| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On May 12 2011 07:58 FabledIntegral wrote: Absolutely blows my mind, really, that you would suggest God's fine with TELLING us certain laws that he doesn't even want to happen. but if you take the literal meaning of the bible then you get screwed over by the 1000's of contradictions? | ||
|
Gofarman
Canada645 Posts
What did this petition achieve? So far, nothing. What does the OP imply it has achieved? Everything. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On May 12 2011 09:05 Gofarman wrote: "Ugandan MPs will debate a bill calling for gay people to be imprisoned for life on Friday after a walkout by women MPs over an unrelated matter forced parliament's adjournment." What did this petition achieve? So far, nothing. What does the OP imply it has achieved? Everything. If that quote is accurate, then the achievement has been reducing the punishment from the death penalty to life in prison. Which is still a barbaric thing to do, although less barbaric than the original law. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 12 2011 08:40 Signet wrote: Slow down, my argument doesn't involve God, or Sodom or Gomorrah. You stated: "I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?" Which, at least as it comes across to me, implies that there should be a code that is best for people to follow "from the start" and remains the best code thereafter. I don't think this is the case. I think that the laws needed and practical to effectively govern a fledgling civilization 3000 years ago are different than the laws needed and practical to effectively govern an established civilization today. Note that this argument does not involve the existence of god (whether the laws are actually handed down from heaven or reinforced by a culturally imagined deity is irrelevant to whether they enable the society to function), nor does it imply that the Bible itself contains an optimal set of laws either for Old Testament times or for today. It is a statement that legal code A > legal code B under circumstances X does not imply A > B under Y. I'd make a similar argument about, say, optimal laws in 1790 versus optimal laws in 2011. That's all. The rest is simply you projecting. I disagree completely 100%, and think the absolute notion is absurd, but really (and I take the blame for this one) I'm only derailing the topic. I hate people who post "this is what I think, but we're derailing so YOU PM ME," so Imma leave it at this. | ||
|
Kuror
United States399 Posts
On May 12 2011 09:05 Gofarman wrote: "Ugandan MPs will debate a bill calling for gay people to be imprisoned for life on Friday after a walkout by women MPs over an unrelated matter forced parliament's adjournment." What did this petition achieve? So far, nothing. What does the OP imply it has achieved? Everything. Fixed what I wrote, sorry. I didn't mean we've fixed everything, but postponing the bill for further debate, or even simply drawing publicity is definite victory in my mind. | ||
|
Triscuit
United States722 Posts
If this hasn't been said already, can we all be clear that 85% of the world's transmission of HIV is through HETEROSEXUAL intercourse. Only between 5-10% of the world's HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters. In America this is much different, almost half of HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters. The susceptibility of contracting HIV through anal sex is much higher than vaginal sex (by at least an order of magnitude) but the prevalence rate of HIV already in the African population, and the fact that neither contraceptives nor HIV tests are widely used, negate this. Women and men will pass this virus between each other eventually, over many (or just a few) encounters. Globally, HIV is not a "gay" infection. Punishing gay people for this epidemic is absurd. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 12 2011 13:41 Triscuit wrote: Someone, pages and pages ago said something about the link between HIV and homosexuals. I just finished up a class on the biology of AIDS, so I figured I would throw out some facts. If this hasn't been said already, can we all be clear that 85% of the world's transmission of HIV is through HETEROSEXUAL intercourse. Only between 5-10% of the world's HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters. In America this is much different, almost half of HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters. The susceptibility of contracting HIV through anal sex is much higher than vaginal sex (by at least an order of magnitude) but the prevalence rate of HIV already in the African population, and the fact that neither contraceptives nor HIV tests are widely used, negate this. Women and men will pass this virus between each other eventually, over many (or just a few) encounters. Globally, HIV is not a "gay" infection. Punishing gay people for this epidemic is absurd. But as you said, in America, massively more likely to get AIDs if you have sex with someone who's gay then straight. But that's because anal supposedly can cause a lot more cuts (easier to infect), and at the same time, guys are always horny, no need to use protection :o | ||
|
Triscuit
United States722 Posts
On May 12 2011 15:14 FabledIntegral wrote: But as you said, in America, massively more likely to get AIDs if you have sex with someone who's gay then straight. But that's because anal supposedly can cause a lot more cuts (easier to infect), and at the same time, guys are always horny, no need to use protection :o Well you are massively more likely to get HIV (AIDS and HIV are different things, although fundamentally connected they are not interchangable terms) from someone that has HIV through anal intercourse rather than vaginal intercourse. I know I'm splitting hairs here but I want to be specific. But we're talking about Uganda here. If anyone in Uganda should be punished, it is those that refuse to get an HIV test or use condoms. Condoms specifically, because other contraceptives don't prohibit transfer of fluids. Though I don't know if HIV is necessarily linked to this bill, someone brought it up as an argument and I was trying to throw in my two cents. | ||
|
JesusOurSaviour
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth. | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway456 Posts
