You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[RainLover]

Galaxiom

I don't believe will will get anywhere near close on agrement.

Shall we call it a day.

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

All I want to say is: Everyone's a little bit racist, bigotted and sexist.

And since everyone's gone so far off the original topic into matters of gay rights etc., etc., all I have to say is that all the signs point to (slow but steady) progress in favour of "the gays" and that the LGBTQ civil rights movement of today is the black civil rights movement and the women's civil rights movement of yesterday. To resist is inevitable, as what has begun cannot be ended. And all biblical arguments ought to be considered unsound, as the bible is full of contradictions and hypocrisy. After all, what are "God's teachings" on the rights of women, the ownership of slaves, the consequences of speaking to a woman who is riding her menstrual cycle, the rules regarding acceptable and "clean" food? According to bible, any man who has had sex with a man shall be killed. Yet few who believe in the bible would take this teaching literally.

 

[KenHigg]

... According to bible, any man who has had sex with a man shall be killed.

Really - where?

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

Really - where?

Leviticus. Can't recall the chapter and verse off hand, but if you really want me to go digging...

 

[Brianwarnock]

Try 20 .13

Brian

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

That's the one!

 

[Vassago]

Who cares what the Bible says? If we base laws on it, then we are no different than the Muslim extremists trying to push Sharia law in the Middle East.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I don't think syntax does as his last line implies

Brian

 

[Vassago]

I know, I was adding to his/her argument.

 

[KenHigg]

Leviticus. Can't recall the chapter and verse off hand, but if you really want me to go digging...

Thats ok. As I suspected its related to living under the law, not grace. Which, fyi, kinda means Christians are not expected to be bound to it, just the Jews, BC.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Thats ok. As I suspected its related to living under the law, not grace. Which, fyi, kinda means Christians are not expected to be bound to it, just the Jews, BC.

You will have to explain that Ken, it didn't mean anything to me.

Leviticus does not say that homosexuals will be killed for being a homosexual

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev.20:13

I don't know if it does elsewhere, probably not as the bible like all religious texts I have read or had quoted to me is just totally vague, notice too how sexist it is, no mention of women lying with women, no condemnation of women fancying the guy next door etc.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

You will have to explain that Ken, it didn't mean anything to me.

Leviticus does not say that homosexuals will be killed for being a homosexual



I don't know if it does elsewhere, probably not as the bible like all religious texts I have read or had quoted to me is just totally vague, notice too how sexist it is, no mention of women lying with women, no condemnation of women fancying the guy next door etc.

Brian

Its talking about 2 bloke threesomes - "as he lieth with a woman" so - homosexuality is fine and so are lipstick lesbians.

As so of course is a threesome involving 2 girls and a bloke.

There is a god.

 

[KenHigg]

As so of course is a threesome involving 2 girls and a bloke.

There is a god.

Again - That pretty much paints the picture around here, and in a large part of the world

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Again - That pretty much paints the picture around here

You lucky bugger!

 

[KenHigg]

You will have to explain that Ken, it didn't mean anything to me.

Thats ok, our ignorance on a topic rarely prevents us from confirming it.

I don't consider myself a model Christain and I doubt you have a true desire to understand, so I'll save us the effort and keep my mouth shut

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Thats ok, our ignorance on a topic rarely prevents us from confirming it.

I don't consider myself a model Christain and I doubt you have a true desire to understand, so I'll save us the effort and keep my mouth shut

My interpretation is fairly clear and also requires not so much effort to manufacture explain or understand.

Why is yours so difficult? Surely the correct interpretation shouldnt be the most obscure?

 

[KenHigg]

I'm not sure your willingness to understand is genuine. My guess is you just want more opportunity to spew flippant comebacks. Besides, I don’t like to beat my head against the wall, even though that isn’t exactly evidenced by my participation around here in the first place…

 

[Brianwarnock]

Thats ok, our ignorance on a topic rarely prevents us from confirming it.

I don't consider myself a model Christain and I doubt you have a true desire to understand, so I'll save us the effort and keep my mouth shut

Your mind reading is failing, I did want to understand, I can only assume that you didn't understand what you wrote either, that's no big deal . It's not unusual for the religious to quote strange things and then cop out of a real explanation.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I'm not sure your willingness to understand is genuine. My guess is you just want more opportunity to spew flippant comebacks. Besides, I don’t like to beat my head against the wall, even though that isn’t exactly evidenced by my participation around here in the first place…

I may have little desire to agree - or rather little expectation I will agree, but my aspiration to at least understand is genuine.

 

[KenHigg]

... I can only assume that you didn't understand what you wrote either

Thats ok Brian, we all make incorrect assumptions from time to time.