North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Night Strike]

#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.[player]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.

#3 -- the Entire United Methodist Church, Episcopalien Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church are hardly "small subgroups". They represent a huge portion of modern Christianity. Pretending that these widely accepted views are somehow "minor variations" is, as I stated, a tactic of the far right.

Just because that's how they interpret the Bible doesn't make their "widely accepted views" correct.

[PLAYER57832]

#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.[player]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.

#3 -- the Entire United Methodist Church, Episcopalien Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church are hardly "small subgroups". They represent a huge portion of modern Christianity. Pretending that these widely accepted views are somehow "minor variations" is, as I stated, a tactic of the far right.

Just because that's how they interpret the Bible doesn't make their "widely accepted views" correct.

But who are you to say? AND given there is so much disagreement, what right do you have to claim enough superiority to tell other people, many of whom are not even Christian, that they must follow your personal ideas?

That is the real crux. For someone who is supposedly all about freedom, you strangely are quite happy to tell other people how to live when its your ideas being promoted. Seems your idea of freedom is just for everyone to live the way you want, not the way they want.

[Night Strike]

But who are you to say? AND given there is so much disagreement, what right do you have to claim enough superiority to tell other people, many of whom are not even Christian, that they must follow your personal ideas?

That is the real crux. For someone who is supposedly all about freedom, you strangely are quite happy to tell other people how to live when its your ideas being promoted. Seems your idea of freedom is just for everyone to live the way you want, not the way they want.

No, people can live however they want as long as they don't hurt other people. However, that does not mean I have to agree with what they do or that society is forced to change their laws to conform to those other lifestyles. I can say a lifestyle is wrong and they would still be free to do it.

[PLAYER57832]

But who are you to say? AND given there is so much disagreement, what right do you have to claim enough superiority to tell other people, many of whom are not even Christian, that they must follow your personal ideas?

That is the real crux. For someone who is supposedly all about freedom, you strangely are quite happy to tell other people how to live when its your ideas being promoted. Seems your idea of freedom is just for everyone to live the way you want, not the way they want.

No, people can live however they want as long as they don't hurt other people. However, that does not mean I have to agree with what they do or that society is forced to change their laws to conform to those other lifestyles. I can say a lifestyle is wrong and they would still be free to do it.

Nope, you cannot have it both ways. Either you have the right to dictate how other people live or you do not. I say you do not. You claim you do. That is not freedom, it is dictating. That you feel you are morally justified is irrelevant. Pretending this is somehow forcing you to agree with a "lifestyle" is a false argument. The debate is not whether you like or agree, its whether you have the right to dictate to other people how they should live.


PS. point to the New Testament passage that prohibits homosexuality?

[Night Strike]

But who are you to say? AND given there is so much disagreement, what right do you have to claim enough superiority to tell other people, many of whom are not even Christian, that they must follow your personal ideas?

That is the real crux. For someone who is supposedly all about freedom, you strangely are quite happy to tell other people how to live when its your ideas being promoted. Seems your idea of freedom is just for everyone to live the way you want, not the way they want.

No, people can live however they want as long as they don't hurt other people. However, that does not mean I have to agree with what they do or that society is forced to change their laws to conform to those other lifestyles. I can say a lifestyle is wrong and they would still be free to do it.

Nope, you cannot have it both ways. Either you have the right to dictate how other people live or you do not. I say you do not. You claim you do. That is not freedom, it is dictating. That you feel you are morally justified is irrelevant. Pretending this is somehow forcing you to agree with a "lifestyle" is a false argument. The debate is not whether you like or agree, its whether you have the right to dictate to other people how they should live.


PS. point to the New Testament passage that prohibits homosexuality?

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are unnatural and shameful. That means they are not holy, which is what all Christians are called to be.

I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage. You can have sex with any consenting adult that you want to have sex with, but that doesn't mean society must condone the activity or change its definition of marriage to conform to your personal actions. And no matter what the action is, I don't have to agree with an action to think it's permissible in our society. I also disagree with smoking and drinking, yet those things are permissible in our society.

[PLAYER57832]

But who are you to say? AND given there is so much disagreement, what right do you have to claim enough superiority to tell other people, many of whom are not even Christian, that they must follow your personal ideas?

That is the real crux. For someone who is supposedly all about freedom, you strangely are quite happy to tell other people how to live when its your ideas being promoted. Seems your idea of freedom is just for everyone to live the way you want, not the way they want.

