Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is the book of Leviticus that contains 600+ laws that applied to Israel alone and only for a certain time, none of which apply to anyone since the law was "nailed" to the cross with Christ.

And yet Christians constantly quote Leviticus as justification for their homophobia. Either Leviticus has force today (and as a result all the other laws do too) or those laws ended with Jesus' sacrifice - which is it? Christians can't have it both ways. Talk about trying to have their cake and nail it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Got memories going back thousands of years, with many past lifes.

You'd think in one of them you might have learned that the proper word is "lives", not "lifes". In fact... "lifes" isn't even a word. There... you should thank me... now you'll know for your the next of your many lives.

 

[1robin]

And yet Christians constantly quote Leviticus as justification for their homophobia. Either Leviticus has force today (and as a result all the other laws do too) or those laws ended with Jesus' sacrifice - which is it? Christians can't have it both ways. Talk about trying to have their cake and nail it.

This is going to get very complicated on you in a hurry. So I will take the easy way out to begin with, but I am not sure this is the place for this debate.

My arguments against homosexuality are secular.

1. Homosexual sexual behavior does not contain any benefits which can justify it's costs.
2. Heterosexual sexual behavior does contain benefits which justify it's costs.

Unless I need more than this I usually just site the CDCs data that states that in the US the 4% of us that are homosexual create 60% of all new aids cases. I do not need to adjust that for the numbers but if I do then the rates are even unimaginably higher per person for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I also usually mention that just those aids cases alone cost us all billions and billions.

That is it, I do not need the bible and I need only that data to show that on any reasonable secular moral standard homosexual sexual behavior is unjustifiable. The threads about homosexuality I have been in have the worst arguments in defense of it than any other subject matter I have ever debated. I can swamp you in data if needed and if experience serves I can defeat every attempt to counter my two simplistic arguments above. If you will go to the homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Why do Christians care? thread and then to post #840, you will see I know every argument you will make and I explain why none of them work.

But if you actually want to discuss covenants, the law, grace, moral theory, objective morality versus absolute morality, epistemology, and ontology, etc..... Plus the Hebrew priestly class, the Levite's covenants, what laws apply to who and when, then I can definitely do that. However I hope you know your stuff because it is complicated and I can't give you all of what I have learned over several decades of research, in a debate setting.

So, pick your poison.

 

[wizanda]

now you'll know for your the next of your many lives.

Got a built in spellchecker in Firefox; just prefer it spelled like that, it makes more sense vocally.... Like adding an extra L in Pollish, so you don't sound like your for cleaning tables.

 

[1robin]

Not correct. Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

Do you really want to do this? It depends on what year, what Catechism, after what council, before or after which reformation, and in what area? Which was even alluded to several times at your own link. Why do you always ignore 90% of every post I make, and simply post color commentary about the 10% left over? I am more than justified to ignore you in this thread after what you did in the other, but I might need to kill some time so I will give you a shot.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is it, I do not need the bible and I need only that data to show that on any reasonable secular moral standard homosexual sexual behavior is unjustifiable.

And none of this argument you keep touting even matters. Especially considering it is "secular". From a platform of "secular moral standard(s)", legislating against someone's right to choose who they wish to love or have sexual relations with will never be "justifiable". "Costs" (which, as you have pointed out - exist for heterosexual behavior as much as they do homosexual) aren't going to cut it. Especially since we are, and will continue to be, an overpopulated world as it is. A particular group's inability to produce children is actually HELPING that situation, and from many standpoints SAVING MONEY. From my perspective - the leg you keep trying to stand on by using that argument is a prosthetic one made out of toothpicks and Elmer's glue.

 

[1robin]

Wrong again.

Matthew 5:18 Commentaries: "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

So, you are still bound by those 600+ laws. Including not eating bacon double cheeseburgers, peel 'n eat shrimp, or wearing poly/cotton blends (which really are an abomination - always take style and fashion advice from a gay man).

Sorry but your really in over your head with the Bible. Actually I am not going to complain, this is the first time you have posted anything that it took longer to find a fault with than it took to read. The law referred to in Mathew is most often sited in commentaries as the prophetic law.