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth. Your post made fair sense till the last 2 lines, however I am curious as to what makes these contradictions - which you are aware of you say - not valid, and how then you conclude; OT and the NT are the same God. Brain hurts  | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth. Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god. There are christians who are doctors and lawyers and engineers but what exactly would this prove? The more intelligent a person is the less likely they will be atheist. Being religious doesn't make you stupid and being atheist does not make you smart but being smart does make it more likely to be atheist. The bible contradicts itself all the time and not just when it comes to rules but even to stories. Nobody who has read the bible can say how Judas came to his demise. One half says he hanged himself, the other says he was smited by god. Some things even say he got stoned by the apostles and yet another says he grew insanely fat and then got run over by a chariot. The bible contains many contradictions but also many flaws that aren't open to interpretation. Obvious chronological mistakes or differing stories of wich one is without a doubt false (like how Judas died). I wonder how many people that call themselves christian actually read the bible. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On May 12 2011 17:58 zalz wrote: Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god. Where do you come up with this stuff? | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
One of the foundations of catholic christianity is the confession. You might want to realize that you don't know as much about christianity as you think you do. As long as you feel sorry for what you did, confessed and did what the priest in question asks of you, you are instantly cleansed of sin and the doors to heaven are wide open. Regardless of what you have done. However if you doubt god's work or even doubt his existence, you could have spent your entire life doing good things but hell awaits you. You have to be a christian to get into heaven, you can't just be a good person. Honestly you seemed utterly unaware of transubstantiation aswell. Stop pretending like you actually know a damn about christianity. | ||
|
DustinQQ
United States69 Posts
| ||
|
johanngrunt
Hong Kong1555 Posts
| ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On May 12 2011 19:41 zalz wrote: One of the foundations of catholic christianity is the confession. You might want to realize that you don't know as much about christianity as you think you do. As long as you feel sorry for what you did, confessed and did what the priest in question asks of you, you are instantly cleansed of sin and the doors to heaven are wide open. Regardless of what you have done. However if you doubt god's work or even doubt his existence, you could have spent your entire life doing good things but hell awaits you. You have to be a christian to get into heaven, you can't just be a good person. Honestly you seemed utterly unaware of transubstantiation aswell. Stop pretending like you actually know a damn about christianity. Wow. Again, where are you getting this stuff, exactly? Where was I ever talking about transubstantiation? | ||
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
On May 12 2011 19:41 zalz wrote: One of the foundations of catholic christianity is the confession. You might want to realize that you don't know as much about christianity as you think you do. As long as you feel sorry for what you did, confessed and did what the priest in question asks of you, you are instantly cleansed of sin and the doors to heaven are wide open. Regardless of what you have done. However if you doubt god's work or even doubt his existence, you could have spent your entire life doing good things but hell awaits you. You have to be a christian to get into heaven, you can't just be a good person. Honestly you seemed utterly unaware of transubstantiation aswell. Btw that (justification through actions) is a catholic position that is based mainly on canon law and not solely on the bible. Protestants reject this for that very reason. Stop pretending like you actually know a damn about christianity.[/ It doesnt seem like you have a much better understanding than most people either. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Wow. Again, where are you getting this stuff, exactly? Where was I ever talking about transubstantiation? How about you stick to your own subject for once? You asked me "where are you getting this stuff" in regards to confession. Can you not understand how frustrating it is when you come in here without any knowledge on christianity, proceed to pretend to know everything, and then proceed to argue from a flawed understanding of christianity? Btw that (justification through actions) is a catholic position that is based mainly on canon law and not solely on the bible. Protestants reject this for that very reason. Your point? I allready pointed out it's a catholic concept. What possible use does it have to say that protestants reject is when i allready pointed out that it's a catholic concept? It doesnt seem like you have a much better understanding than most people either. Because you just made up a mistake that i never made? Seems like solid reasoning. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On May 12 2011 20:02 zalz wrote: How about you stick to your own subject for once? You asked me "where are you getting this stuff" in regards to confession. Can you not understand how frustrating it is when you come in here without any knowledge on christianity, proceed to pretend to know everything, and then proceed to argue from a flawed understanding of christianity? Your point? I allready pointed out it's a catholic concept. What possible use does it have to say that protestants reject is when i allready pointed out that it's a catholic concept? Because you just made up a mistake that i never made? Seems like solid reasoning. Your posts are perfect storms of incomprehensibility and condescension. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Your posts are perfect storms of incomprehensibility and condescension. That's it? You demonstrate a deeply lacking understanding of even the most basic aspects of christian streams like catholicism and then you go out with some cheap shots and (as is to be expected at this point) avoiding anything i said. Don't engage in a debate when this is the best you come up with. It's not my mistake when i know things you don't. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
