http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1767470620070417

Personally, I would agree with the archbishop. It would be paradoxical for a christian to believe that the New Testament has anti-homosexual sentiments in it. It just doesn't make sense when you examine other quotes in the New Testament about loving one's neighbor.

Any thoughts from the conservative christians on the board(and others in general)?

HMmm his pronouncements might carry more credibilty if his church wasn't threatening to split apart over the issue of gay ordination.

And I'm sad to say that the whimsical musings of that full time media celeb and part time member of the Church Of England, also known as 'The Archbish', have long long since lost any validity among the more left wing of the reformation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1767470620070417

Personally, I would agree with the archbishop. It would be paradoxical for a christian to believe that the New Testament has anti-homosexual sentiments in it. It just doesn't make sense when you examine other quotes in the New Testament about loving one's neighbor.

Any thoughts from the conservative christians on the board(and others in general)?

You agree? Your a fucking athiest, you got nothing to agree with! Just because you like it doesnt mean thats what it is!

Anti-gay shit is not about hating gays! We dont marry them, why? Marriage is between a man and a woman! Also its very immoral! some may say stuff that you cant say that because it never says that in the bible! Well hate to break it to those but in the old testiment it says that sexual contact between men is wrong! I dont know the exact position it is in nor the exact words(read it myself just cant remember the exact words)!!!

Now with that in mind, we do not HATE gay people! its the act we dont like not the people! We as Christians its our job to try and not to be immoral or commit sins!


it doesnt matter if a man on earth says they are married! It is not seen by God so therefor they can never truly be married!!!

Well hate to break it to those but in the old testiment it says that sexual contact between men is wrong!!!!


The Old Testament also says that owning and selling other human beings is alright:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

The Old Testament also says that beating your slaves is okay:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Also, it allows daughters to be sold like cattle:

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Do you support these practices also, Masta Thief? If you're going to ditch one passage, you'd might as well ditch them all.

You agree? Your a fucking athiest, you got nothing to agree with! Just because you like it doesnt mean thats what it is!

Anti-gay shit is not about hating gays! We dont marry them, why? Marriage is between a man and a woman! Also its very immoral! some may say stuff that you cant say that because it never says that in the bible! Well hate to break it to those but in the old testiment it says that sexual contact between men is wrong! I dont know the exact position it is in nor the exact words(read it myself just cant remember the exact words)!!!

Now with that in mind, we do not HATE gay people! its the act we dont like not the people! We as Christians its our job to try and not to be immoral or commit sins!


it doesnt matter if a man on earth says they are married! It is not seen by God so therefor they can never truly be married!!!



What give's YOU the RIGHT to prevent a bond between to people who are deeply in love. And just because the OP is an athiest, doesn't mean he can't agree. A man posted an arguement. The OP agreed with him. Doesn't matter if he's athiest or not, he has every much of the right as you do to post his opinion. I hope you really are a clost homosexual. Or just get raped by some guy. Then live with it. Also you just fucking contradicted yourself, asshat. First you say you don't hate them. Then you say that what they do and how the live their life is immoral and sinful. In the eyes of a christian, and via the eyes of followers of the old testement anywhere, sinning is bad and the people who do it are to be cast out of society and shunned, as they are bad. I fucking hate you.


EDIT: As for what Angryfemme said, if you say that you only pick and choose parts of the bible you worship, stop typing. Come find me and suck my dick, really. That's about all you're worth at that point.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1767470620070417

Personally, I would agree with the archbishop. It would be paradoxical for a christian to believe that the New Testament has anti-homosexual sentiments in it. It just doesn't make sense when you examine other quotes in the New Testament about loving one's neighbor.

