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.
2. God cannot be evil. Do you have any proof that he is evil? God is the reason "Good" exists. Satan, the Dragon, the Devil or whatever you want to call him is the reason Evil exists.
God created the Devil knowing full well what it would lead to. He is responsible.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
Kilkrazy wrote: The gay cake case went to appeal in February but was adjourned until May. The court reconvenes on 9th May.
Peter Tatchell (one of the UKs's foremost gay rights campaigners) now feels he was wrong to support the initial verdict that condemned the bakers for refusing to make the cake. He feels they were not discriminating against the gay customer but against the slogan supporting gay marriage. In other words tha it is a freedom of expression issue.
This is essentially the same position as A Town Called Malus.
That's basically my opinion. You can't refuse to serve a gay couple, you can refuse to write "Gay Marriage is Awsome". Same as you can't refuse to serve a Nazi, but you can refuse to put swastikas, and racist slurs on it.
Basic service as everyone else, but no forced speciality service.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
2. God cannot be evil. Do you have any proof that he is evil? God is the reason "Good" exists. Satan, the Dragon, the Devil or whatever you want to call him is the reason Evil exists.
God created the Devil knowing full well what it would lead to. He is responsible.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 14:40:28
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're either a troll or unable to see the obvious if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 14:47:20
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
well he could be, but he's not the only one who denies it was a homosexual relationship. My stepdad the jehova's witness assured me they were just good friends, when I made the same argument to him
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 14:47:13
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
Except if a god isn't omniscient and therefore doesn't know how people would react without having to test them, why call it god?
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
Except if a god isn't omniscient and therefore doesn't know how people would react without having to test them, why call it god?
But he is omniscient.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 14:51:44
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
That doesn't mean anything, the bible allowed for having multiple marriages. David was married to Jon & sauls daughter.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
Remember, Ruth marries out of duty to Naomi, Jonathan was david's bro who he also had sex with, and Saul also references how David is both entwined with jonathan and sauls daughter.
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."
In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.
Also, he pretty much says it right here!
bullet 2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
Except if a god isn't omniscient and therefore doesn't know how people would react without having to test them, why call it god?
But he is omniscient.
If he is omniscient, it is cruel to give children cancer to test them when he knows how, if he gave them cancer to test them, they would react. It would be like me saying, I know the baby seals will be hurt if I club them, but I want to test, just to be sure!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 14:55:15
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
That doesn't mean anything, the bible allowed for having multiple marriages. David was married to Jon & sauls daughter.
Have you read the Old Testament? People die all the time for failing to obey the law. David had sex with some woman then sent her husband to die on the front lines then the baby of David and the Woman died.
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
That doesn't mean anything, the bible allowed for having multiple marriages. David was married to Jon & sauls daughter.
Have you read the Old Testament? People die all the time for failing to obey the law. David had sex with some woman then sent her husband to die on the front lines then the baby of David and the Woman died.
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?
I'm making a philosophy argument. Please stick to the topic and not make it personal thanks.
I would say philosophically people should not be forced to do anything.
As a policy I am completely supportive of current federal and state laws (except Oklahoma, they are flat)
In the inverse why should someone be forced to bake a cake for people they don't like. Why should a baker be forced to make a cake for NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes)
My argument is also philosophical, I simply disagree with you where exactly along the chain one freedom overrides the other. For example - nobody is forcing a baker to make a cake for anyone they don't like, because nobody is forcing them to be a baker and nobody is forcing them to offer that product for sale.
Once they do, however, the right of any given individual to be treated equally in their day-to-day life overrides any personal feelings the baker may have.
You can choose not to make wedding cakes. You can choose not to put a sign in the window offering to decorate wedding cakes with a customer-specified message. However, once you do either of those things(ie, offer a product or service to the public), your personal opinion of any given customer, provided what they ask of you is within the law, no longer has any bearing, you should serve all of the public.
My point in making that comment was not to "make it personal", it was to illustrate the logical outcome of the philosophical position you're taking - it applies just as well to schools, or employment, or any number of other public spheres, as it does to any number of other prejudices like race and religion. Business doesn't get a pass.
Philosophically this is the a strong argument and the one I personally subscribe to.
As you note, nothing is truly black and white, well let me rephrase. Life generally isn't although there are people who manage to have an absolutist policy.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
You could take one now and repent. No one is beyond salvation.
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
You could take one now and repent. No one is beyond salvation.
Except that wouldn't be a choice, if it happened god would have been responsible, because he knows exactly how the cards will fall, because he put them there. No free will or no omniscience/omnipotence, your choice.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
Because I assume that even the fantastical has to remain internally consistent within its own definition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 15:02:47
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
You could take one now and repent. No one is beyond salvation.
Except that wouldn't be a choice, if it happened god would have been responsible, because he knows exactly how the cards will fall, because he put them there. No free will or no omniscience/omnipotence, your choice.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
Because I assume that even the fantastical has to remain internally consistent within its own definition.
Also, you are just using that as a cop out to say "what I say is right" and your argument doesnt make sense because you are only a human and arent god.
If we want to take that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you don't know your god at all either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/29 15:05:28
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
He really isn't a dick, but are entitled to an opinion.
All people are evil. Not one is beyond judgment unless you repent and let Jesus take your place for judgment.
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
He really isn't a dick, but are entitled to an opinion.
All people are evil. Not one is beyond judgment unless you repent and let Jesus take your place for judgment.
Why should I let someone who has allowed genocide to happen where he had the power to stop it sit in judgement over me? What has God ever done to earn such a right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/29 15:08:54
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
He really isn't a dick, but are entitled to an opinion.
All people are evil. Not one is beyond judgment unless you repent and let Jesus take your place for judgment.
So why did god intentionally kill those innocent people while allowing a murderer and rapist to live? And dont say he didn't, because even if we assume free will, god would still know the outcome of the decision. Omniscient, remember?
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
That's quite easy and has been done.
Can god make something so heavy, that he can't lift it?
Can god die?
Is he dead?
No.
No.
No.
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
bag!"
