Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not hypocritical, inconsistent.

Hypocrisy, to put it simply, is when you say one thing and do another.

generalgrog wrote:The fact that a simple question like "Why don't you believe in XXX" will not be answered is quite telling.

I've never met an atheist who wouldn't answer that question. It's quite simple. There is no empirical evidence for supernatural phenomena such as deities. That is why I do not believe in them. The same could be said of most other popular myths and legends, though I'll admit I'm starting to come around on the chupacabra.

Athiests avoid this question because they know that it gets to the heart of the their belief system, and they do not want to admit that they use faith. They like to think themselves superior to people of faith because athiests are in denial themselves about the quantity of faith they have in Science and philosophy.

Philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with it, unless you're using a very archaic meaning of the word, and I doubt that. Faith also has nothing at all to do with it; faith is belief in something not based on proof, after all, and I only believe in something with proof.

Provide empirical evidence that a deity of some sort exists, and most atheists will accept it, the same way we accept gravity or the heliocentric solar system. Those few who don't will be...well, I suppose they'll be like Creationists/"intelligent design" proponents, railing against scientific consensus with their own twisted view of what things should be.

Kilkrazy wrote:Not hypocritical, inconsistent.

Hypocrisy, to put it simply, is when you say one thing and do another.

That's not right either is it? I mean, plenty of times I say "I'm definitely staying off the booze this weekend!" and then Saturday rolls around and my resolve snaps at 1400hrs and I'm off to the bookies and the Red Lion.

That is not hypocrisy, that's just being a weak willed son of a bitch.

I think its more, telling other people why they should not to do something, and then you going and doing it yourself.

Like Ted Haggard saying how vile gays are, and then getting caught giving a rent boy a chew. Or Politicians (Prescott?) telling people to use public transport and them owning two jaguars and driving them everywhere.

Kilkrazy wrote:Not hypocritical, inconsistent.

Hypocrisy, to put it simply, is when you say one thing and do another.

Ah, my mistake, I did think that hypocritical might not be the best word, but couldn't think of a better one.

Like I said, I simplified it.

generalgrog wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
now can you provide the quote where god changes his mind on the shrimp?

First off I just want to point out that there seems to be quite a bit of hostility on your part towards me. I don't believe I have done anything to deserve this reaction from you.

Having said that, I don't mind continuing a discussion about old testament dietary laws. But you may as well ask me why Christians don't sacrifice bulls and goats anymore, or why we don't stone people for certain sins anymore.

GG

sure you do, and I'm sure you do understand why. but go back and read through all the posts again, twice if need be and you'll see why its deserved.

Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

If you want to drop the old testament, you're pretty much dropping the homophobic parts of the bible aside from Paul, but given that Paul himself was a fiery, misogynistic, pro-slavery speaker who even decried heterosexual sex, this is hardly much support for the position as I'm fairly certain most modern Christians don't really pay much attention to much of what Paul says.

The proper historical interpretation of Sodom, for example, was that they were being unkind to guests in their homes, and this was one of the most grievous sins for hospitality was a vitally important art of the culture at the time.

*shrug*

generalgrog wrote:

But to answer your question, of course there isn't anywhere in the bible where God says, "I am the Lord and I now allow you to eat shrimp".

GG

Mark 7:18-19?

Luco wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

But to answer your question, of course there isn't anywhere in the bible where God says, "I am the Lord and I now allow you to eat shrimp".

GG

Mark 7:18-19?

Yeah that is part of the greater teaching of the new covenant, but he was looking for a specific quote regarding shrimp.

You could also look at Acts10:10-15.

GG

GG, you're still being highly evasive about what you actually believe.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Having said that, I don't mind continuing a discussion about old testament dietary laws. But you may as well ask me why Christians don't sacrifice bulls and goats anymore, or why we don't stone people for certain sins anymore.

GG

While no one does that any more, they still think it's acceptable to hate gays. It shows selective interpretation of the Bible.

There's 1 fairly explicit prohibition of homosexuality in Romans 1, and another 2 less explicit prohibitions in Corinthians 1 (both in the NT). How people interpret Corinthians 1 is a pretty good barometer for homophobia.

dogma wrote:

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Having said that, I don't mind continuing a discussion about old testament dietary laws. But you may as well ask me why Christians don't sacrifice bulls and goats anymore, or why we don't stone people for certain sins anymore.

GG

While no one does that any more, they still think it's acceptable to hate gays. It shows selective interpretation of the Bible.

There's 1 fairly explicit prohibition of homosexuality in Romans 1, and another 2 less explicit prohibitions in Corinthians 1 (both in the NT). How people interpret Corinthians 1 is a pretty good barometer for homophobia.

What does it say?

Frazzled wrote:
What does it say?