At your own link: Shall in no wise pass from, the law — Or, from the prophets, till all be fulfilled — Till all things which the law requires, or the prophets foretel, shall be effected. This seems to be the literal translation of the original words, εως αν παντα γενηται

But let's pretend what I quoted is wrong. Let's instead assume that Jesus was saying the Levitical laws shall not pass away until all that the prophets predicted comes to pass. Then what do you do with the rest of the Bible. An example being:

English Standard Version
By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Now I know which laws were nailed to the cross and which weren't, do you? It seems your doing the same thing with the bible that you do with my posts. You are ignoring 99.9% of it and misrepresenting the .01% that is left.

However let's assume neither one of those conclusions were correct and by some miracle you correctly understood the scripture you quoted. It would not matter, even if the Levitical laws are still in effect. By this I mean they are still true, we are no longer judged by them. It may still be wrong to eat food dedicated to false God's but Christians are no longer judged by that law, we are judged by grace. The OT is called the covenant of the law for a reason, the NT is called the covenant of grace for a reason. The covenant of the law (because God found fault with it) has been replaced by a better (his words) covenant called grace (which is perfect and will stand until judgment. If you had enough biblical knowledge to keep up I could show you why that was necessary, and how vast the scriptures are that demonstrate this.

BTW other issues that point to this are many of the laws given to the Hebrews had to do with chronological things. For instance the prohibition against eating certain foods was given because certain parasites would survive the primitive cooking they used back then, some dealt with simple sanitary limitations that no longer exist, and many of them were to take place at the Temple which no longer exists. Others had to do with how the priestly class was to act and the ceremonies they were to facilitate, but Jesus himself condemned and abolished the entire Hebrew priestly class and it's institutions, because he replaced them all as the only high priest that would ever exist when he rose from the dead, and others had to do with animal sacrifice which he also abolished and replaced.

It is obvious that you were better suited to debate homosexuality than the bible, so if you failed to adequately defend what you were more qualified for, why are you now attacking that which you are woefully unprepared to discuss? Start by looking up a concept called OT types and shadows which pointed to NT realities.

 

[1robin]

And none of this argument you keep touting even matters. Especially considering it is "secular". From a platform of "secular moral standard(s)", legislating against someone's right to choose who they wish to love or have sexual relations with will never be "justifiable". "Costs" (which, as you have pointed out - exist for heterosexual behavior as much as they do homosexual) aren't going to cut it. Especially since we are, and will continue to be, an overpopulated world as it is. A particular group's inability to produce children is actually HELPING that situation, and from many standpoints SAVING MONEY. From my perspective - the leg you keep trying to stand on by using that argument is a prosthetic one made out of toothpicks and Elmer's glue.

Have all the poster's that I had to give up on in the homosexuality thread stalk me to another thread?

The person I responded to in this thread about homosexuality (which he brought up, not me) was not one of those I gave up on in the homosexual thread so I thought I would see if he fairs better than the rest of you did. I however am not going to start a new homosexual discussion with the same people that could not meaningfully counter my arguments in the original homosexual thread, and instead lost their thin veneer of civility and retreated to their default mode of pure sarcasm. I gave every one of you plenty of opportunities to post a good defense of homosexuality, heck I even tried to help you do so. You failed, I am done.

If you actually respond to my posts in this thread about the bible (without retreating to your emotional preference concerning homosexuality) I will consider responding.

Bonus: Did you know every single person alive could all stand in a single county in Florida? Maybe it was every single person who ever lived but I can't remember.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Bonus: Did you know every single person alive could all stand in a single county in Florida? Maybe it was every single person who ever lived but I can't remember.

The above point also doesn't matter - and says a lot about your thought processes. That many people could not be fed, clothed, sheltered in Florida. Done.

Also, I don't give a crap about the Bible. Yes, I just said that. And yes, I mean it.

Here's one last thing on your "secular arguments concerning cost" idea. I assume you must be pro-choice? Because, last I checked the costs surrounding unwanted pregnancy - in terms of crime drop (look up 18 years post Roe vs. Wade), welfare costs, etc. is quite amenable to a purely cost-based analysis of the situation. Abortion saves loads of money. Perhaps it isn't "justifiable"? But, who draws the line there? I know it isn't you (thank God).

 

[1robin]

The above point also doesn't matter - and says a lot about your thought processes. That many people could not be fed, clothed, sheltered in Florida. Done.

Also, I don't give a crap about the Bible. Yes, I just said that. And yes, I mean it.

Here's one last thing on your "secular arguments concerning cost" idea. I assume you must be pro-choice? Because, last I checked the costs surrounding unwanted pregnancy - in terms of crime drop (look up 18 years post Roe vs. Wade), welfare costs, etc. is quite amenable to a purely cost-based analysis of the situation. Abortion saves loads of money. Perhaps it isn't "justifiable"? But, who draws the line there? I know it isn't you (thank God).