No, people can live however they want as long as they don't hurt other people. However, that does not mean I have to agree with what they do or that society is forced to change their laws to conform to those other lifestyles. I can say a lifestyle is wrong and they would still be free to do it.

Nope, you cannot have it both ways. Either you have the right to dictate how other people live or you do not. I say you do not. You claim you do. That is not freedom, it is dictating. That you feel you are morally justified is irrelevant. Pretending this is somehow forcing you to agree with a "lifestyle" is a false argument. The debate is not whether you like or agree, its whether you have the right to dictate to other people how they should live.


PS. point to the New Testament passage that prohibits homosexuality?

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are unnatural and shameful. That means they are not holy, which is what all Christians are called to be.

Actually, no. It talks about homosexuality as one result of not following God. It is a fine distinction, but an important one. Homosexuality is a symptom, not a cause.

BUT, and this is important, my dispute is twofold. Christians absolutely disagree on this issue, so by definition there is no clear mandate. Second, even if that were not true, why would the Christian view on this even matter? Buddhists cannot by married in the Roman Catholic Church, just as an example. Protestants actually cannot, either. Why does it matter if Christians want to marry homosexuals or not?

I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage.

Nope, that's bouncing around the issue as an excuse. It has no bearing on freedom.

If marriage is recognized, why does the state get to decide who should or should not marry? Why do YOU and your sense of morality get to dictate what the state does and does not recognize for tax and legal purposes? You are claiming a distinction without a difference. Heterosexuals can live together without an official marriage, yet many choose to get married. They see a benefit therein. Why should homosexuals be denied that ability just becuase you dislike the idea?

You can have sex with any consenting adult that you want to have sex with, but that doesn't mean society must condone the activity or change its definition of marriage to conform to your personal actions. And no matter what the action is, I don't have to agree with an action to think it's permissible in our society. I also disagree with smoking and drinking, yet those things are permissible in our society.

I see, so according to you marriage is condoning of an activity? So why is it OK for the state to condone the marriages of Moonies, Hari Krishnas, etc -- all who live lives well outside the "normal" standards of our society, but homosexuals, who live so much like everyone else, you would know from the outside to be homosexuals, why should they be denied that recognition?

And, why is it that people like you get to make that decision instead of letting it up to the people involved?

[rdsrds2120]

#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.[player]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.

#3 -- the Entire United Methodist Church, Episcopalien Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church are hardly "small subgroups". They represent a huge portion of modern Christianity. Pretending that these widely accepted views are somehow "minor variations" is, as I stated, a tactic of the far right.

Just because that's how they interpret the Bible doesn't make their "widely accepted views" correct.

And so a cruel irony presents itself. How do you know your non-widely accepted views are correct? Faith?

Funny, I bet they have it, too.

-rd

[AAFitz]

But who are you to say? AND given there is so much disagreement, what right do you have to claim enough superiority to tell other people, many of whom are not even Christian, that they must follow your personal ideas?

That is the real crux. For someone who is supposedly all about freedom, you strangely are quite happy to tell other people how to live when its your ideas being promoted. Seems your idea of freedom is just for everyone to live the way you want, not the way they want.

No, people can live however they want as long as they don't hurt other people. However, that does not mean I have to agree with what they do or that society is forced to change their laws to conform to those other lifestyles. I can say a lifestyle is wrong and they would still be free to do it.

Nope, you cannot have it both ways. Either you have the right to dictate how other people live or you do not. I say you do not. You claim you do. That is not freedom, it is dictating. That you feel you are morally justified is irrelevant. Pretending this is somehow forcing you to agree with a "lifestyle" is a false argument. The debate is not whether you like or agree, its whether you have the right to dictate to other people how they should live.


PS. point to the New Testament passage that prohibits homosexuality?

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are unnatural and shameful. That means they are not holy, which is what all Christians are called to be.

I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage. You can have sex with any consenting adult that you want to have sex with, but that doesn't mean society must condone the activity or change its definition of marriage to conform to your personal actions. And no matter what the action is, I don't have to agree with an action to think it's permissible in our society. I also disagree with smoking and drinking, yet those things are permissible in our society.

I hate to suggest this, I hate myself for doing it, and Ill earnestly apologize later...but honestly....you should give them a try.

[Night Strike]

#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.[player]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.

#3 -- the Entire United Methodist Church, Episcopalien Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church are hardly "small subgroups". They represent a huge portion of modern Christianity. Pretending that these widely accepted views are somehow "minor variations" is, as I stated, a tactic of the far right.