Romans 1:

(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Corinthians 1:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, arsenokoitēs, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Also, I forgot that the second passage in which arsenokoitē is used is actually in Timothy 1. And, here it is:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, arsenokoitēs, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

The controversy is over what arsenokoitē actually means, with people (chauvinists) interpreting it as homosexual sex between men (the implication being its fine if women do it), sodomy, pederasty, prostitution, masturbation, or just non-procreative sex.

Basically, in sum, it means whatever a person wants bad sexual activity to be. Which means the only real prohibition on homosexuality is In Romans, and it (and the "other 2") was written by Paul.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
What does it say?

Romans 1:

(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Corinthians 1:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, arsenokoitēs, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Also, I forgot that the second passage in which arsenokoitē is used is actually in Timothy 1. And, here it is:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, arsenokoitēs, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

The controversy is over what arsenokoitē actually means, with people (chauvinists) interpreting it as homosexual sex between men (the implication being its fine if women do it), sodomy, pederasty, prostitution, masturbation, or just non-procreative sex.

Basically, in sum, it means whatever a person wants bad sexual activity to be. Which means the only real prohibition on homosexuality is In Romans, and it (and the "other 2") was written by Paul.

it's also quite telling how someone is automatically labled by dogma as chauvinist for interpreting the greek word arsenokoitēs, which literally means sodomites, as pertaining to homosexuals.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
it's also quite telling how someone is automatically labled by dogma as chauvinist for interpreting the greek word arsenokoitēs, which literally means sodomites, as pertaining to homosexuals.

Last time I checked, men can sodomize women just as easily as they can sodomize men. Possibly even more easily.

Also, to pretend that arsenokoitē has a settled meaning is just ignorant and, as said before, telling.

It speaks to the idea that you aren't comfortable with homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) and therefore see the prohibition of it wherever you look.

yay a giant rally for people to NOT believe in something together!

do they all just sit around and hate on people who DO believe? that sounds terrible.

what do they talk about? just trying to produce more evidence to make other people look stupid? sounds a little childish to me.

rather just let bygons be bygons (and yes, i'm Christian)

I always liked this quote from the bible, the first recorded gay marriage:

1 Samuel 18

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

sirlynchmob wrote:I always liked this quote from the bible, the first recorded gay marriage:

1 Samuel 18

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

I am going to step in and say that is not what this is reffering to. entering into a covenant with someone was not a marriage. it WAS however a promised relationship. and IIRC Saul kept David as a son and became his mentor.

ie: A covenant is a solemn agreement to engage in or refrain from a specified action. It is commonly found in religious contexts, where it refers to sacred agreements between a god and human beings.

This was a divine promise to God to teach David the ways of becoming a king.

Rimmy wrote:
what do they talk about? just trying to produce more evidence to make other people look stupid? sounds a little childish to me.

Welcome to the academy.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
it's also quite telling how someone is automatically labled by dogma as chauvinist for interpreting the greek word arsenokoitēs, which literally means sodomites, as pertaining to homosexuals.

Last time I checked, men can sodomize women just as easily as they can sodomize men. Possibly even more easily.

Also, to pretend that arsenokoitē has a settled meaning is just ignorant and, as said before, telling.

It speaks to the idea that you aren't comfortable with homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) and therefore see the prohibition of it wherever you look.

Except that it has been the classic view of all all orthodox Christian faiths that arsenokoitēs meant sodomites. So you can try and pretend that I am the only Christian that believes this, and you can be pejorative as usual.. but what you are really doing is attacking every major Christian theologian that wrote about such things.

GG

dogma wrote:

Rimmy wrote:
what do they talk about? just trying to produce more evidence to make other people look stupid? sounds a little childish to me.

Welcome to the academy.

trust me, discussion of a topic is not with the intent to make other people look stupid (if thats what you were reffering that I was doing)

that seems rather shallow of a life to fill your time literally just trying to make other people feel stupid. i'm pretty sure thats just called being defensive.

I feel bad for anyone who isn't content in their own life, that they need to make others feel bad. thats really sad.

I hope they enjoyed their time together. maybe some good will come of it. social acceptance is pleasing to some I hear.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
it's also quite telling how someone is automatically labled by dogma as chauvinist for interpreting the greek word arsenokoitēs, which literally means sodomites, as pertaining to homosexuals.

Last time I checked, men can sodomize women just as easily as they can sodomize men. Possibly even more easily.

Also, to pretend that arsenokoitē has a settled meaning is just ignorant and, as said before, telling.

It speaks to the idea that you aren't comfortable with homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) and therefore see the prohibition of it wherever you look.

Except that it has been the classic view of all all orthodox Christian faiths that arsenokoitēs meant sodomites. So you can try and pretend that I am the only Christian that believes this, and you can be pejorative as usual.. but what you are really doing is attacking every major Christian theologian that wrote about such things.

GG

you're also taking the fact that Sodom was a city state NOT an act. the city was destroyed because of its sinfal ways against God, NOT because of being gay. it was not ONE thing. although thats the only thing people care to remember.

