Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[1robin]

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.

Wait a minute, I responded to your claims about homosexuality only because I did not think I had debated you in the thread on homosexuality. If I have then I will stop after this response.

1. That is exactly what did not happen. If you think that anything that has ever been said in any homosexual thread even touched my two arguments your fooling your self. The reason I debate is to encounter good arguments, only when I do can I learn anything, feel challenged, and either change, perfect, or discard my arguments. I will give you one opportunity to copy and paste the argument you feel best challenged my two claims about homosexual sexual behavior. The fact you didn't and instead tried to argue by proxy (or mere declaration) suggests you can't and won't.
2. I copied and pasted those statistic straight from the CDC web site. It is their data, their conclusions, and their official position. Is the CDC lying about homosexuality too, if you think so you have a very bad victimhood complex?
3. What point was that?

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.

Oh yes it did, but your claims are so vacuous they do not merit addressing. You do not understand Christianity so your merely creating straw men.

Regardless let me try to get you up to speed. You seem to be far out of touch with Christian doctrine, so I am not sure I can invest enough time to get you on board with subjects as complex as dispensations, covenants, and the law. If you do not believe in God then it is understandable that you would have not have spent enough time researching the bible, but then again you shouldn't be criticizing things you know little about. Here is a preliminary and brief explanation of those 3 things above.

1. Covenants have to do with the relationship of humanity with God. The Hebrews were under the covenant of the law, Christ's first coming ended that covenant and instituted the covenant of grace.
2. God said he made the new covenant which is (perfect) to replace the covenant of the law which it says God found imperfect (faulty). Now this requires a lot of explanation but can only be done with a person who has a good grasp of the bible and it is not necessary here anyway.
3. The law has many divisions including spiritual laws, Levitical laws, the deca-law, etc.... The laws your talking about are Levitical laws.
4. There are over 600 of these laws, if you will actually look them up you will see that all of them were given to the Hebrews, many to the priestly class, many were ceremonial laws, many were laws that have nothing to do with morality like sanitation for example. Since a huge proportion of those laws literally cannot be performed by anyone since about 70AD and the purpose for those laws has been fulfilled, it is easy to see they no longer apply.
5. Those laws were given to the Hebrews only, and only applied for a period of time. The purpose of those laws was to hold Israel to a higher standard than other tribes because God had promised Abraham that he would use his descendants as a conduit for his revelation and his messiah. The reason being he wanted Israel to stand out so that whatever he did through them would have the maximum effect. That purpose has been accomplished, the revelations and the prophets that he raised up in a tiny backwater of the Roman empire have reached every single nation on Earth. It is the only religion that has.
6. So the original purpose of the law has been completed, but the principles behind many of those laws are still true. The Hebrews no longer stone disobedient children, but a child's disobedience is still sinful.
7. So no matter what you believe about the law, we live in the covenant of grace. The law can no longer condemn Christians because we are judged by grace not the law. Grace means to receive that which we do not deserve.

I have had so many problems in my lab today that it has taken me 4 hours to finish this post. I probably needed to be more detailed but I just do not have the time.

 

[wizanda]

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.

Actually only the first two were mentioned in Levitical Laws, yet can also be seen in Genesis given to Noah; the rest are all of the 10 commandments, which Yeshua and Paul specified we still have to follow.

For pity's sake we do not sacrifice anyone

By saying Christ died for you, you're guilty of first degree murder, as you're as bad as your forefathers who did it.

the wine and bread are symbols of what Christ gave up for us

Yeshua told his disciples 'not to drink of the vine until the coming of the kingdom', to drink the blood of the offering was established by Paul.

we do not worship death

Believing that through Yeshua's death you will receive eternal life, is a covenant with death as disannulled in Isaiah 28.

which is why we need a savior to begin with.

Another mans righteousness, can not cover you in the day of your iniquity; especially not by murdering him, and washing in his blood.

we do not worship another's mind

Paul tells people 'to desire (covet) the mind of Christ'.

how old are you?

