Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://beta.conquerclub.com/forum/
PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.
Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.
Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.
Just because that's how they interpret the Bible doesn't make their "widely accepted views" correct.
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 wrote: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.
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.Night Strike wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.PLAYER57832 wrote: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.Night Strike wrote: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 wrote: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.
PS. point to the New Testament passage that prohibits homosexuality?
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.Night Strike wrote: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.PLAYER57832 wrote: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.Night Strike wrote: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 wrote: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.
PS. point to the New Testament passage that prohibits homosexuality?
Nope, that's bouncing around the issue as an excuse. It has no bearing on freedom.Night Strike wrote: I never said people can't have homosexual relationships. I'm saying that society cannot be forced to recognize it has marriage.
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?Night Strike wrote: 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.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.
Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.
Just because that's how they interpret the Bible doesn't make their "widely accepted views" correct.
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 wrote: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.PLAYER57832 wrote: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.Night Strike wrote: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 wrote: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.
PS. point to the New Testament passage that prohibits homosexuality?
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.
rdsrds2120 wrote:Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#2 -- please point to the section of the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality.
Romans 1 talks about how homosexual activities are morally reprehensible and unnatural.
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
Give who a try?AAFitz wrote: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 wrote: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.
Thats completely up to you, but I was referring to cigs and beer.Night Strike wrote:Give who a try?AAFitz wrote: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 wrote: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.
Oh, I thought "them" referred to people. Oops. And I'm not interested in either, so I have no reason to try them.AAFitz wrote:Thats completely up to you, but I was referring to cigs and beer.Night Strike wrote:Give who a try?AAFitz wrote: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 wrote: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.
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...
Well, it would allow you to discuss something you actually understood for once....just sayinNight Strike wrote:Oh, I thought "them" referred to people. Oops. And I'm not interested in either, so I have no reason to try them.AAFitz wrote:Thats completely up to you, but I was referring to cigs and beer.Night Strike wrote:Give who a try?AAFitz wrote: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 wrote: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.
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...
Well, that/s kind of your MO: Speak of that which you do not fully understand, isn't it?Night Strike wrote:I'm pretty sure I can understand the harms of cigarettes and alcohol without trying them.
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.AAFitz wrote:Well, that/s kind of your MO: Speak of that which you do not fully understand, isn't it?Night Strike wrote:I'm pretty sure I can understand the harms of cigarettes and alcohol without trying them.
It really wouldn't be any fun if you knew what you were talking about.
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]chang50 wrote: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.
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.chang50 wrote: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?
Yes, but why is that only OK when it agrees with your views and wrong when anyone else opposes your personal beliefs and ideas.Night Strike wrote: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.chang50 wrote: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?
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.Night Strike wrote: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.chang50 wrote: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?
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 wrote: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.Night Strike wrote: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.chang50 wrote: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?
Christianity ain't necessarily homophobic. Tends to be, sure, but the Bible is certainly homophobic. How Christians treat the Bible is the measure.
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 wrote: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 wrote: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.Night Strike wrote: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.chang50 wrote: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?
Christianity ain't necessarily homophobic. Tends to be, sure, but the Bible is certainly homophobic. How Christians treat the Bible is the measure.
I don't despise Christianity. I don't despise any religion.Night Strike wrote: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.