interpreted for what it is, a collection of stories.

To think it is the word of god and to believe that all of it is correct, it is necessary to believe that people should be stoned to death for a variety of sins.

All of which doesn't prove that there is no god, only that the Bible is a book written by his creations: Us.
 
You aren't a registered voter? Lots of amendments have been voted on by the people.


I live in Illinois. Some quick checking on the net reveals that there was a failed initiative to place a ballot to amend the Il. constitution (to ban gay marriage) in 2006. I never voted on it because it never made it to ballot.

In fact I petitioned to not have a constitutional convention completely unaware of that initiative.

And had it come to ballot I would have voted not to ban gay marriage. That is not the role of government. If the opposite initiative made it to ballot I would have voted not to create gay marriage - that is not the role of government.
 
And every time you post that you duck the real question that arises from your statement: Do you support marriage ONLY for people having children? Will you make marriage a legal contract for ONLY the people who are willing and able to have children and deny it to all others? If not, then you are still punishing us. You continually avoid the truth in that just as many sterile hetero couples use science to help them have children, so do many gay couples--especially lesbians. Do these people merit marriage or are their families "less than" your family and not deserving of equality. I am highlighting the piece above so that you will perhaps address it instead of running away as you have every time before.

Having a family is not at all the same as creating children. Adoption is a separate issue and I support gay adoptions.

Any gay couple that uses artificial insemination to create a child is still engaging in the straight breeding process because they still used an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man. The laws on marriage and breeding already cover these scenarios.

As long as gay people are not capable of generating new life the laws that address what should happen when people create new life don't apply. Marriage laws are for breeders and those who cannot be distinguished from breeders by the state in any reasonable way. It is unfair to infertile couples to be lumped in with fertile couples and treated the same but that is the way it has to be unless the state starts conducting fertility investigations.

I have expressed this view here on this forum before.

If one takes the state out of it then I think anyone who wants to can conduct the ceremony of their choice however they see fit.
 
It's not actually conjecture, Hammurabi predated Christianity by nearly 2500 years and he is credited with the first codified law that was applied to everyone in his empire. I have even explained why we have a double standard in relation to male and female homosexuality in our culture and that this too stems from Hammurabi's edicts.


How is it at all relevant in comparing the code of Hammurabi with the Mosaic law that it predated Christianity? The code of Ham. is guessed to have been written between ca. 1792 – 1686 BC and Christianity was founded in the first century.

Meanwhile Moses is guessed to have written his code between 1500 and 1200 BC.

The widest gap between those dates is 1792 minus 1200 = 592 years.
The shortest gap between those dates is 1886 minus 1500 = 386 years.

Given the sketchy nature of dating one is hard pressed to definitively state through archeology alone that the one really did precede the other.

However the bible supports the hypothesized view that Hammurabi predated Moses:

"Another speculation made by some Bible scholars is that Nimrod, mentioned in the Bible, could be Hammurabi, since they both had similar military exploits, and because the name “Hammurabi” could be interpreted “Ham the Great”. According to the Bible, Nimrod was Ham’s (the son of Noah) grandson.9 Some argue that since Hammurabi lived about the same time as Abraham and the patriarchs, and Moses lived about 400 years after Abraham, Moses must have just borrowed and revised the Code of Hammurabi to fit the needs of Israel rather than God Himself writing the Levitical Law and Ten Commandments. “According to Genesis 26 'God had revealed a legal code to someone, for Abraham lived under it; because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws.' Originally Abraham lived in Babylonia. God called him out of that heathen environment and brought him into the kingdom of Melchizedek, whose capitol was Salem, the ancient name of Jerusalem. Melchizedek was king and 'priest of God Most High.' Since he was sovereign of the Kingdom of God on earth, as it existed at that time, the laws and statutes enforced were probably the laws mentioned in Genesis 26:5. 'It is reasonable to suppose that Hammurabi was aquatinted with this primitive revelation and saw the value of certain laws. These he copied and incorporated into his code.”10"


In other words the code that Abraham obeyed could have been the inspiration for both the Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic code (and God would have been the inspiration for both the code Abraham obeyed and the one that Moses wrote down).
 
Werbung:
Your description runs counter to the trial transcript. According to the prosecutor she was burned for basically what we would call crimes against God because she refused to wear women's clothing or act like a woman.


Uh, right. It is not like king Charles vii didn't have any say in how the trial he called was conducted. He wouldn't be the first king to gather support for his position by claiming religious affirmation.

According to this anti-catholic site (which I know you will like):

" At Compiègne on May 23, 1430 Joan was captured and sent to the English. It wouldn't seem noble for the English to admit Joan bested them on the battle fields let alone execute her for it, so they fabricated lies and had Joan tried for being a heretic by Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais, a partisan for the English cause. She was placed on trial in Rouen by the RCC clergy who sided with the English. Condemned and executed on the same day, May 30, 1431, Joan was later proclaimed pure and a saint by the same RCC. "
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/soulseeking0/rcc.html

As of now, I too have reviewed the transcript of "the Maid". They were not happy with her for a variety of reasons. Defeating them in war would clearly be a factor despite the fact that they officially state that they don't have a problem with her leading the French in war against them. (riiiiight, I believe that.)
 
Back
Top