39 in this life.

Now maybe you are trying to say that Jesus was not the Messiah.

Yeshua never claimed to be the Messiah back then, as Messianic prophecy hasn't happened yet, and is still to come....

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Wait a minute, I responded to your claims about homosexuality only because I did not think I had debated you in the thread on homosexuality. If I have then I will stop after this response.

1. That is exactly what did not happen. If you think that anything that has ever been said in any homosexual thread even touched my two arguments your fooling your self.

Then you'll know that @columbus - someone who has worked with AIDS patients in the past - told you that the CDC does not track new AIDS cases. He also told you the primary causes of HIV/AIDS are poverty, ignorance & insecurity. As somebody who's had to personally deal with the sHe would know, unlike you who can't even distinguish between correlation & causation.

The reason I debate is to encounter good arguments, only when I do can I learn anything, feel challenged, and either change, perfect, or discard my arguments. I will give you one opportunity to copy and paste the argument you feel best challenged my two claims about homosexual sexual behavior. The fact you didn't and instead tried to argue by proxy (or mere declaration) suggests you can't and won't.
2. I copied and pasted those statistic straight from the CDC web site. It is their data, their conclusions, and their official position. Is the CDC lying about homosexuality too, if you think so you have a very bad victimhood complex?

Funny, I don't see a link anywhere in that post of yours. How do I know you got them from the CDC? And what victimhood complex would this be? I'm straight.

You've also claimed elsewhere that the CDC is "biased towards homosexuality" so what are you even doing quoting them since apparently they're so ireedemably biased?

3. What point was that?

That Christians are trying to have their cake & eat it when it comes to their theological justifications for how gays are treated.

Oh yes it did, but your claims are so vacuous they do not merit addressing. You do not understand Christianity so your merely creating straw men.

You just said you didn't know what my point was so you can't possibly know if it was vacuous or not. Do try and keep up with yourself.

My point was that Christians say Christ's crucifixion ended the requirement to adhere to the Mosaic Law (which the Leviticus pronouncements on gay people were a part of) but they still use these same scriptures to this day to justify their homophobia.

Regardless let me try to get you up to speed. You seem to be far out of touch with Christian doctrine, so I am not sure I can invest enough time to get you on board with subjects as complex as dispensations, covenants, and the law. If you do not believe in God then it is understandable that you would have not have spent enough time researching the bible, but then again you shouldn't be criticizing things you know little about. Here is a preliminary and brief explanation of those 3 things above.

1. Covenants have to do with the relationship of humanity with God. The Hebrews were under the covenant of the law, Christ's first coming ended that covenant and instituted the covenant of grace.
2. God said he made the new covenant which is (perfect) to replace the covenant of the law which it says God found imperfect (faulty). Now this requires a lot of explanation but can only be done with a person who has a good grasp of the bible and it is not necessary here anyway.
3. The law has many divisions including spiritual laws, Levitical laws, the deca-law, etc.... The laws your talking about are Levitical laws.
4. There are over 600 of these laws, if you will actually look them up you will see that all of them were given to the Hebrews, many to the priestly class, many were ceremonial laws, many were laws that have nothing to do with morality like sanitation for example. Since a huge proportion of those laws literally cannot be performed by anyone since about 70AD and the purpose for those laws has been fulfilled, it is easy to see they no longer apply.
5. Those laws were given to the Hebrews only, and only applied for a period of time. The purpose of those laws was to hold Israel to a higher standard than other tribes because God had promised Abraham that he would use his descendants as a conduit for his revelation and his messiah. The reason being he wanted Israel to stand out so that whatever he did through them would have the maximum effect. That purpose has been accomplished, the revelations and the prophets that he raised up in a tiny backwater of the Roman empire have reached every single nation on Earth. It is the only religion that has.
6. So the original purpose of the law has been completed, but the principles behind many of those laws are still true. The Hebrews no longer stone disobedient children, but a child's disobedience is still sinful.
7. So no matter what you believe about the law, we live in the covenant of grace. The law can no longer condemn Christians because we are judged by grace not the law. Grace means to receive that which we do not deserve.