For pity's sake, I give you a shot and this is what I get for doing so.

I didn't say anything about food, clothing, or sheltering. I just gave you a relevant fact I thought was interesting. Take a nap or something.

I do not care what you meant, I am now where I do not care what you say either, but speaking of thought processes. If you are right you will lose everything, if you are wrong you loose everything as well but you could have gained everything. If you had not been so full of anger, misery, and self gratification that you were unable to follow the evidence, and so you instead forfeited the only possible source of eternal hope. You do not get real faith by Pascal's wager but you should keep your seething and foaming at the mouth in check so you are free to investigate things objectively.

Another post from you like your recent ones and I am putting you on ignore for good.

 

[Jainarayan]

Sorry but your really in over your head with the Bible.

Nope, nope, nope. Believe it or not, I read objectively and I remember what I learned in Sister Mary Oreganata's class.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Another post from you like your recent ones and I am putting you on ignore for good.

One last thought before I go on your ignore list - heterosexuality predates homosexuality. We'll just accept that based on the most rudimentary of logic. And even if you believe homosexuality is all decision/sin based, with environmental factors predisposing people to the behavior, then you still have to admit that a world full of HETEROSEXUALS gave rise to the first homosexual. In fact, people having babies - which you seem to hail as worth all the "costs" associated - produces homosexuals. A percentage of all babies born, all the time. So... if you really want to point a finger at who is responsible, I'd say it is the heterosexual activity that "birthed" homosexuality - literally, if people are homosexuals from birth, and figuratively if it is caused by environmental factors such as abuse, neglect, etc.

P.S. Guess how many people I have on my ignore list? You guessed right! Zero. I don't scared.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

What they did to Brittany spears was horrible.

 

[1robin]

One last thought before I go on your ignore list - heterosexuality predates homosexuality. We'll just accept that based on the most rudimentary of logic. And even if you believe homosexuality is all decision/sin based, with environmental factors predisposing people to the behavior, then you still have to admit that a world full of HETEROSEXUALS gave rise to the first homosexual. In fact, people having babies - which you seem to hail as worth all the "costs" associated - produces homosexuals. A percentage of all babies born, all the time. So... if you really want to point a finger at who is responsible, I'd say it is the heterosexual activity that "birthed" homosexuality - literally, if people are homosexuals from birth, and figuratively if it is caused by environmental factors such as abuse, neglect, etc.

P.S. Guess how many people I have on my ignore list? You guessed right! Zero. I don't scared.

You don't grammared. Regardless your gone.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You don't grammared. Regardless your gone.

The "mistake" was purposeful. In other words... I meant to "not grammar."

Also, you meant "you're gone." Not "your gone." And I KNOW you didn't mean to make your mistake.

I saw in another thread where you lauded all your PhD's and learning to someone, trying to bolster your importance or something, I guess. Although you very quickly degenerated and even started calling out some of the credentials your cousin had going for him... no joke... it was pretty entertaining. I have dog that rarely misses catching things when I throw them to her. Does that make my arguments any more credible, do you think?

 

[Vinayaka]

Imprisoning people for their beliefs is barbaric.

Obviously, assuming the beliefs aren't barbaric. But a murderer will say, "The person I killed deserved to die," believing that. I think he deserves imprisonment, if only to protect the rest of us from him acting on his same belief in another case.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

This is going to get very complicated on you in a hurry. So I will take the easy way out to begin with, but I am not sure this is the place for this debate.

My arguments against homosexuality are secular.

1. Homosexual sexual behavior does not contain any benefits which can justify it's costs.
2. Heterosexual sexual behavior does contain benefits which justify it's costs.

Unless I need more than this I usually just site the CDCs data that states that in the US the 4% of us that are homosexual create 60% of all new aids cases. I do not need to adjust that for the numbers but if I do then the rates are even unimaginably higher per person for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I also usually mention that just those aids cases alone cost us all billions and billions.

Three things:

1. You went down this line of argument before, were called out on it and defeated;
2. I'm pretty sure you've used these same statistics in the past in a dishonest way and were called out on it;
3. None of this addresses my point.

