Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

In a nutshell - people were specifically looking to have a fight with me, plain and simple.
That's trolling, and is probably against the rules of the board.

Well friend, it was largely escalated by your tantrum--so I wouldn't say you were innocent in the matter.

Uh oh, someone forwarded a copy of our 'agenda' to the North Carolina GOP.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

In a nutshell - people were specifically looking to have a fight with me, plain and simple.
That's trolling, and is probably against the rules of the board.

Well friend, it was largely escalated by your tantrum--so I wouldn't say you were innocent in the matter.

It was escalated because it's the same old smurf over and over and over again.
There are several people here who's only difference from Camp David is that they happen to be liberal. That however gets them a pass.

I thought the difference between "gay" and "gay lifestyle" was the degree of whether it was an embraced the culturally defined sort of identity and not just the orientation itself, the same way a unmarried man may be a bachelor, but not living the bachelor lifestyle, or someone may be a christian but not living a christian lifestyle, or might be a rich person but not living a rich lifestyle, etc.

resedit wrote:

Yet even though I didn't actually use the phrase, it was decided by several members of this board that I was a terrible person for using the phrase - despite the fact that nothing about my post indicated a negative connotation, but rather, a personal disagreement with the lifestyle - just as many here post personal disagreements with my religious lifestyle.

Please...you even slipped in your belief that homosexuality is "chosen" when you said it.  It simply illustrates your view that being homosexual represents a "lifestyle" choice because homosexual attraction is chosen.  Which is ridiculous.

I don't think people tend to argue for positions they don't believe.

Following that, I don't think most people would argue that being homosexual was a choice unless they felt some degree of homosexual attraction and themselves had a need to make such choice.

resedit wrote:

daemon wrote:

Look. I'm not saying 'by law'. I'm saying de facto. Someone is gay. A switch goes on in your brain. You go inside the bedroom in your head. And disapprove.

You disapprove of my religion then, because the only reason I call it a sin is because it is clearly defined as such by my religion.

So - I disapprove of homosexuality (and hetero sex before marriage and adultery) and you disapprove of my religion.
Isn't diversity great?

There are lots of things in the Old Testament which were sins (or not) but are no longer considered so even by arch-conservative Christians (slavery for one "non-sin" going the other way). Yes, I am troubled by how "your" religion (in quotes because clearly not all forms of Christianity object to homosexuality) picks and chooses which rules it will/will not follow and attempts to apply such to public policy which affects everyone, including those who are not followers of your religion.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Testament which were sins (or not) but are no longer considered so even by arch-conservative Christians (slavery for one "non-sin" going the other way). Yes, I am troubled by how "your" religion (in quotes because clearly not all forms of Christianity object to homosexuality) picks and chooses which rules it will/will not follow and attempts to apply such to public policy which affects everyone, including those who are not followers of your religion.

I understand that there are a lot of commentators and pundits who use that argument you use here, but it neglects a few necessary aspects of the Greek (Christian) Scriptures. First, that the Mosaic Law stands fulfilled in the Christ- there is then no obligation to carry out ANY of its tenets save for abstaining from idols, blood, and fornication, which is supported by all of Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles. You might be familiar with that to some extent- thats why for instance nobody gets upset over peircing their servants or all the other stuff people quote in that argument (it was also on an episode of that tv show about the president). But the other part that gets ignored, is that in several places in Paul's letters and so forth are explicit warnings over certain forms of conduct, including homosexuality. There isnt any cherry picking involved, unless a christian is also neglecting other Christian instruction (such as "not judging" others for example).

Of course, that is all about personal policy, not at all about public policy. In fact, Jesus said his rule had nothing to do with the world anyway.

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-10-23 3:47 pm)

Its just scripture; you either believe it or not.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

daemon wrote:

Look. I'm not saying 'by law'. I'm saying de facto. Someone is gay. A switch goes on in your brain. You go inside the bedroom in your head. And disapprove.

You disapprove of my religion then, because the only reason I call it a sin is because it is clearly defined as such by my religion.

So - I disapprove of homosexuality (and hetero sex before marriage and adultery) and you disapprove of my religion.
Isn't diversity great?

There are lots of things in the Old Testament which were sins (or not) but are no longer considered so even by arch-conservative Christians (slavery for one "non-sin" going the other way). Yes, I am troubled by how "your" religion (in quotes because clearly not all forms of Christianity object to homosexuality) picks and chooses which rules it will/will not follow and attempts to apply such to public policy which affects everyone, including those who are not followers of your religion.

The Mosaic law had two kinds of laws.
Remember, Israel was initially a theocracy - ruled by Judges who were intermediary between Israel and God. Thus - the laws specifically for Jews and the laws for everyone all ended up in the same work, known as the Pentateuch. Some laws were given in other writings, but the Pentateuch is the main body and is what is referred to as "The Law".

Some of the laws were laws related to the governing of Israel. The only sin in not keeping them was disobedience, they were not moral. They were not required of non Jews. They were for Jews for the purpose of separating the Jews from the non Jews.

Examples of these include circumcision, the food laws, the keeping of the festivals. They were intended to make Israel a nation set apart, a light shining on a hill, a testimony to the other nations.

Then there were moral laws. Murder, stealing, sexual immorality, etc. - these laws were not just for the Jews, and are cited in the Mosaic laws as reasons why God drove out the inhabitants from the land before Israel came in.

It is not simple "picking and choosing" as you suggest. I've explained this numerous times, but no one here cares to really understand, they would rather put their fingers in their ears and continue with the scholarly incorrect and factually incorrect picking and choosing arguments.

The Book of Acts details the beginning of the Christian Church. One of the things it details is the Jerusalem Council.
At the Jerusalem Council, the leaders of the early church got together to discuss whether or not Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism in order to become Christians. If you are really interested, you can read about it in the 15th chapter of Acts.

The council concluded that Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to receive the saving grace of Christ Jesus, and as such, the portions of the Law that were specific to Jews (to set Jews apart) were not required of the Gentiles, it is the Holy Spirit, given at Pentateuch (and prophesied in the OT), that sets us apart.

Paul wrote much on this topic as well in many of his letters.

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-23 4:19 pm)

Why didn't the Jesus write down the rules ?

Who gives a good solid smurf what the Bible says?  You can't legislate from the damn thing, not in this country anyway.  The God/Bible argument shouldn't even be considered.