I have had so many problems in my lab today that it has taken me 4 hours to finish this post. I probably needed to be more detailed but I just do not have the time.

Thanks for proving my point. Christians who are homophobic claim the efficacy of Christ's crucifixion in releasing them from the Mosaic Law but they then use that law (which according to them is defunct; and only ever applied to the Jews anyway) as justification for being cruel to LGBTs. Aka having their cake and eating it.

 

[1robin]

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

I was excited to see that you posted me even if you still haven't went back to the avatar picture I liked. Then I saw you asked about homosexuality. I will answer you but first I need to give you some context.

I had posted in two homosexual threads previously. I had never thought much about homosexuality and so I just wanted to see if the two simplistic secular arguments I had thought up would withstand scrutiny. To my surprise no one posted anything that even touched my two arguments. I spent weeks in those threads waiting for someone to post a knockout blow to my position. It never came, but I did learn a lot about what is used in the attempt to rationalize the behavior. I found out that only about 3 or 4 types of arguments defending homosexuality existed, but that people had about 2 dozen ways of articulating those types of arguments. So I went into a 3rd homosexual thread and I got the exact same types of rationalizations. So I types up all the types of arguments that do not work and why they don't. I got nothing but sarcasm and ranting about meaningless secondary issues. I also got 10 times the number of responses in that thread than all the other threads I was in combined.

I finally concluded what was going on and it explains everything. Those who defend homosexuality are merely defending an emotional preference. Facts only make that type of person mad, arguments only confuse them, it is said that to give truth to those who love it not only increases the areas of contention. That sums it up perfectly and so I will probably never post in a homosexual thread again.

Anyway, to your points. And I make a single exception to my new never debate anyone on homosexuality policy in your case. I will not debate it with anyone else.

First let me point out that if you go to the Homosexuality and Homosexual marriage, why do Christians care? thread and look at post #840 you will find all the arguments that do not work. Two of which apply to your questions above.

1. To arbitrarily subdivide the group referred to as homosexuals further is to make a debate impossible. It is impractical to debate only left handed homosexuals, homosexuals above 6' tall, red haired homosexuals, or only black homosexuals, etc......

2. Also sub categorization usually only serves to modulate the magnitude of how unjustified a behavior is. There are still many problems with female - female homosexuality but still no benefits which sufficiently compensate for the cost.

On a side note, every single female homosexual I know is either dead, in jail, or has left their child to fiend for it's self. She is a beautiful young lady which is now going from foster home to foster home. But my sample size is too small to base any arguments upon.

 

[1robin]

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

Well who blessed you? The only blesser out there you deny. I do not choose who lives and dies, but that seems to be the only two positions you allow for. Either a person agrees with you concerning what you prefer, or if they disagree then they must want to hurt or kill you. You guys have a feast or famine outlook.

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.

What you care about is irrelevant, in a debate it only matters what you know about. Whether you accept or reject the bible, at least get it right. So far you do not seem ignorant. It must not be irrelevant because it is the only subject matter you have inquired about.

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

Do you see me debating any Christians? I am not here to talk with those that agree with me. I want you to disagree, and I want you to contest my ideas, but I require you to do so competently and sufficiently. You did not do so in the homosexual thread and you have merely suggested you may be able to do so here. So make posts that are longer and more thought provoking so this discussion does not end up like the other.

 

[1robin]

Actually only the first two were mentioned in Levitical Laws, yet can also be seen in Genesis given to Noah; the rest are all of the 10 commandments, which Yeshua and Paul specified we still have to follow.

By saying Christ died for you, you're guilty of first degree murder, as you're as bad as your forefathers who did it.

Yeshua told his disciples 'not to drink of the vine until the coming of the kingdom', to drink the blood of the offering was established by Paul.

Believing that through Yeshua's death you will receive eternal life, is a covenant with death as disannulled in Isaiah 28.

