Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No thanks. I'm still trying to get through some of the older texts upon which much of the Bible was plagiarized.
But anyway, he should create himself a wife.
Why would we trust a single guy with relationship advice?
Plagiarized? How? He has created Himself a wife and she is a *****. He is not a single guy, we are His wife and children. Please read the Bible, you apparently have read portions but it seem like cherry picking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
That doesn't answer the question. I don't have the answer, which is why I posed the question: Why take direction from a single guy on how to live ones' personal life?
God is a purportedly single celibate, and is a busy body yenta that sits around all day making sure people marry and have sex the right way.
I suppose that makes sense to some... but I guess I should consider the source.
Have you accepted the Lord into your heart? As I said, you have obviously read portions of the Bible but you don't appear to have the Helper to interprit what you read.
Please I am not seeking to insult so do not take this as such.
Plagiarized? How? He has created Himself a wife and she is a *****. He is not a single guy, we are His wife and children. Please read the Bible, you apparently have read portions but it seem like cherry picking.
1 - I would assume "plagiarized" is in reference to the text that the Jewish Cannon was based on (notably the Babylonian and Mesopotamian myths that predated the Jewish bible). I.e. in those text Adam and even were man/gods or something, but otherwise the stories are the same. The same thing is noted for the Noah myth. This is pretty much standard in any college level Bible as Literature course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
Have you accepted the Lord into your heart? As I said, you have obviously read portions of the Bible but you don't appear to have the Helper to interprit what you read.
Please I am not seeking to insult so do not take this as such.
This seems to stray pretty close to Ad Homiad Hominem( attack the man fallacy). A persons belief, ethics, or even past deeds has no real impact on the point he is making. You would have to source/evidence the actual article.
And if you wanted to be credible in your argument, I would also think you would want real evidence. Your personal belief does not change water to gold, blue to red, or make God exist (if he doesn't) or make him cease to exist (if he does). As such, your personal belief is unlikely to sway anyone who doesn't mirror that exact same belief structure.
Personally: I challenge the idea that our interpretation of the bible can't change with time and ethical belief structure. For instance, it wasn't that long ago people were making the very same (or similar) argument as why slavery is allowable and should be continued. The bible seems pretty clear that slavery is acceptable.
1 - I would assume "plagiarized" is in reference to the text that the Jewish Cannon was based on (notably the Babylonian and Mesopotamian myths that predated the Jewish bible). I.e. in those text Adam and even were man/gods or something, but otherwise the stories are the same. The same thing is noted for the Noah myth. This is pretty much standard in any college level Bible as Literature course.
This seems to stray pretty close to Ad Homiad Hominem( attack the man fallacy). A persons belief, ethics, or even past deeds has no real impact on the point he is making. You would have to source/evidence the actual article.
And if you wanted to be credible in your argument, I would also think you would want real evidence. Your personal belief does not change water to gold, blue to red, or make God exist (if he doesn't) or make him cease to exist (if he does). As such, your personal belief is unlikely to sway anyone who doesn't mirror that exact same belief structure.
Personally: I challenge the idea that our interpretation of the bible can't change with time and ethical belief structure. For instance, it wasn't that long ago people were making the very same (or similar) argument as why slavery is allowable and should be continued. The bible seems pretty clear that slavery is acceptable.
I have heard these arguments before and they hold no sway over my faith. By the way you do realize that it is possible thet the Jewish text could be the originator?
I have heard these arguments before and they hold no sway over my faith. By the way you do realize that it is possible thet the Jewish text could be the originator?
I am not sure how your faith has any relevance to any discussion. Nor do I really care if the Jewish text cannon was written pre/post the other text. . .though I find it hard to believe, based on the evidence I've seen.
Your faith isn't in question here, that I know of. Its what you can prove to others that is the question.
Nor will your attempts at obfuscation. You want the guy gagged; the supreme court defined political contributions as a form of free speech. You lose both ways.
Oy! Absolutely no one on this thread is trying to keep this man from doing/saying what he wants. We're simply responding to it in ways that are also protected as forms of free speech (That's right. It isn't just people on your side of the issue that have freedom. I know that kills you, but it's the truth.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
You better proofread this. You've got a "not" to many, since nobody's rights are being denied, except those of Chicken-Fil-A's customers and employees...
Incorrect, homosexual couples are being denied the right to marry and adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
I did, anecdotally. If you disagree, bring some numbers to show how poverty-stricken gay people are.
Lol, didn't say I disagreed. Just pointed out how you made a claim you couldn't provide evidence to support. Typical of your side of this issue, though...
Lookit, here's a workable compromise: Nobody hates anybody. The reason "Christians" are picking on the gays more than any other group of "sinners" that generally do absolutely no harm to anyone, is not because they hate them; it's because they LIKE them, actually. They're flirting with them. Yes yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
but homosexuality confuses and damages those children in ways that are possibly not noticed until later in life.
You put "possibly" in the wrong place, I think. Maybe say, "homosexuality possibly damages those children". But of course, we shouldn't be able to keep someone from doing something because it might "possibly" be harmful in ways we haven't identified yet. That's just ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
They aren't because they aren't as vocal as homosexuals.