Just because that's how they interpret the Bible doesn't make their "widely accepted views" correct.

And so a cruel irony presents itself. How do you know your non-widely accepted views are correct? Faith?

Funny, I bet they have it, too.

-rd

Because the Bible (even the New Testament) in plain text labels homosexual activity as unnatural and shameful and a lust of the flesh. There is no indication that this passage is talking about something allegorical; it's plainly describing some of the sins that become commonplace when people decide to turn away from God.

[Night Strike]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are unnatural and shameful. That means they are not holy, which is what all Christians are called to be.

I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage. You can have sex with any consenting adult that you want to have sex with, but that doesn't mean society must condone the activity or change its definition of marriage to conform to your personal actions. And no matter what the action is, I don't have to agree with an action to think it's permissible in our society. I also disagree with smoking and drinking, yet those things are permissible in our society.

I hate to suggest this, I hate myself for doing it, and Ill earnestly apologize later...but honestly....you should give them a try.

Give who a try?

[AAFitz]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are unnatural and shameful. That means they are not holy, which is what all Christians are called to be.

I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage. You can have sex with any consenting adult that you want to have sex with, but that doesn't mean society must condone the activity or change its definition of marriage to conform to your personal actions. And no matter what the action is, I don't have to agree with an action to think it's permissible in our society. I also disagree with smoking and drinking, yet those things are permissible in our society.

I hate to suggest this, I hate myself for doing it, and Ill earnestly apologize later...but honestly....you should give them a try.

Give who a try?

Thats completely up to you, but I was referring to cigs and beer.

In any case, dont try the cigs, and I apologize as promised for the mere suggestion, even in jest. A beer or two is fine though, and possibly even healthy. In your case, almost undoubtedly beneficial....

Two however....after 14 hours of work....and 50 days with no day off...well....lets just say.......youll be taking your chances...

[Night Strike]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are unnatural and shameful. That means they are not holy, which is what all Christians are called to be.

I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage. You can have sex with any consenting adult that you want to have sex with, but that doesn't mean society must condone the activity or change its definition of marriage to conform to your personal actions. And no matter what the action is, I don't have to agree with an action to think it's permissible in our society. I also disagree with smoking and drinking, yet those things are permissible in our society.

I hate to suggest this, I hate myself for doing it, and Ill earnestly apologize later...but honestly....you should give them a try.

Give who a try?

Thats completely up to you, but I was referring to cigs and beer.

In any case, dont try the cigs, and I apologize as promised for the mere suggestion, even in jest. A beer or two is fine though, and possibly even healthy. In your case, almost undoubtedly beneficial....

Two however....after 14 hours of work....and 50 days with no day off...well....lets just say.......youll be taking your chances...

Oh, I thought "them" referred to people. Oops. And I'm not interested in either, so I have no reason to try them.

[AAFitz]

Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are unnatural and shameful. That means they are not holy, which is what all Christians are called to be.

I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage. You can have sex with any consenting adult that you want to have sex with, but that doesn't mean society must condone the activity or change its definition of marriage to conform to your personal actions. And no matter what the action is, I don't have to agree with an action to think it's permissible in our society. I also disagree with smoking and drinking, yet those things are permissible in our society.

I hate to suggest this, I hate myself for doing it, and Ill earnestly apologize later...but honestly....you should give them a try.

Give who a try?

Thats completely up to you, but I was referring to cigs and beer.

In any case, dont try the cigs, and I apologize as promised for the mere suggestion, even in jest. A beer or two is fine though, and possibly even healthy. In your case, almost undoubtedly beneficial....

Two however....after 14 hours of work....and 50 days with no day off...well....lets just say.......youll be taking your chances...

Oh, I thought "them" referred to people. Oops. And I'm not interested in either, so I have no reason to try them.

Well, it would allow you to discuss something you actually understood for once....just sayin

[Night Strike]

I'm pretty sure I can understand the harms of cigarettes and alcohol without trying them.

[AAFitz]

I'm pretty sure I can understand the harms of cigarettes and alcohol without trying them.

Well, that/s kind of your MO: Speak of that which you do not fully understand, isn't it?

It really wouldn't be any fun if you knew what you were talking about.

[Night Strike]

I'm pretty sure I can understand the harms of cigarettes and alcohol without trying them.

Well, that/s kind of your MO: Speak of that which you do not fully understand, isn't it?