Another mans righteousness, can not cover you in the day of your iniquity; especially not by murdering him, and washing in his blood.

Paul tells people 'to desire (covet) the mind of Christ'.

39 in this life.

Yeshua never claimed to be the Messiah back then, as Messianic prophecy hasn't happened yet, and is still to come....

Ok, your just too far off the map for me to spend the little time I have trying to get you to make a date with reality anytime soon.

 

[wizanda]

Ok, your just too far off the map for me to spend the little time I have trying to get you to make a date with reality anytime soon.

Since the Tribulation is soon, understandably you've not got much time left before incarceration; good luck with that....

We can have this same discussion in a thousand years, when you've got more time to be polite.

 

[1robin]

Then you'll know that @columbus - someone who has worked with AIDS patients in the past - told you that the CDC does not track new AIDS cases. He also told you the primary causes of HIV/AIDS are poverty, ignorance & insecurity. As somebody who's had to personally deal with the sHe would know, unlike you who can't even distinguish between correlation & causation.

So you believe someone you saw in a forum over the most respected source of accurate medical data and diagnostics in the history of the human race?

Also, while I am not in the medical field I have almost certainly taken more hours in statistics and probability than whoever it is your referring. I have two degrees in mathematics.

Funny, I don't see a link anywhere in that post of yours. How do I know you got them from the CDC? And what victimhood complex would this be? I'm straight.

You've also claimed elsewhere that the CDC is "biased towards homosexuality" so what are you even doing quoting them since apparently they're so ireedemably biased?

Because I am so stupid that I think quoting the most respected source of medical data on Earth, especially since it is biased towards homosexuality, would be the most acceptable source of data possible. Guess I was wrong, self delusion runs strong with your family. The entire CDC is wrong but a random guy in a forum is right. These days the only interest I have in debate is to see just what lengths people will go to deny reality.

You want a link, do ya? I will do you one even better.

The Numbers
HIV and AIDS Diagnosesd

In 2014:

• Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.
• Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.
• Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 54% (11,277) of people diagnosed with AIDS. Of those men, 39% were African American, 32% were white, and 24% were Hispanic/Latino.

Although HIV diagnoses increased among gay and bisexual men overall from 2005 to 2014—and increased sharply among African American and Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men—diagnoses overall have stabilized in more recent years:

• From 2010 to 2014, diagnoses increased less than 1% among all gay and bisexual men overall and among African American gay and bisexual men. Diagnoses:
  • Declined 6% among white gay and bisexual men.
  • Increased 13% among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men.
• From 2010 to 2014, among young (aged 13 to 24) gay and bisexual men, diagnoses:
  • Declined 2% among young African American gay and bisexual men.
  • Declined less than 1% among young white gay and bisexual men.
  • Increased 16% among young Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men.

Estimated New HIV Diagnoses Among the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2014—United States

Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

You have one last shot concerning homosexuality, so dig deep.

That Christians are trying to have their cake & eat it when it comes to their theological justifications for how gays are treated.

That is a declarative platitude. You must show exactly how this is relevant, and present the evidence which demonstrates it.

You just said you didn't know what my point was so you can't possibly know if it was vacuous or not. Do try and keep up with yourself.

Referring to having cakes and eating them to is vacuous no matter what it was used for without context and evidence. Do keep embarrassing your self.

I actually think I know what you mean, but your so wrong if it's the case that I cannot be sure.

My point was that Christians say Christ's crucifixion ended the requirement to adhere to the Mosaic Law (which the Leviticus pronouncements on gay people were a part of) but they still use these same scriptures to this day to justify their homophobia.

This is exactly what I am saying, your understanding of Christianity is so flawed it is hard to be sure what your saying.

Let me make this simpler.