Any thoughts from the conservative christians on the board(and others in general)?
I don't necessarily believe that loving one's neighbour necessarily means approving of his sexual exploits. Paul is fairly unambiguous when he says "homosexual offenders" will not see the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10). That isn't exactly a cuddly scripture for the gay lobby when it comes to Christianity. For Jews, God describes homosexual acts as an "abomination" (Lev. 18:22). Again, it's fairly clear that the disposition of the Bible is against the practice. Since I would imagine that relatively few of the religious people on this board are affiliated with the Church of England, I don't really see how the Arch-Bishop's stances on anything are of any great consequence. His argument that the main thrust of Paul's illustration in 1st Corinthians is to warn against being self-righteous towards sinners is interesting, but even if we accept it as true, Paul is still citing "homosexual offenders" as sinners before whom, by his interpretation, Christians should not be self-righteous. Since no Christian I know of would take umbrage with the contention that they shouldn't be self-righteous, I don't see how the Christians on this board should view this statement as anything other than a rhetorical smokescreen for political correctness sake. The Bible, both the Christian and Jewish parts, holds homosexuality as sinful, that nobody should be self-righteous (because naturally, and especially under Christian doctrine, nobody is perfect) does not detract from that fact, and the Christian prerogative to humbly but firmly rebuke their fellow applies to homosexuals as well.

I think you're missing the principle point of the article though, and that is that judging one's sexuality is not our place, it's God's.

"Williams said these lines were "for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality." But right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn those who ignore God's word.

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself," wrote Paul, the first-century apostle whose epistles, or letters, to early Christian communities elaborated many Church teachings."

That, I think, is the sentiment the article is trying to express.

I probably wasn't very clear in my first post.

When I say paradoxical, I mean, considering how much time the New Testament spends on the "judge not lest ye be judged" theme, it would be paradoxical for anyone, including christians, to use the bible, or more specifically the New Testament, as support for the villification of homosexuals. Whether this be in the form of preventing gays from marrying, or just being so homophobic that no gay would feel safe near you.

I would say that Williams and some here need to read on a bit further.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

So paul isn't condemning the condemnation of others but hypocrisy.

And Paul even goes on to say that God will judge those who indulge in such acts.Its fairly clear that Williams is just trying to get out of the hole the CoE has dug for itself.

When the CoE allowed the ordination of women it set itself up theologically for all this kind of politically correct nonsense and possible schism.

What give's YOU the RIGHT to prevent a bond between to people who are deeply in love. And just because the OP is an athiest, doesn't mean he can't agree. A man posted an arguement. The OP agreed with him. Doesn't matter if he's athiest or not, he has every much of the right as you do to post his opinion. I hope you really are a clost homosexual. Or just get raped by some guy. Then live with it. Also you just fucking contradicted yourself, asshat. First you say you don't hate them. Then you say that what they do and how the live their life is immoral and sinful. In the eyes of a christian, and via the eyes of followers of the old testement anywhere, sinning is bad and the people who do it are to be cast out of society and shunned, as they are bad. I fucking hate you.


EDIT: As for what Angryfemme said, if you say that you only pick and choose parts of the bible you worship, stop typing. Come find me and suck my dick, really. That's about all you're worth at that point.

hahahahah!!! your a fucking retard! I didnt contradict myself, we dont cast out sinners, what mental hospital do you reside in? Everyone is a sinner its human nature you douchebag! the only person who wasnt was Jesus!

WOW PEOPLE SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTHS!!! YOUR RETARDEDNESS IS AMAZING! JUST SHUT THE HELL UP BEFORE YOU EMBARRES YOURSELF EVEN MORE!!!

hahahahah!!! your a fucking retard! I didnt contradict myself, we dont cast out sinners, what mental hospital do you reside in? Everyone is a sinner its human nature you douchebag! the only person who wasnt was Jesus!

WOW PEOPLE SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTHS!!! YOUR RETARDEDNESS IS AMAZING! JUST SHUT THE HELL UP BEFORE YOU EMBARRES YOURSELF EVEN MORE!!!

On the subject of Life in the rubber room, maybe you could ask the nurse for a keyboard where the Caps lock doesn't stick , when she comes in to give you your Ritalin®.

By the way Masta, you still didn't answer my question. What gives you the right to stop the marriage between two people in love. As god, I think the christians have taken this thing too far. Gay people are still ok in my book. Right now their actually above you.

And two more things.

