Iowa...

#176
#176
droski said:
the version of the old testatment YOU are quoting was not written before christ. please tell me you are aware of this?
Click to expand...

The King James Version was translated in 1611.
The OT was written hundreds of years before Christ.

Please tell me you are aware of that.

Show me a legitimate translation that does not speak against Homosexuality...

Wow I don't believe this, when it comes to gay rights you are coming off like a flaming lib .... Maybe a little left of LG
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#177
#177
Vols378 said:
Show me a legitimate translation that does not speak against Homosexuality...

Wow I don't believe this, when it comes to gay rights you are coming off like a flaming lib .... Maybe a little left of LG
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

what your definition of a "legitimate translation?"

like most conservatives i don't think the govt should be regulating people's lives. i'm not sure why you think the gov't shoudl be involved in our bedrooms.
 
#178
#178
droski said:
sounds like a similar semantics argument to "i'm not damning gays to hell, but simply telling them with love that they are going there."
Click to expand...

Interesting way of putting it.

First off, you are partially correct, I can't "damn" anyone to hell.

Second, would it be better to do it out of hate? Those that seek that path are wrong. Can I disagree with you and vise versa without hate? Absolutely.
 
#180
#180
BeecherVol said:
Interesting way of putting it.

First off, you are partially correct, I can't "damn" anyone to hell.

Second, would it be better to do it out of hate? Those that seek that path are wrong. Can I disagree with you and vise versa without hate? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

i think it's pretty hilarious to tell someone they are going to hell and then say it's not a hateful statement. but we've been down this road before and it's not worth my time to argue about it. the point being is that if you telling someone why you didn't vote for obama you are clearly suggesting that they made a mistake voting for obama. otherwise why have the conversation?
 
#181
#181
droski said:
what your definition of a "legitimate translation?"

like most conservatives i don't think the govt should be regulating people's lives. i'm not sure why you think the gov't shoudl be involved in our bedrooms.
Click to expand...

Is it considered government regulation if it is decided by the people in a vote? As in the marriage part.
 
#183
#183
droski said:
what your definition of a "legitimate translation?"

like most conservatives i don't think the govt should be regulating people's lives. i'm not sure why you think the gov't shoudl be involved in our bedrooms.
Click to expand...

Ther you go again trying to change the subject
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#186
#186
droski said:
i think it's pretty hilarious to tell someone they are going to hell and then say it's not a hateful statement. but we've been down this road before and it's not worth my time to argue about it. the point being is that if you telling someone why you didn't vote for obama you are clearly suggesting that they made a mistake voting for obama. otherwise why have the conversation?
Click to expand...

If you firmly believed it to be true, (as I do) would you consider it hateful if you could have known and no one told you?

From my stance that is hateful. It is possible to disagree with the actions and not hate the person (some are guilty of hating the person along with the action, in this case they are wrong). To me that is the part that gets lost in all this.
 
#187
#187
BeecherVol said:
If you firmly believed it to be true, (as I do) would you consider it hateful if you could have known and no one told you?

From my stance that is hateful. It is possible to disagree with the actions and not hate the person (some are guilty of hating the person along with the action, in this case they are wrong). To me that is the part that gets lost in all this.
Click to expand...

This isn't witholding telling someone they have cancer. This is a hypothetical hell based on INTERPRETATIONS of teh bible. you need to be locked up if you can with a straight face tell me you know for sure that gays are going to hell.

people's actions are who they are. that's why they call someone who muders someone a "murderor."
 
#188
#188
droski said:
of course. the people can't vote for more gov't regulation? see obama.
Click to expand...

I kinda see your point, but is there a difference in voting specifically for "A" ( as in this is exactly what you are voting on here, nothing more nothing less)and voting for someone that is gonna regulate "A" under his terms and ideas?
 