1. God's nature determines what is right or wrong.
2. His commands merely reflect his nature.
3. So that homosexuality has always been wrong and always will be wrong.
4. However as God's purposes change, actually I should say that as we change God is able to adapt his commands as the human race changes. This is called progressive revelation.
5. It is also the case that he is doing things with one group at one time and others at other times so that he needs differing sets of rules to apply at certain times and certain places.
6. In summary, God's moral nature does not change, but his laws do change for many reasons. God intended marriage and everything that comes with that to be between a man and a women, it was to symbolize the marriage between the bride (the church) and the bridegroom (Christ). It never has been and never will be ok to deviate from that. However the laws governing how the Hebrews dealt with homosexuality 3000 years ago, and how Christians today deal with it may very well have changed.
7. So Christians are not inventing anything to have or eat cake, we are (unlike you) simply applying those simple truths.

Thanks for proving my point. Christians who are homophobic claim the efficacy of Christ's crucifixion in releasing them from the Mosaic Law but they then use that law (which according to them is defunct; and only ever applied to the Jews anyway) as justification for being cruel to LGBTs. Aka having their cake and eating it.

See the above, I am tired of wasting my time typing stuff you just can't or won't get.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well who blessed you? The only blesser out there you deny. I do not choose who lives and dies, but that seems to be the only two positions you allow for. Either a person agrees with you concerning what you prefer, or if they disagree then they must want to hurt or kill you. You guys have a feast or famine outlook.

Well *sigh* I see my comment was a waste of good sarcasm. But never fear, I have an endless supply. Kind of like the length of fabric in Draupadī's dress.

Whether you accept or reject the bible, at least get it right. So far you do not seem ignorant. It must not be irrelevant because it is the only subject matter you have inquired

Getting it right is subjective. It's relevant inasmuch as bible thumping politicians want to use it to inflict their brand of Sharia on the US. Or when people use it to oppress others. Otherwise, yes it's irrelevant other than being a good literary work.

[/quote]So make posts that are longer and more thought provoking so this discussion does not end up like the other.[/QUOTE]

I'll make a note of it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So you believe someone you saw in a forum over the most respected source of accurate medical data and diagnostics in the history of the human race?

I believe someone who has a better track record than someone a homophobic Christian simply because the latter as a group tend to resort to twisting & outright lies in order to spread their bile.

Also, while I am not in the medical field I have almost certainly taken more hours in statistics and probability than whoever it is your referring. I have two degrees in mathematics.

I'm sceptical of this.

Because I am so stupid that I think quoting the most respected source of medical data on Earth, especially since it is biased towards homosexuality, would be the most acceptable source of data possible.

I know it's irritating but your complaining about the partiality of your own sources is just not my problem.

Guess I was wrong, self delusion runs strong with your family.

And what does my family have to do with this? Personal attacks are the resort of those with no argument though I didn't think you'd go there quite so fast.

The entire CDC is wrong but a random guy in a forum is right.

Keep misrepresenting. I was calling into question your ability to actually source your statistics.

These days the only interest I have in debate is to see just what lengths people will go to deny reality.

Seven posts ago your reason for debating was

"... to encounter good arguments, only when I do can I learn anything, feel challenged, and either change, perfect, or discard my arguments."

So could you please stop masturbating your ego? It's unsightly and I'd rather not have it coming up on my screen.

You want a link, do ya? I will do you one even better.

The Numbers
HIV and AIDS Diagnosesd

In 2014:

• Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.
• Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.
• Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 54% (11,277) of people diagnosed with AIDS. Of those men, 39% were African American, 32% were white, and 24% were Hispanic/Latino.

Although HIV diagnoses increased among gay and bisexual men overall from 2005 to 2014—and increased sharply among African American and Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men—diagnoses overall have stabilized in more recent years:

• From 2010 to 2014, diagnoses increased less than 1% among all gay and bisexual men overall and among African American gay and bisexual men. Diagnoses:
  • Declined 6% among white gay and bisexual men.
  • Increased 13% among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men.
• From 2010 to 2014, among young (aged 13 to 24) gay and bisexual men, diagnoses:
  • Declined 2% among young African American gay and bisexual men.
  • Declined less than 1% among young white gay and bisexual men.
  • Increased 16% among young Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men.