It really wouldn't be any fun if you knew what you were talking about.

Considering the effects they have on the body are demonstrable and considering I choose not to inflict those effects on my body, I do not have to try them to denounce them.

[chang50]

Because the Bible (even the New Testament) in plain text labels homosexual activity as unnatural and shameful and a lust of the flesh. There is no indication that this passage is talking about something allegorical; it's plainly describing some of the sins that become commonplace when people decide to turn away from God.[/quote]

Here's how it works so the fundies can never be wrong,the Bible is literal when it suits them and it's allegorical when it suits them.Kinda nifty ain't it.Another example of this special pleading masquerading as debate is when some obvious problem with belief in God is demonstrated,they fall back on 'God's ways are not our ways'.Again they can't ever lose,they never have to seriously consider other positions,it's all covered.My question is in which other field of human endeavour or research or knowledge would this flimsy charade be allowed?

[thegreekdog]

Because the Bible (even the New Testament) in plain text labels homosexual activity as unnatural and shameful and a lust of the flesh. There is no indication that this passage is talking about something allegorical; it's plainly describing some of the sins that become commonplace when people decide to turn away from God.

Here's how it works so the fundies can never be wrong,the Bible is literal when it suits them and it's allegorical when it suits them.Kinda nifty ain't it.Another example of this special pleading masquerading as debate is when some obvious problem with belief in God is demonstrated,they fall back on 'God's ways are not our ways'.Again they can't ever lose,they never have to seriously consider other positions,it's all covered.My question is in which other field of human endeavour or research or knowledge would this flimsy charade be allowed?[/quote]

Politics. Economics. Social engineering. To name three.

[Night Strike]

Here's how it works so the fundies can never be wrong,the Bible is literal when it suits them and it's allegorical when it suits them.Kinda nifty ain't it.Another example of this special pleading masquerading as debate is when some obvious problem with belief in God is demonstrated,they fall back on 'God's ways are not our ways'.Again they can't ever lose,they never have to seriously consider other positions,it's all covered.My question is in which other field of human endeavour or research or knowledge would this flimsy charade be allowed?

Actually, that's not how it works. You treat the Bible like you would any other literary work, it just happens to be that it includes nearly every genre and type of writing that are singularly used in other works. You have rote data, history, parables, interpretations, personal accounts/observations, and others. You have to look at the context to clue on in which literary device is the best interpretation of the passage.

[PLAYER57832]

Here's how it works so the fundies can never be wrong,the Bible is literal when it suits them and it's allegorical when it suits them.Kinda nifty ain't it.Another example of this special pleading masquerading as debate is when some obvious problem with belief in God is demonstrated,they fall back on 'God's ways are not our ways'.Again they can't ever lose,they never have to seriously consider other positions,it's all covered.My question is in which other field of human endeavour or research or knowledge would this flimsy charade be allowed?

Actually, that's not how it works. You treat the Bible like you would any other literary work, it just happens to be that it includes nearly every genre and type of writing that are singularly used in other works. You have rote data, history, parables, interpretations, personal accounts/observations, and others. You have to look at the context to clue on in which literary device is the best interpretation of the passage.

Yes, but why is that only OK when it agrees with your views and wrong when anyone else opposes your personal beliefs and ideas.

You have only rarely even truly debated most of what I say in response to your claims.. you just throw out titles and slurs then stomp off if I start to dispute most things you declare as a "fact", and refuse even to provide any kind of reference to why you even think as you do. That shows not understanding, but blind literal recitation.

[Symmetry]

Here's how it works so the fundies can never be wrong,the Bible is literal when it suits them and it's allegorical when it suits them.Kinda nifty ain't it.Another example of this special pleading masquerading as debate is when some obvious problem with belief in God is demonstrated,they fall back on 'God's ways are not our ways'.Again they can't ever lose,they never have to seriously consider other positions,it's all covered.My question is in which other field of human endeavour or research or knowledge would this flimsy charade be allowed?

Actually, that's not how it works. You treat the Bible like you would any other literary work, it just happens to be that it includes nearly every genre and type of writing that are singularly used in other works. You have rote data, history, parables, interpretations, personal accounts/observations, and others. You have to look at the context to clue on in which literary device is the best interpretation of the passage.

But you and many other people don't treat it like any other literary work. The Bible is homophobic. It advocates killing gay people because they're gay. It couldn't be clearer that it's homophobic. Unless you think that it's just lying when it says gay people should be killed, and not lying about other things, or you don't think it says what it says, or you don't think killing people for homosexuality is homophobic.