1. You said that just because the OP liked the arguement doesn't make it right. From the way your defending it, you make it seem like you think it's right. By your own logic, it isn't right just because YOU like it.

2. So now your a sinner too then. If everyone as a human is a sinner, then you are too. Have fun in hell, I'll tell Satan to watch for you.

By the way Masta, you still didn't answer my question. What gives you the right to stop the marriage between two people in love. As god, I think the christians have taken this thing too far. Gay people are still ok in my book. Right now their actually above you.

And two more things.

1. You said that just because the OP liked the arguement doesn't make it right. From the way your defending it, you make it seem like you think it's right. By your own logic, it isn't right just because YOU like it.

2. So now your a sinner too then. If everyone as a human is a sinner, then you are too. Have fun in hell, I'll tell Satan to watch for you.

fuck off! the right for me to have in the first place, why? because it doesnt exist!!! In the religion of christianity it is impossible for a man to marry a man!!!! get married by the state i dont give a shit but the church wont marry them or recognise them as such! As it is not recognised by God!!!

i dont hate them!!! i hate the act!!!

So you don't hate the people, you just hate what they stand for and what they believe in. Yea, that's real loving and christian like. Actually it makes sense for a christian, "we love everyone as long as they love the some things as us," should be your motto.

I think everyone is forgetting that act of marriage wasn't a Christian, or even Jewish custom first. Egyptians were getting married more than 10 thousand years ago, long before Judaism. The basis of it was originally a ceremony linking two people's hearts, therefore spirits together. The Ring is placed on the left hand ring finger because it has a artery running straight to it from the heart, so it's the most direct route to the heart. The rings symbolize the link of your hearts.

If one Church wants to marry gays, let them, if they don't, let's not force them too. If you don't agree with your church's policy, go to a different church that represents you better. I don't see the problem here. People don't have to think exactly the same to make a community, that's fascism.

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?"

Paul is saying that anyone who condemns another for their sins, is a hypocrite because we are all sinners.

So you don't hate the people, you just hate what they stand for and what they believe in. Yea, that's real loving and christian like. Actually it makes sense for a christian, "we love everyone as long as they love the some things as us," should be your motto.

FUCKING DUMBASS LISTEN!!! WE DONT HATE THEM JUST WHAT THEY DO! NOT THE HOMOS THEMSELVES BUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!! FUCKING IGNORANT CUNT!!!

FUCKING DUMBASS LISTEN!!! WE DONT HATE THEM JUST WHAT THEY DO! NOT THE HOMOS THEMSELVES BUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!! FUCKING IGNORANT CUNT!!!

Is your keyboard still broken? Shall I edit out the caps lock for you?

NO,no don't thank me. I know how much you appreciate my editing your posts if they need it.

Is your keyboard still broken? Shall I edit out the caps lock for you?

NO,no don't thank me. I know how much you appreciate my editing your posts if they need it.

wtf? get off my back you cunt!

FUCKING DUMBASS LISTEN!!! FUCKING IGNORANT CUNT!!!

And you call yourself a Christian ... :rolleyes:

You angry little man, you. Oughta be ashamed of yourself.

And you call yourself a Christian ... :rolleyes:

You angry little man, you. Oughta be ashamed of yourself.

well im not!

I think you're missing the principle point of the article though, and that is that judging one's sexuality is not our place, it's God's.

"Williams said these lines were "for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality." But right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn those who ignore God's word.

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself," wrote Paul, the first-century apostle whose epistles, or letters, to early Christian communities elaborated many Church teachings."

That, I think, is the sentiment the article is trying to express.

I probably wasn't very clear in my first post.