Estimated New HIV Diagnoses Among the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2014—United States

Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

You have one last shot concerning homosexuality, so dig deep.

Okay, apparently they do diagnose new HIV cases. Fair enough, that's my error and I'll concede that. Thanks for the image (finally). I have a question for you, though. Of those new HIV cases diagnosed how many were caused by homosexual sex and nothing else?

That is a declarative platitude. You must show exactly how this is relevant, and present the evidence which demonstrates it.

Most people call it a 'turn of phrase'. How is it relevant? It's the original point I made if you had bothered to actually pay attention. You brought in all this statistical stuff as if it addressed my point when it clearly didn't.

Referring to having cakes and eating them to is vacuous no matter what it was used for without context and evidence.

You'd have understood the context if you had actually read the post I made it in. But since you've already decided you must be right and I must be wrong what need is there for actually reading your opponents' arguments?

Do keep embarrassing your self.

Aww, you turned my sentence back on me. Watch out everyone, we got a ****** over here.

I actually think I know what you mean, but your so wrong if it's the case that I cannot be sure.

This is exactly what I am saying, your understanding of Christianity is so flawed it is hard to be sure what your saying.

Let me make this simpler.

1. God's nature determines what is right or wrong.
2. His commands merely reflect his nature.
3. So that homosexuality has always been wrong and always will be wrong.
4. However as God's purposes change, actually I should say that as we change God is able to adapt his commands as the human race changes. This is called progressive revelation.
5. It is also the case that he is doing things with one group at one time and others at other times so that he needs differing sets of rules to apply at certain times and certain places.
6. In summary, God's moral nature does not change, but his laws do change for many reasons. God intended marriage and everything that comes with that to be between a man and a women, it was to symbolize the marriage between the bride (the church) and the bridegroom (Christ). It never has been and never will be ok to deviate from that. However the laws governing how the Hebrews dealt with homosexuality 3000 years ago, and how Christians today deal with it may very well have changed.
7. So Christians are not inventing anything to have or eat cake, we are (unlike you) simply applying those simple truths.

See the above, I am tired of wasting my time typing stuff you just can't or won't get.

Oh so you understand the context now.

And despite all your theological twists & turns, you're just proving my point. Leviticus doesn't apply any more except when Christians need to bash 'teh gayz' or deny them civil rights or just be ******** in general towards them.

 

[viole]

I was excited to see that you posted me even if you still haven't went back to the avatar picture I liked. Then I saw you asked about homosexuality. I will answer you but first I need to give you some context.

I had posted in two homosexual threads previously. I had never thought much about homosexuality and so I just wanted to see if the two simplistic secular arguments I had thought up would withstand scrutiny. To my surprise no one posted anything that even touched my two arguments. I spent weeks in those threads waiting for someone to post a knockout blow to my position. It never came, but I did learn a lot about what is used in the attempt to rationalize the behavior. I found out that only about 3 or 4 types of arguments defending homosexuality existed, but that people had about 2 dozen ways of articulating those types of arguments. So I went into a 3rd homosexual thread and I got the exact same types of rationalizations. So I types up all the types of arguments that do not work and why they don't. I got nothing but sarcasm and ranting about meaningless secondary issues. I also got 10 times the number of responses in that thread than all the other threads I was in combined.

I finally concluded what was going on and it explains everything. Those who defend homosexuality are merely defending an emotional preference. Facts only make that type of person mad, arguments only confuse them, it is said that to give truth to those who love it not only increases the areas of contention. That sums it up perfectly and so I will probably never post in a homosexual thread again.

Your proposition to never debate here homosexuality anymore reminds me of my proposition of quit smoking.

Anyway, to your points. And I make a single exception to my new never debate anyone on homosexuality policy in your case. I will not debate it with anyone else.

First let me point out that if you go to the Homosexuality and Homosexual marriage, why do Christians care? thread and look at post #840 you will find all the arguments that do not work. Two of which apply to your questions above.