Christianity ain't necessarily homophobic. Tends to be, sure, but the Bible is certainly homophobic. How Christians treat the Bible is the measure.

[Night Strike]

Here's how it works so the fundies can never be wrong,the Bible is literal when it suits them and it's allegorical when it suits them.Kinda nifty ain't it.Another example of this special pleading masquerading as debate is when some obvious problem with belief in God is demonstrated,they fall back on 'God's ways are not our ways'.Again they can't ever lose,they never have to seriously consider other positions,it's all covered.My question is in which other field of human endeavour or research or knowledge would this flimsy charade be allowed?

Actually, that's not how it works. You treat the Bible like you would any other literary work, it just happens to be that it includes nearly every genre and type of writing that are singularly used in other works. You have rote data, history, parables, interpretations, personal accounts/observations, and others. You have to look at the context to clue on in which literary device is the best interpretation of the passage.

But you and many other people don't treat it like any other literary work. The Bible is homophobic. It advocates killing gay people because they're gay. It couldn't be clearer that it's homophobic. Unless you think that it's just lying when it says gay people should be killed, and not lying about other things, or you don't think it says what it says, or you don't think killing people for homosexuality is homophobic.

Christianity ain't necessarily homophobic. Tends to be, sure, but the Bible is certainly homophobic. How Christians treat the Bible is the measure.

Nope, the bible is in no way homophobic. Jesus came to be the sacrifice for us in terms of the law written in the Old Testament. So although we are still required to follow things like the 10 Commandments, we are free of the legalistic rituals and punishments written in the Old Testament. Homosexual activities are treated the same as unmarried heterosexual activities: they are both sinful acts. There is nothing unique about homosexuality.

[Symmetry]

Here's how it works so the fundies can never be wrong,the Bible is literal when it suits them and it's allegorical when it suits them.Kinda nifty ain't it.Another example of this special pleading masquerading as debate is when some obvious problem with belief in God is demonstrated,they fall back on 'God's ways are not our ways'.Again they can't ever lose,they never have to seriously consider other positions,it's all covered.My question is in which other field of human endeavour or research or knowledge would this flimsy charade be allowed?

Actually, that's not how it works. You treat the Bible like you would any other literary work, it just happens to be that it includes nearly every genre and type of writing that are singularly used in other works. You have rote data, history, parables, interpretations, personal accounts/observations, and others. You have to look at the context to clue on in which literary device is the best interpretation of the passage.

But you and many other people don't treat it like any other literary work. The Bible is homophobic. It advocates killing gay people because they're gay. It couldn't be clearer that it's homophobic. Unless you think that it's just lying when it says gay people should be killed, and not lying about other things, or you don't think it says what it says, or you don't think killing people for homosexuality is homophobic.

Christianity ain't necessarily homophobic. Tends to be, sure, but the Bible is certainly homophobic. How Christians treat the Bible is the measure.

Nope, the bible is in no way homophobic. Jesus came to be the sacrifice for us in terms of the law written in the Old Testament. So although we are still required to follow things like the 10 Commandments, we are free of the legalistic rituals and punishments written in the Old Testament. Homosexual activities are treated the same as unmarried heterosexual activities: they are both sinful acts. There is nothing unique about homosexuality.

Stupid and wrong. Homosexuals are to be punished in the NT for being gay too. I find Paul flawed also, I just don't pretend he ain't homophobic. The Bible is homophobic, New and Old testament.

[Night Strike]

So I'm stupid and wrong, yet I'm the one who actually believes in the bible, not you. Funny how you're lecturing me about a religion you despise and have chosen to never believe. Homosexuals are not punished by other people in the NT. Their sinful acts are judged by God just like every other sinful act. I can't help that you don't like which actions are sins and which aren't. If you don't like it, then don't live by it. You'll find out one day that you were utterly wrong about your beliefs.

[Symmetry]

So I'm stupid and wrong, yet I'm the one who actually believes in the bible, not you. Funny how you're lecturing me about a religion you despise and have chosen to never believe. Homosexuals are not punished by other people in the NT. Their sinful acts are judged by God just like every other sinful act. I can't help that you don't like which actions are sins and which aren't. If you don't like it, then don't live by it. You'll find out one day that you were utterly wrong about your beliefs.

I don't despise Christianity. I don't despise any religion.