When I say paradoxical, I mean, considering how much time the New Testament spends on the "judge not lest ye be judged" theme, it would be paradoxical for anyone, including christians, to use the bible, or more specifically the New Testament, as support for the villification of homosexuals. Whether this be in the form of preventing gays from marrying, or just being so homophobic that no gay would feel safe near you.I don't think the general tenor of the New Testament equates qualitative decision making (i.e. deciding what behaviours are right and what behaviours are wrong) with "judging." It would seem to me from the context that the commandment to "judge not" applies more in the sense of "passing sentence" upon others, not merely recognising the moral context of their actions. This would be supported by the fact that Paul urges Christians to rebuke one another. In order to rebuke one's fellow (something Paul does in his own writings), one must first make the determination that what that person is doing is wrong (i.e. worthy of rebuke). So the paradox is mostly illusory and owing to the modern sense of what it is to be "judgmental." After all, qualitative decision-making, choosing the better of multiple options/behaviours, is the essence of rational thought. That Christians shouldn't go around telling other Christians that they should be stoned in the streets for their behaviours does not necessarily mean that Christians should not make their fellows aware of those behaviours which are forbidden by Christian doctrine. This reading seems the only one that maintains the coherence of Paul's writings, but I invite the Christians on the forum to comment.

well im not!

You're an athiest?

You're an athiest?

no im not ashamed!!!

no im not ashamed!!!

Ashamed of what? Your hate?

Ashamed of what? Your hate?

no agervation!

If you should be ashamed of anything; it's your spelling.

If you should be ashamed of anything; it's your spelling.

you know what i like you, why flame me just because we have differ oppinions?

I don't think the general tenor of the New Testament equates qualitative decision making (i.e. deciding what behaviours are right and what behaviours are wrong) with "judging." It would seem to me from the context that the commandment to "judge not" applies more in the sense of "passing sentence" upon others, not merely recognising the moral context of their actions. This would be supported by the fact that Paul urges Christians to rebuke one another. In order to rebuke one's fellow (something Paul does in his own writings), one must first make the determination that what that person is doing is wrong (i.e. worthy of rebuke). So the paradox is mostly illusory and owing to the modern sense of what it is to be "judgmental." After all, qualitative decision-making, choosing the better of multiple options/behaviours, is the essence of rational thought. That Christians shouldn't go around telling other Christians that they should be stoned in the streets for their behaviours does not necessarily mean that Christians should not make their fellows aware of those behaviours which are forbidden by Christian doctrine. This reading seems the only one that maintains the coherence of Paul's writings, but I invite the Christians on the forum to comment.

Would you be open to hear comments from an ex-Christian?

Granted, the term "judgemental" has different meaning and connotation in today's modern world versus the time when Paul was alive and spinning the doctrine, but to me it just seems glaringly obvious that "passing sentence" is not what the Bible intended by "judge not, lest ye be judged". Someone may interpret it as so, and it might reinforce their own self-righteousness when they're believing in their hearts and discussing with their religious peers how a good portion of their fellow man is going to burn in hell for all eternity - but even considering that a human being would have the authority to "pass sentence" on another human being ... is ludicrous.

God and God alone is the only being capable of determining the outcome of a sinner's afterlife "verdict", and the Bible makes that very clear. Wouldn't that make it doubly obvious, then - to even the most biblically uneducated person - that "passing sentence" was not what that passage intended? Doesn't it seem clear that "Judge Not" means just that - don't size up your fellow man based on your own judgements of his moral behaviour?

Qualitative decision-making, weighing certain decisions and choosing to exercise rational thought ... aren't those values you reap from your own free will? Would God have really approved of outside intervention from those who fancy themselves more pure in His light to constantly point out the sins of his brothers? Being all of us with sin, doesn't the word of God also advise those who are in glass houses to not to throw stones? This makes it triply obvious that "passing sentence" was not what the passage intended. It makes don't size up your fellow man based on your own judgements of his moral behaviour loud and clear here also.

This is different than merely educating those who seek God and who request to be counseled on God's word from a person of the cloth, or a minister or trusted friend. These people who seek to find God should be open season for those who wish to espouse what God prefers, and what God could really do without concerning activities of mankind. So teaching the word of God is one thing...but posing as God's personal bailiff by handing out citations when the 'defendants' get a litte rowdy - is something else entirely. It's doling out judgement - even though the bailiff doesn't have enough authority to actually sentence them to punishment. This makes it quadruply obvious that can't be what God intended by that passage.

