At 7/1/08 09:29 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
The ban on pork has an EARTHLY punishment. The ban on mixed threads has an EARTHLY punishment. They are the equivalent of jaywalking and drving without insurance.
So, these earthly sins don't get tallied on your death, then? Fine, that's what I wanted to know. Now... eating (some) bugs, snakes, squid and some birds are considered abomination (same terminology that many people, yourself included point to with regards to the "extra badness" that is homosexuality) yet are given these similar earthly punishments.
How then can you justify such a difference in attitude toward them? Merely because one has an earthly punishment and one has a heavenly punishment?
Are you deliberately being stupid?
No. Why pass an earthly law for an act that is specifically said to be required of a heavenly punishment? Unrepentant gays are already going to hell... why even bother passing a law against their marriage?
I've debated you enough to know you're far more intelligent than these crap arguments you're putting forward.
You're assuming too much into my arguments. I'm trying to steer you here, but you keep going off track with this shit.
Eating pork was never "an abomination". Homosexuality on the other hand is listed as equal with beastiality. EVEN Ignoring all else, that proves it.
Eating shellfish is an abomination (and here I figured you'd get the point I was trying to make, that "abominations" run rampant in this book and are hardly saved for the most vile of things)... so I ask again: What, in scripture, defines homosexuality as more evil than eating shellfish or cursing one's parents?
You're simply wrong, and you're too damned proud to admit it, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex is to procreate.
The bible also says many other things are abominations... and just because it's mentioned in a context that includes a subject that might seem more unfavorable (bestiality) to more people, doesn't make it, itself, more heinous. Especially since in the same context is mentioned adultery, viewing your family naked (which I realize is most likely a euphemism for "teh sechs"... but again, this is not, actually, a point that could be proven beyond a doubt, lending credence to my previous claim that interpretation is a large part of biblical study... but I digress), and boning a woman on her period... none of which are currently illegal.
Of course I don't. The Bible is the first book that claimed that masters have a responsibility to not abuse their slaves. No book before it has claimed such.
I point again to Cyrus... who freed the slaves 500 years before Jesus came around. As far as OT-timed slave rights, Athenian culture held great respect for their slaves and they were allowed to attend school, had dominion over the trades (and thus, some could argue, over the infrastructure, giving them more power than even the citizenry (if a more subtle type)). In early Egypt, slaves did NOT lose all of their civil rights. These cultural standards of slave-treatment clearly pre-date the bible, and lay false your claim that it was the early jews that pioneered these rights.
The first incident of rape victims rights in history.
A bold claim... can you corroborate that with actual evidence other than your insistence? Because reading up on it, even the early Egyptian dynasties were pretty liberal with their women, allowing them nearly all of the same legal rights (including protections against violence and the ability to bring lawsuits and criminal charges against those who would wrong them) as men.
Address the fact that you believe that because some impressive cultures practiced things we feel are immoral that that means that (universal) objective morality isn't real?
I did. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Stop being a jackass and admit you have no counter examples.
I'll need a new post entirely for this so I'll leave it till the next one.
Of course not. The bible makes clear that it is not 100% literal fact.
Your question is a distraction and we both know it.
This is no distraction... it is at the core of my argument. If there are allegories, parables, and metaphors, there must, by definition, be interpretation of those. As interpretations can vary, god must have foreseen such an occurrence (y'know, being omnipotent and all). As such, wouldn't you think he could craft his own word in such a way to guide different people, who think differently, who act differently, and who are in different situations, onto DIFFERENT paths toward a similar goal?
Looking past that, even in the Bible, mixing threads and homosexuality aren't equal. If you can't grasp this basic point....you're either very foolish or deliberately dense.
So insert Adultery or eating shellfish (for both context and terminology similarities). The specific example doesn't matter, merely the fact that examples DO exist of a clear double-standard held by christians, that places an undue level of import on this one, single verse.
Are we talking about biblically still? Because homosexuality, incest, beastiality and adultery are all worthy of death OT.
As is cursing parents, even in the new testament (Matthew 5:17-18 and 15:1-9). And no, we're talking about now.
And if we're talking about today...adultery and beastiality are illegal. Incest, like homosexuality is recognized by the state as an abburation, and incest couples can't get married.
Adultery is not at all illegal. I can be married and fuck who I want, there will rarely if ever be a prosecution against me. This should be on the same level (since it's mentioned in the same context) as homosexuality so again... why no fuss over it?
And? In debating me on biblical matters you bring up a 20th century case?
Pathetic.
You're the one who cited current illegality of these issues... just figured I'd head you of at the pass. Moral disgust is, via the Supreme Court, not enough to justify criminalization or legal discrimination.
Are you kidding? Beastiality and rape are ILLEGAL. Incest (usually between a minor and an adult) is either illegal or not recognized by the state. There is no widespread opposition because there is no movement to fight for such a cause.
Rape is obvious, because of the non-consensual nature of the act. And, actually, Bestiality laws vary widely and are only on the books of 32 of the 50 states. Reasons for them are varied, including moral/biblical disgust, as well as animal cruelty and (strangely) consensuality issues. Incest, as I have already stated is another highly-varied thing, though every state has some statute against it. Most states relegate punishment to parental figures and non-consensual acts only. Others only mention nuclear family incest and allow first cousin and farther relations. And you're naive to believe that there is no movement to legalize either of these. They may not have the media like the gay movement does, but several cases have gotten to the circuit courts, though all so far have been unsuccessful.
Though theres not a person smart enough in the world to debate why gay marriage is ok yet incest marriage isnt.
Running out of room... I'll address this in the next post with the objctive morality point.
Quit avoiding the question.
Rav, stop telling me to stop avoiding things. I addressed this way back. That you're now talking about it in a way that I've already shot down does nothing against my ironclad arguments.
You have yet to demonstrate why homosexuality holds such fury among christians, as opposed to the other instances of abomination (bugs, shellfish), sexuality (mainly adultery, sex with menstruating women, and seeing family naked), or non-abrogated issues deserving of the death penalty (cursing parents), despite your assertions that you have.
Don't pull a cellar here and simply declare yourself the winner apropos of nothing. You haven't convinced me yet. The terminology and the context obviously won't work, because of the similarities in other areas. Try something else.