Yes, I am sure (many, but not all) Christians care. I don't include all Christians, because in my country Christians happily marry gays in their churches. But I would like to follow up your critique, which was based on secular arguments.

1. To arbitrarily subdivide the group referred to as homosexuals further is to make a debate impossible. It is impractical to debate only left handed homosexuals, homosexuals above 6' tall, red haired homosexuals, or only black homosexuals, etc......

I asked about female homosexuality. Which is, probably, about 50% of all homosexuality. So, this does not cut it, because I could apply symmetry and claim that it is you subdividing homosexuality by singling out the cases you do not approve or cause alleged damage. After all, it is my 50% against your 50%, at best.

2. Also sub categorization usually only serves to modulate the magnitude of how unjustified a behavior is. There are still many problems with female - female homosexuality but still no benefits which sufficiently compensate for the cost.

Do you rate people based on benefits/costs for society, even if assume, for a second, that homosexuality provides costs and no benefits? According to your logic we should disapprove people with Alzheimer, too.

On a side note, every single female homosexual I know is either dead, in jail, or has left their child to fiend for it's self. She is a beautiful young lady which is now going from foster home to foster home. But my sample size is too small to base any arguments upon.

i know a gay woman whose only connection with "foster" is in her family name. She seems to do OK.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Well *sigh* I see my comment was a waste of good sarcasm. But never fear, I have an endless supply. Kind of like the length of fabric in Draupadī's dress.

I am afraid I am too ignorant to get your joke. Who is Draupa...? (I don't even have the right keys on my keyboard to finish the name).

I just got some horrific personal news so my responses for a while will be very brief.

Getting it right is subjective. It's relevant inasmuch as bible thumping politicians want to use it to inflict their brand of Sharia on the US. Or when people use it to oppress others. Otherwise, yes it's irrelevant other than being a good literary work.

Ok, how about getting an interpretation that is similar to what at least one of the mainstream commentaries has? I can't follow you off and get lost in the weeds. Your original point about the law was incorrect but it was reasonable. That's all I ask. So fire when ready.

 

[1robin]

I believe someone who has a better track record than someone a homophobic Christian simply because the latter as a group tend to resort to twisting & outright lies in order to spread their bile.

Do you call everyone that disagrees with you names? Is this 9th grade again?

I'm sceptical of this.

The people who get my financial aid payment every month for the rest of my life are pretty certain.

I know it's irritating but your complaining about the partiality of your own sources is just not my problem.

What?

And what does my family have to do with this? Personal attacks are the resort of those with no argument though I didn't think you'd go there quite so fast.

That was a well known star wars joke, snowflake.

Keep misrepresenting. I was calling into question your ability to actually source your statistics.

That's like getting mad if I didn't give you the link to the site that says the Earth is round. I must assume you know something or I would have to post a library.

Seven posts ago your reason for debating was

"... to encounter good arguments, only when I do can I learn anything, feel challenged, and either change, perfect, or discard my arguments."

So could you please stop masturbating your ego? It's unsightly and I'd rather not have it coming up on my screen.

I have no idea why your so mad at pretty much everything but if you keep it up I will end this discussion.

Okay, apparently they do diagnose new HIV cases. Fair enough, that's my error and I'll concede that. Thanks for the image (finally). I have a question for you, though. Of those new HIV cases diagnosed how many were caused by homosexual sex and nothing else?

I have posted that data at least a dozen times in 3 threads, exactly how many times am I required to demonstrate the sun is hot?

Don't ask me, call the CDC and ask them. It is their data.

Most people call it a 'turn of phrase'. How is it relevant? It's the original point I made if you had bothered to actually pay attention. You brought in all this statistical stuff as if it addressed my point when it clearly didn't.

Your acting like a petulant child. I am done with you for now.

 

[Milton Platt]

Whereas Christians often tell people they will go to Hell for not 'believing jesus is their lord and savior'; what if the Bible was the other way around, and those accepting a human sacrifice as Kosher, are defiling the Law, and thus are the one's who shall be sent to the Pit (Hell)....