If we consistently recognize the moral content of a person's actions, that's fine. It's really nothing more than just a simple observation exercise. We do it all day long. We can't help but recognize the differences of other's actions without having some kind of mental comparison on how it is alike/different from our own actions. It's natural, it's a given, it's how we decide who we allow into our personal "circles", maybe even how we measure our own goodness.

It seems impossible to believe that in addition to this natural recognition capacity we have, it falls into the line of duty for all people of faith to then "make their fellows aware" of their moral shortcomings. Teaching people religion is acceptable, but pointing out (thereby passing judgement) another person's less-than-holiness should be reserved only for the Big Guy in the Sky.

To refute someone is to attempt to prove and/or defend your own position. That's righteous. To rebuke someone is to express stern disapproval and reprimand - which is not so righteous, and quite close to being downright cocky and pompous. Would God really approve of that?

FUCKING DUMBASS LISTEN!!! WE DONT HATE THEM JUST WHAT THEY DO! NOT THE HOMOS THEMSELVES BUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!! FUCKING IGNORANT CUNT!!!

But what they do is their lifestyle, and their belief, and their choice. So you hate everything about them, but you don't actually hate them? Your fucked up.

I don't necessarily believe that loving one's neighbour necessarily means approving of his sexual exploits. Paul is fairly unambiguous when he says "homosexual offenders" will not see the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10). That isn't exactly a cuddly scripture for the gay lobby when it comes to Christianity.

Yes... could you give that to me in the greek? I'm having a raging debate with someone about whether it says androkotai or arsenokotai...

you know what i like you, why flame me just because we have differ oppinions?

Well you know what? I don't like you. You've proven yourself time and time again to be a bigot, a homophobe and an angry hateful little man.

Your understanding of the world around you is poor and you post unsubstantiated archaic ideas, then get angry and irrational when people point out how wrong you are.

Your grasp of important scientific theories is slim to none, and you use your poor knowledge of these ideas to argue against them from incorrect inferences.

You over simplify.

You have BLIND FAITH in the bible. And get quite heated when people point out the "worth" of that particular text.

Quite simply if I had my way I'd delete your account until i had some sort of photographic evidence that you were reading books OTHER than the bible.

I know this is a religious forum...but bloody hell they should have a "you must be this tall to post in this forum" sign up or something.

I don't mind debating with religious folks...Just not the retarded religious folks.

You were OK to begin with...But over the course of time you've shown your true colours. You are not here to learn anything new, only to blindly spout your outdated ideas and get unjustifiably angry at those who oppose you.

:o

Well good DAY to you sir.

The Old Testament also says that owning and selling other human beings is alright:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

The Old Testament also says that beating your slaves is okay:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Also, it allows daughters to be sold like cattle:

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Do you support these practices also, Masta Thief? If you're going to ditch one passage, you'd might as well ditch them all.

It also says that working on a Sunday is punishable by death.

Read this (http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html)

It also says that working on a Sunday is punishable by death.

Read this (http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html)

Ya think?

I don't think the general tenor of the New Testament equates qualitative decision making (i.e. deciding what behaviours are right and what behaviours are wrong) with "judging." It would seem to me from the context that the commandment to "judge not" applies more in the sense of "passing sentence" upon others, not merely recognising the moral context of their actions. This would be supported by the fact that Paul urges Christians to rebuke one another. In order to rebuke one's fellow (something Paul does in his own writings), one must first make the determination that what that person is doing is wrong (i.e. worthy of rebuke). So the paradox is mostly illusory and owing to the modern sense of what it is to be "judgmental." After all, qualitative decision-making, choosing the better of multiple options/behaviours, is the essence of rational thought. That Christians shouldn't go around telling other Christians that they should be stoned in the streets for their behaviours does not necessarily mean that Christians should not make their fellows aware of those behaviours which are forbidden by Christian doctrine. This reading seems the only one that maintains the coherence of Paul's writings, but I invite the Christians on the forum to comment.

ya what he said!!! perfect arguement!

http://homophobelol.ytmnd.com/

Yes, this is a YTMND site, I know, but I couldn't find the audio clip anywhere else. I thought I'd share it as it DOES show how some people pick and choose which parts of the old tesement they like and which ones they don't. Just listen to the whole thing. It has to do with people misreading what the old testement has to say about homosexuality.