That is it, I do not need the bible and I need only that data to show that on any reasonable secular moral standard homosexual sexual behavior is unjustifiable. The threads about homosexuality I have been in have the worst arguments in defense of it than any other subject matter I have ever debated. I can swamp you in data if needed and if experience serves I can defeat every attempt to counter my two simplistic arguments above. If you will go to the homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Why do Christians care? thread and then to post #840, you will see I know every argument you will make and I explain why none of them work.

But if you actually want to discuss covenants, the law, grace, moral theory, objective morality versus absolute morality, epistemology, and ontology, etc..... Plus the Hebrew priestly class, the Levite's covenants, what laws apply to who and when, then I can definitely do that. However I hope you know your stuff because it is complicated and I can't give you all of what I have learned over several decades of research, in a debate setting.

So, pick your poison.

None of this addresses what I said in my previous post. Christianity wouldn't be so virulently homophobic if it weren't for Christians trying to follow religious laws they simultaneously believe should apply & that Jesus freed them from.

 

[1robin]

Nope, nope, nope. Believe it or not, I read objectively and I remember what I learned in Sister Mary Oreganata's class.

I will agree that your posts about the bible are far better (even if ultimately unsuccessful) than those you made in the homosexual thread. That is why I have responded to your posts in this thread even though I had to give up on you in the other thread. In the other thread it only took me the time to read your posts on homosexuality to see all the faults in your argumentation. However you have still merely made drive by color commentaries here, I hope you will spend more time on your responses here than you did there. Your merely stating that you do in fact know about religion is meaningless. If you actually do then you will have plenty of chances to prove it, merely responding with "Nu - uh" is not an argument, it is a declaration. I did respond to you in depth, why do you never do so your self? I am afraid that if your biblical teachers were Catholics your understanding of the bible may be distorted. Catholics are very good at many things, but proper biblical exegesis and hermeneutics are not among them.

BTW do you realize that if your argument about the law is true then you have just claimed that homosexuality is an abomination? Leave you guys alone long enough and your arguments will always begin to eat themselves. Regardless it appears that you might be able to post a challenging argument in this context, so bring it on.

 

[viole]

This is going to get very complicated on you in a hurry. So I will take the easy way out to begin with, but I am not sure this is the place for this debate.

My arguments against homosexuality are secular.

1. Homosexual sexual behavior does not contain any benefits which can justify it's costs.
2. Heterosexual sexual behavior does contain benefits which justify it's costs.

Unless I need more than this I usually just site the CDCs data that states that in the US the 4% of us that are homosexual create 60% of all new aids cases. I do not need to adjust that for the numbers but if I do then the rates are even unimaginably higher per person for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I also usually mention that just those aids cases alone cost us all billions and billions.

That is it, I do not need the bible and I need only that data to show that on any reasonable secular moral standard homosexual sexual behavior is unjustifiable. The threads about homosexuality I have been in have the worst arguments in defense of it than any other subject matter I have ever debated. I can swamp you in data if needed and if experience serves I can defeat every attempt to counter my two simplistic arguments above. If you will go to the homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Why do Christians care? thread and then to post #840, you will see I know every argument you will make and I explain why none of them work.

But if you actually want to discuss covenants, the law, grace, moral theory, objective morality versus absolute morality, epistemology, and ontology, etc..... Plus the Hebrew priestly class, the Levite's covenants, what laws apply to who and when, then I can definitely do that. However I hope you know your stuff because it is complicated and I can't give you all of what I have learned over several decades of research, in a debate setting.

So, pick your poison.

What do you think of strict female homosexuality? In terms of secular costs, of course. Just assume, for a second, that this is the only form of homosexuality existing.

So, what do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

I will agree that your posts about the bible are far better (even if ultimately unsuccessful) than those you made in the homosexual thread. That is why I have responded to your posts in this thread even though I had to give up on you in the other thread.

Wow, I'm blessed and honored. May I continue to live?

BTW do you realize that if your argument about the law is true then you have just claimed that homosexuality is an abomination? Leave you guys alone long enough and your arguments will always begin to eat themselves. Regardless it appears that you might be able to post a challenging argument in this context, so bring it on.

I care what the bible says only inasmuch as people don't use it to treat us ill. Biblical law is meaningless to me; what it considers an abomination is irrelevant to me. In fact, with the exception of the three synoptic gospels (sans the miracles and divinity parts... oh wait, that's the Jefferson Bible!), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and maybe another book or three, the entire bible is irrelevant to me.

Because you only accept responses that are regurgitations of your own, I am left with only drive-by color commentaries.