So is it fair to mislead the masses? To not explain the Laws to them? So they can at least try to understand why they've been charged in the first place? Especially when they think they're on a honey trail to Heaven...

Depends upon how your define the word "Christian" , doesn't it?

 

[Jainarayan]

I am afraid I am too ignorant to get your joke. Who is Draupa...?

It can be transliterated as Dropadee. Lord Krishna performed a miracle by letting the fabric in her saree never run out when someone tried to disrobed her. It's from the epic Mahābhārata.

I just got some horrific personal news so my responses for a while will be very brief.

In all seriousness, I'm sorry to hear it. That takes priority over the shenanigans and silliness here.

I can't follow you off and get lost in the weeds.

But that's my m.o.!

 

[Jedster]

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.

Must have been an American that did that....I mean it's like spelling colour color. It blasphemes the Queens English

 

[wizanda]

Depends upon how your define the word "Christian" , doesn't it?

A Christian by Biblical definition was first applied in Antioch to Paul's and Simon the stone (peter's) ministry, these believed that through jesus's death, he was an atoning sacrifice, making him their lord and savoir.

This is a crime which the early followers stood against, i.e. the Ebionites and Essenes, didn't even believe this was part of Judaism, and went contrary to everything the Law stands on.

Then when we examine other places, Revelation, Jude, James, Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, Daniel, etc, all condemn it as being evil.

 

[1robin]

Your proposition to never debate here homosexuality anymore reminds me of my proposition of quit smoking.

Debating someone defending homosexuality is like trying to get a ham away from a dire wolf with rabbis. It is not something you feel like doing twice. However I make an exception in your case.

Yes, I am sure (many, but not all) Christians care. I don't include all Christians, because in my country Christians happily marry gays in their churches. But I would like to follow up your critique, which was based on secular arguments.

Well I wasn't really arguing why I care. That was simply the title of the thread. However let me point out a few things.

My arguments against homosexual sexual behavior are purely secular.
and
Christians are being disobedient are not representative of Christianity. You judge a teacher by the students that correctly apply his teaching, not the students who defy his teaching.

I asked about female homosexuality. Which is, probably, about 50% of all homosexuality. So, this does not cut it, because I could apply symmetry and claim that it is you subdividing homosexuality by singling out the cases you do not approve or cause alleged damage. After all, it is my 50% against your 50%, at best.

I have had to respond to about a dozen arbitrary subgroups of homosexuals. If I allow one sub category I have to allow them all and the debate becomes unmanageable. Regardless, as I said subgroups mainly only modulate how unjustified a thing is. On a scale of 1 - 100 for instance M on M sex may be at a 90 where as F on F maybe at 40. Also a large percentage try it both ways.

Do you rate people based on benefits/costs for society, even if assume, for a second, that homosexuality provides costs and no benefits? According to your logic we should disapprove people with Alzheimer, too.

That was an abortive attempt. I rate behaviors not necessarily people. Alzheimer is not an intentional act, it is not moral in nature, but it is bad. Homosexual sexual behavior is an intentional act, is moral in nature, yet you call it good. You may want to seriously investigate any bias you may have in this context.

i know a gay woman whose only connection with "foster" is in her family name. She seems to do OK.

Ciao

- viole

Do homosexual women refer to themselves as gay? Wait a minute, I heard there are now 71 gender identities. I withdraw my question.

 

[viole]

Debating someone defending homosexuality is like trying to get a ham away from a dire wolf with rabbis. It is not something you feel like doing twice. However I make an exception in your case.

Well I wasn't really arguing why I care. That was simply the title of the thread. However let me point out a few things.

My arguments against homosexual sexual behavior are purely secular.
and
Christians are being disobedient are not representative of Christianity. You judge a teacher by the students that correctly apply his teaching, not the students who defy his teaching.

Could you please repair the quoting so that I can address all your points?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Could you please repair the quoting so that I can address all your points?

Ciao

- viole

Sorry, I usually review my posts but was in a hurry.