PLEASE!!!EVERYONE TURN OFF THEIR FUCKING CAPS!!!AND DON'T USE THREE EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IS NOT THAT EXCITING!!!


That said, I feel that gays should be allowed to marry. In fact, you hardly ever hear of homosexual domestic violence, so they must be happier with each other.

^ Sodomy IS domestic violence

^ Sodomy IS domestic violence

If consensual, how the hell is it domestic violence?

We as Christians its our job to try and not to be immoral or commit sins!

"We as Christians"? You're not a Christian. Your posts in this thread alone are proof enough that the only reason you call yourself Christian is to have what you feel is a valid excuse to attack people you disagree with.

Jesus spent his life showing those around him how to get on with each other through love, compassion, understanding and tolerance. Do you think that by calling people "cunts" you're making yourself look good in His eyes?

How old are you btw? Mid teens?

If consensual, how the hell is it domestic violence?

Point of law (well english law anyway) no one can consent to being abused...even if they do.

As the anus wasn't designed to have a penis inserted one could argue that by its very nature sodomy is infact abuse.

As the anus wasn't designed to have a penis inserted one could argue that by its very nature sodomy is infact abuse.

1. you're saying "designed" as if a being made it with a purpose in mind, which is incredibly unsubstantiated, 2. you've not backed up your claim that it's abuse even if it is consensual with any type of source, and I'm very suspicious of the claim because S&M is perfectly legal here in the UK, and 3. you're using the is-ought fallacy for both nature and law.

1. you're saying "designed" as if a being made it with a purpose in mind, which is incredibly unsubstantiated, 2. you've not backed up your claim that it's abuse even if it is consensual with any type of source, and I'm very suspicious of the claim because S&M is perfectly legal here in the UK, and 3. you're using the is-ought fallacy for both nature and law.

Check if you like , it is a legal principle that no one can consent to being abused (unless Tony has removed that one too). And there have been cases where S&M'ers have ended up in court on this one. If i remember right the last major case was in the mid 90's.

If i can recall the details I'll look it up.

Check if you like

No, you made the claim, you provide the source that shows it is a current law and that sodomy falls under it. Also, why did you not address everything else I said?

As the anus wasn't designed to have a penis inserted one could argue that by its very nature sodomy is infact abuse.

If you take the "wasn't designed to do such and such" course of logic...
- Ears were never made to be pierced, yet every year thousands of little girls get a piece of metal jammed in there at the behest of their white ultra-Christian mums. Should piercing be banned as an abuse of the body?
- We were never designed to live in electrically powered houses, yet we do. We're now so dependent on our houses that most of us couldn't survive if we tried to live in the wild like we used to. Should we ban houses, so people will live as nature/God intended?
- Hamsters were never designed to run in plastic wheels. Is that an abomination of nature that should be outlawed by the legal system?

Regardless. What about free will? Considering we're free to do as we please, nothing is designed to be used only one way or another. You mean we have free will as long as we only do this and that, because that is completely out of order, even though it doesn't affect me in the least...?

- Ears were never made to be pierced, yet every year thousands of little girls get a piece of metal jammed in there at the behest of their white ultra-Christian mums. Should piercing be banned as an abuse of the body?

I agree. Ear piercing, tattooing, c-sections, injections, and loads of life-saving medical procedures. I dare you to go into a room where a baby has an umbilical chord tangled around its neck and go "hey, God didn't design the belly to be cut open for babies to be pulled out, how dare you! It's either a natural birth, or no birth!"

"hey, God didn't design the belly to be cut open for babies to be pulled out, how dare you! It's either a natural birth, or no birth!"

Scarily enough I've known christian groups who have followed that 'logic'.

And JW's come close with their banning of blood transfusions at times.