Rimmy wrote:yay a giant rally for people to NOT believe in something together!

do they all just sit around and hate on people who DO believe? that sounds terrible.

what do they talk about? just trying to produce more evidence to make other people look stupid? sounds a little childish to me.

rather just let bygons be bygons (and yes, i'm Christian)

here's adam savage's speech from the event.

http://apps.facebook.com/thetrainstation/?fb_source=bookmark_apps&ref=bookmarks&count=0&fb_bmpos=2_0


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rimmy wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:I always liked this quote from the bible, the first recorded gay marriage:

1 Samuel 18

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

I am going to step in and say that is not what this is reffering to. entering into a covenant with someone was not a marriage. it WAS however a promised relationship. and IIRC Saul kept David as a son and became his mentor.

ie: A covenant is a solemn agreement to engage in or refrain from a specified action. It is commonly found in religious contexts, where it refers to sacred agreements between a god and human beings.

This was a divine promise to God to teach David the ways of becoming a king.

ya thats why they had to do it naked right?

sirlynchmob wrote:I always liked this quote from the bible, the first recorded gay marriage:

1 Samuel 18

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Wow....the leap you have to make here to try and claim homosexuality is quite desperate.

on a side note...why oh why do these discussions seem to devolve into a debate over homosexuality. what does this have to do with the reason rally?

sigh...

GG

sirlynchmob wrote:ya thats why they had to do it naked right?

again, thats reading a bit much into don't you think? he gave him a robe and his weaponry. you're assuming he didn't have anything else on. tradition would also dictate that the robe was the outer-most worn garment.

honestly people why is there so much anti gay hate? and so much pressure to tell christians being gay is ok?

aren't there bigger problems?

lets stop killing, raping, torturing and abusing people before we try and prove/disprove gay life.

Rimmy wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:ya thats why they had to do it naked right?

again, thats reading a bit much into don't you think? he gave him a robe and his weaponry. you're assuming he didn't have anything else on. tradition would also dictate that the robe was the outer-most worn garment.

honestly people why is there so much anti gay hate? and so much pressure to tell christians being gay is ok?

aren't there bigger problems?

lets stop killing, raping, torturing and abusing people before we try and prove/disprove gay life.

Yeah all athletes are gay now because they sometimes shower together naked.

GG

Rimmy wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:ya thats why they had to do it naked right?

again, thats reading a bit much into don't you think? he gave him a robe and his weaponry. you're assuming he didn't have anything else on. tradition would also dictate that the robe was the outer-most worn garment.

honestly people why is there so much anti gay hate? and so much pressure to tell christians being gay is ok?

aren't there bigger problems?

lets stop killing, raping, torturing and abusing people before we try and prove/disprove gay life.

No kidding right, and funny thing is, god only says one of those is bad. isn't funny how god never mentions not to rape anyone.

how about those christian colleges eh?

the real issue is, if its against your religion, don't do it. When you tell others not to do it, you are infringing on their rights.

generalgrog wrote:
Except that it has been the classic view of all all orthodox Christian faiths that arsenokoitēs meant sodomites. So you can try and pretend that I am the only Christian that believes this, and you can be pejorative as usual.. but what you are really doing is attacking every major Christian theologian that wrote about such things.

The KJV doesn't translate it that way, nor does the CEV, ESV, NLT, or the NET.

This seems to be yet another case of you believing what you want in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary.

I guess, if nothing else, you're consistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rimmy wrote:
trust me, discussion of a topic is not with the intent to make other people look stupid (if thats what you were reffering that I was doing)

I was making a joke about the Academy as a member of the Academy.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Except that it has been the classic view of all all orthodox Christian faiths that arsenokoitēs meant sodomites. So you can try and pretend that I am the only Christian that believes this, and you can be pejorative as usual.. but what you are really doing is attacking every major Christian theologian that wrote about such things.

...... extensive evidence to the contrary.
.

Someone wanting to believe something doesn't = extensive evidence.

GG

generalgrog wrote:The fact that a simple question like "Why don't you believe in XXX" will not be answered is quite telling.

GG

I don't believe god exists because his existence cannot be proven, and proof > faith most of the time from my personal experience. Question answered.

Rimmy wrote:
what do they talk about? just trying to produce more evidence to make other people look stupid? sounds a little childish to me.

YOU GO TO CHURCH.

Rimmy wrote:rather just let bygons be bygons (and yes, i'm Christian)

People who claim to teach love are teaching that some kinds of love are horrible and twisted currently, right now. Those aren't exactly bygones.

generalgrog wrote:
Someone wanting to believe something doesn't = extensive evidence.

Nor did I claim that it does, so I'm not sure what you're on about other than a poor attempt at deflection in order to avoid a critical appraisal of your own beliefs.

The claim was very clearly that there is a lot of evidence suggesting what you claim to be the specific definition of arsenokoitēs is not, in fact, the specific definition. And that, in parallel, you seem to be continuing according to a trend of past statements that indicated adherence to the "truth" you want to believe over the truth.