#190
#190
droski said:
This isn't witholding telling someone they have cancer. This is a hypothetical hell based on INTERPRETATIONS of teh bible. you need to be locked up if you can with a straight face tell me you know for sure that gays are going to hell.

people's actions are who they are. that's why they call someone who muders someone a "murderor."
Click to expand...

That is the difference, I don't see a "hypothetical hell", if I did, we would not be having this discussion.

"Locked up" really? For disagreeing?
 
#191
#191
droski said:
so why bother writing the bible if god's law already existed?
Click to expand...

As a record for those that come after us

People know that its against the law to murder, yet we still write it in a book to let everyone know that its wrong
 
Last edited:
#192
#192
MG1968 said:
are you really that daft?

none of us was alive during the Exodus, but we are expected to believe that it happened based solely on the ramblings of a crazy old man named Moses who may or may not have existed.
Click to expand...

Would you call that 'condescending'?

How do you get that Moses was a crazy old man?

Interesting, I've never seen anyone question the existance of Moses, do you think Abraham existed??

FWIW the dead sea scrolls (probably from the Essenes) that were from the time of Jesus translate word for word the same as our modern translations of the Old Testament.

The only difference is that there are some minor prophets that we don't have in modern Bibles that are included in the dead sea scrolls and the book of Esther is not included and that happens to be the only book where the word "God" is not recorded.

"Est Deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo."
Ovid
 
#193
#193
BeecherVol said:
That is the difference, I don't see a "hypothetical hell", if I did, we would not be having this discussion.

"Locked up" really? For disagreeing?
Click to expand...

so if i had a gun to your head and said I would pull the trigger if there was no hell for gays you'd tell me to go ahead? you wouldn't have an ounce of self doubt?

CountVolcula said:
People know that its against the law to murder, yet we still write it in a book to let everyone know that its wrong
Click to expand...

didn't you just spend the prior 10 pages of this thread telling us that without the bible no one would know killing is wrong?
 
#194
#194
droski said:
so if i had a gun to your head and said I would pull the trigger if there was no hell for gays you'd tell me to go ahead? you wouldn't have an ounce of self doubt?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that all will stand before judgement.
The sin is paid for, if you accept the terms. If you accept the terms part of that is turning away from sin. Does that make you a perfect person not capable of future sin? No. Does it mean that you strive to separate yourself from it? Yes.
 
#195
#195
This is all becoming irrelevant to the OP, guys. We're here to talk about why/why not same sex marriage should/shouldn't be legislated.

Although the last 6 pages have proven the nay argument really has no ground to stand on.
 
#196
#196
droski said:
so if i had a gun to your head and said I would pull the trigger if there was no hell for gays you'd tell me to go ahead? you wouldn't have an ounce of self doubt?



didn't you just spend the prior 10 pages of this thread telling us that without the bible no one would know killing is wrong?
Click to expand...

Ok, if a person believes that God created man, then God was before man. God already had laws in place that he told Adam and Eve. Therefore, Gods Law predated Mans law, which came from God.
 
#197
#197
If gay marriage is allowed in a particular state and a preacher refuses to marry a gay couple can the institution be sued in court? this is a question that I have not been able to get a clear answer to.

I personally find homosexuality to be rather repulsive but in that sense it is no different than any number of heterosexual lifestyles/acts I find equally repulsive. That being said gay marriage simply does not effect me in any way, I simply don't care if two men or women want to be married.
 
#199
#199
CountVolcula said:
Ok, if a person believes that God created man, then God was before man. God already had laws in place that he told Adam and Eve. Therefore, Gods Law predated Mans law, which came from God.
Click to expand...

the only two rules for Adam and Eve were:

1) Don't talk to that snake over there.
2) Don't eat them apples.

it was all downhill after that
 
#200
#200
KB5252 said:
If gay marriage is allowed in a particular state and a preacher refuses to marry a gay couple can the institution be sued in court? this is a question that I have not been able to get a clear answer to.
Click to expand...

I would say no but wouldn't the couple already know the church's views before trying to get married there? If it was an option there would be plenty of places open for them to get married
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top