If you take the "wasn't designed to do such and such" course of logic...
- Ears were never made to be pierced, yet every year thousands of little girls get a piece of metal jammed in there at the behest of their white ultra-Christian mums. Should piercing be banned as an abuse of the body?
- We were never designed to live in electrically powered houses, yet we do. We're now so dependent on our houses that most of us couldn't survive if we tried to live in the wild like we used to. Should we ban houses, so people will live as nature/God intended?
- Hamsters were never designed to run in plastic wheels. Is that an abomination of nature that should be outlawed by the legal system?

Regardless. What about free will? Considering we're free to do as we please, nothing is designed to be used only one way or another. You mean we have free will as long as we only do this and that, because that is completely out of order, even though it doesn't affect me in the least...?

Uhm there is certainly a feeling here that piercing a young child's ears is abuse. I'm sure there is a pressure group somewhere.

And I'll lay money someone among the groups of tree hugging animal lovers wants to ban hamster wheels.

Remember i said 'could be argued'.

No, you made the claim, you provide the source that shows it is a current law and that sodomy falls under it. Also, why did you not address everything else I said?

In some countries (notably United Kingdom), individuals may not consent to injuries inflicted upon them, and so a person practicing sadism and masochism upon a consenting partner may be deemed to have caused actual bodily harm without consent, actual consent notwithstanding. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (2). See also Spanner case and 'consensual non-consensuality'.

In March 1993, the appeal was dismissed (R v Brown (1993) 2 All ER 75) by 3-2 majority of the Lords, with Lord Templeman in particular declaring that:

"In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defense of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."

An attempt to overturn the convictions in the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 failed.

The legal rationale for the decisions were broadly speaking as follows:

1. (UK courts) A person does not have the legal ability to consent to receive an act which will seriously harm them, such as branding or other intense activities of a sadomasochistic nature.
2. (European Courts) Whilst a person has a general right of free will, a state may as a matter of public policy restrict that in certain cases, for example for the general public good and for the protection of morals. The present case was judged by the European Court to have fallen within the sovereign scope of the UK Government's right to determine its legality, and human rights legislation would not overrule this.

I just pulled that off Wiki (yes I agree with everything you probably think about wiki).

And I said 'could argue' and not that sodomy was infact classed as abuse.

Scarily enough I've known christian groups who have followed that 'logic'.

And JW's come close with their banning of blood transfusions at times.

This is why I hate religion.

And I said 'could argue' and not that sodomy was infact classed as abuse.

I find that horrifying that sadomasochism isn't technically allowed in the UK, or that anyone would even contemplate banning consensual sodomy.

This is why I hate religion.

.

Oh the religious groups don't have a monopoly on that kind of stupidity.

For example I've known feminists who have seriously argued that all men should be chemically castrated on reaching puberty.

No...I wish I was joking.

The Old Testament also says that owning and selling other human beings is alright:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

The Old Testament also says that beating your slaves is okay:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Also, it allows daughters to be sold like cattle:

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Do you support these practices also, Masta Thief? If you're going to ditch one passage, you'd might as well ditch them all.

Let us muddy the waters of this circle jerking of one's beliefs.

If we are to say the Bible says such actions are acceptable, doesnt mean we must also give them the green light. It does not mandate Christians to sell their daughters nor to take up slaves. In any case, I would be interested in what Hebrew word was used to translate into "slave". I dont have a TNK or any devout Jewish friends, so I am ignorant of that.

Regardless, the devil is in the details, and the details give acceptable practices. In this country, slavery is outlawed, so a Christian or Jew might have some sort of legal standpoint for protesting such an amendment, but the basic human rights still stand, and there is not much we can do about that even if we did want to enslave someone. The Bible did not say that to be a good Christian or Jew you must be in the daughter trade or slave owner, so you will see why Masta (yes, I'm playing devil's advocate if you havent noticed :p ) doesnt have to support it, since he is not mandated to do so. Thats pretty below-the-belt of you to insinuate that because he does not follow optional teachnig, he is any less of a follower of God.

[/devil's_advocate]

And to expand slightly on your retort to Sephiroth, the "judge not lest ye be judged" is most commonly read as that a person passing judgement on another will be held to the same standard. Whether such a judgement will hold one to the same standard of merely that act or sin in its entirety would be subjective depending on who it affects. Liken this to the comparison between the murderer and chronic masturbator.