Again, that's because they don't have to be (i.e., the so-called Christians never made such a big deal about their "sins" as to convince state governments to restrict their rights as U.S. citizens). They already have equal rights, including the right to adopt and to marry whoever they're attracted to that is of the legal age to consent, unrelated, and unmarried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
Please share.
Already shared the evidence that gay parenting does not harm children a hundred times. But sure, here is a small fraction of it yet again:
I am not sure how your faith has any relevance to any discussion. Nor do I really care if the Jewish text cannon was written pre/post the other text. . .though I find it hard to believe, based on the evidence I've seen.
Your faith isn't in question here, that I know of. Its what you can prove to others that is the question.
So I have to prove my faith or what? I am merely having conversations and sharing my faith and opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
You put "possibly" in the wrong place, I think. Maybe say, "homosexuality possibly damages those children". But of course, we shouldn't be able to keep someone from doing something because it might "possibly" be harmful in ways we haven't identified yet. That's just ignorant.
That is only because they have only been able to adopt for a short time and they are such a small part of society that the findings are moot. But what we do know is that they are influencing others children at very young age threw public schools and public telivision in an indoctrination type method while fighting to keep Christianity and the Bible out of both. Of course the atheist and lawyers are helping as well. So how much harm could come from indoctrination? We will see.
Quote:
Again, that's because they don't have to be (i.e., the so-called Christians never made such a big deal about their "sins" as to convince state governments to restrict their rights as U.S. citizens). They already have equal rights, including the right to adopt and to marry whoever they're attracted to that is of the legal age to consent, unrelated, and unmarried.
If you get the rights to marry a samesex partner what will you go for next?
Quote:
Already shared the evidence that gay parenting does not harm children a hundred times. But sure, here is a small fraction of it yet again:
As I said it is to early to make such assumptions and to small a population. You do realize we could pick the same number of heteros and come up with the same number or better or worse depending on what bias we want to represent. You know just like the website on Mass. I shared with you and you shot it down as irrelevant or the 2 groups you want to demonize that others may see as helpfull. You see there is bias in everything just look at CNN and FoxNews each can come up with their own bias.
That is only because they have only been able to adopt for a short time and they are such a small part of society that the findings are moot.
Define "short time". It's been legal in some parts of the U.S and Canada since before 2000. That's over twelve years, long enough to draw conclusive data on any harm found more likely in families headed by homosexual parents. Still the vast majority of evidence finds no difference in cognitive, emotional, psychological, social, or sexual development. Exactly how long would you have us wait?
And I honestly don't see how homosexuals making up such a small part of society affects the findings of what is and isn't prevalent among gay parents. Wouldn't matter if there were only 100 gay people on the face of the planet. If a high percentage of them (e.g., 90%, 90 out of 100) were excellent parents and the same percentage of heterosexuals (let's say 90,000 out of 100,000) were excellent parents, we'd have to concede to the same point: gay parenting does not harm children any more than heterosexual parenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
But what we do know is that they are influencing others children at very young age threw public schools and public telivision in an indoctrination type method while fighting to keep Christianity and the Bible out of both.
How do we know that? How do we know any considerable fraction of homosexuals are fighting to keep Christianity and the Bible out of public schools and TV? Maybe most of them actually don't care either way? There are plenty of gays who are (at least saying they are) Christians too. I don't think the above quote is anything we know; rather, it's something you believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
If you get the rights to marry a samesex partner what will you go for next?
Me personally? Nothing. I don't know much about the evidence for/against polygamy (though I think you as a Christian would have a much harder time pinning that as wrong, seeing as how it's all throughout your bible), and the remainder of would-be marriages I can think of (because this isn't the first time I've heard the slippery slope argument) wouldn't include American citizens who are legally capable of consenting to a marriage.
You're talking to someone who's anti-pornography (morally, not legally). I've just as strong a conservative anchor as a liberal one, trust me.
Question for you though: Do you think it's possible that our breaking tradition by giving women equal rights opened the door to interracial marriage, which opened the door to gay marriage? I see that as just as good a slippery slope theory as any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
You do realize we could pick the same number of heteros and come up with the same number or better or worse depending on what bias we want to represent. You know just like the website on Mass. I shared with you and you shot it down as irrelevant or the 2 groups you want to demonize that others may see as helpfull. You see there is bias in everything just look at CNN and FoxNews each can come up with their own bias.
I didn't shoot any website down? While researchers letting a bias affect their studies is always a possibility, I wouldn't just accuse someone of that or imply there's a bias without something on the website, some affiliation between the name of one of the researchers and evidence of a bias, etc. leading me to believe the source is not trustworthy. Doing that ensures no one ever learns anything.
But when you find mountains of evidence from countless researchers who cannot be connected to any reasonable suspicion of a bias (and are approved of by the APA, the AACAP, and the AAP), that's much harder for an honest person to write off than a single study or website.
The "sanctity of marriage" cannot be destroyed. It can only be disrespected or ignored. It is God who sanctifies marriage.
B/S I didnt get married in a church my marriage was legal and authorized by the local govt who issued the license . no man in the sky was needed
we have been happy for 30 years ....
marriage is a man made law saying its god ordained dont make it so
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
careful