Rebuking another person is to show disaproval, however such an action was not for public show or for the common unsaved person, but for those inside the church and tended to be handled privately. Some of Paul's letters to churches having to correct them were rebukings in and of themselves. Considering Paul was taught by Jesus personally for years, you wold think he would know appropriate occasions for rebukings and whether or not they wer in line with Jesus' teachings.

If we are to say the Bible says such actions are acceptable, doesnt mean we must also give them the green light. It does not mandate Christians to sell their daughters nor to take up slaves.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Were it not for your tutelage, I would have forever assumed that the Bible states that all good Christians should own slaves. :rolleyes:

Clearly, I was writing to MT in response to his: "Well hate to break it to those but in the old testiment it says that sexual contact between men is wrong!!!!" statement. My suggestion to him was a fair one to consider, since he makes himself appear as though he is a Bible Literalist who forms his every opinion based on the scripture.

You chimed in with the fact that just because the Bible is accepting of certain actions, doesn't mean we have to mandate them. On that same note, I'll respond with: just because the Bible speaks ill of certain actions, that doesn't mean that a Christian has to find it personally despicable, does he? I mean, after all - OF COURSE Christians aren't going to feel it would be good judgement to own slaves in todays modern times just because the Bible approved of it back then. There's modernity to take into consideration. Now - why can't this same logic apply to some of the old-fashioned prejudices and by-laws? If you can ignore some of the recommendations, why can't you ignore some of the warnings? Why couldn't Christians be more accepting of homosexuals who are righteous in every other aspect of life besides their sexual preferences?

How could one read and understand - much less follow to a T - the teachings of the Bible without knowing for sure which actions are "okay now in today's modern age" and "still despicable today as it was yesterday"? It seems like society shapes the legitamacy of the scriptures FOR the faithful. You read the Bible, we'll tell you whether it's cool or not to follow/ignore certain passages.

The Bible did not say that to be a good Christian or Jew you must be in the daughter trade or slave owner, so you will see why Masta (yes, I'm playing devil's advocate if you havent noticed :p ) doesnt have to support it, since he is not mandated to do so. Thats pretty below-the-belt of you to insinuate that because he does not follow optional teachnig, he is any less of a follower of God.

I don't believe his picking and choosing of scripture as it applies to today's world makes him any less of a follower of God. I believe his hateful spirit towards others, insulting mannerisms and outright crude behaviour makes him less of a follower of God. Was that below-the-belt enough for you? Because I was verbally aiming for his groin this time.


And to expand slightly on your retort to Sephiroth, the "judge not lest ye be judged" is most commonly read as that a person passing judgement on another will be held to the same standard. Whether such a judgement will hold one to the same standard of merely that act or sin in its entirety would be subjective depending on who it affects. Liken this to the comparison between the murderer and chronic masturbator.

I wasn't "retorting" that one who is free of sin is the only one who can righteously judge another person, nor was the point I was making an attempt to compare the standards of how God might judge differently the murderer or the masturbator. I was simply pointing out (through scripture, and a little common sense) how God would certainly find disdain in those ordinary men who went around pointing fingers and judging the rest of mankind. I wasn't harping on Paul. He was.

Rebuking another person is to show disaproval, however such an action was not for public show or for the common unsaved person, but for those inside the church and tended to be handled privately.

Now I'm starting to think you're picking on me due to old, petty grievances you might be harboring. ;)

I think you'll find that I expounded more on the rebukings of common men towards their common brothers (outside the church), and expressed my disdain of it. Again, what Paul intended for rebuke and what people practice today are pretty different - wouldn't you agree? You probably won't agree, since you are a "rebuker of common man" yourself, when it comes to your unhealthy homophobia and your consistency in pointing out how certain groups of people who engage in that kind of activity are morally-bankrupt sinners.

Let us muddy the waters of this circle jerking of one's beliefs.
This is the first mixed metaphor I can recall spotting in the wild!

the fact that S&M is illegal just makes it hotter.