SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[swamp]

I love this.  Virgil is posting theological arguments, and dark and I are talking about poofters and wankers and limeys.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I come across as an uncompromising know-it-all because the only scriptural issues I've ever discussed at length on NMSNM are homosexuality, marriage, and hell--all of which happen to be subjects closely proscribed by the Bible and yet are rife with demonstrably wrong interpretations.

That and you can't acknowledge that maybe your entire old book of fairy tales is bullshit.

[Deleted]

I tried. 

[swamp]

Jul 17, 2013 12:34:05 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

I tried. 

Yeah, but you're a heathen.  Your opinion doesn't count.

[Deleted]

"opinion" being the operative word! 

[Virgil Showlion]

You can get back to your poofters and limeys.

[swamp]

Jul 17, 2013 12:36:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You can get back to your poofters and limeys.

Thanks!!!

[Deleted]

[kittensaver]

:"The first paragraph is a direct rebuttal to steff's criticism.

The second is a statistical reality.

The third is a declaration that in spite of the statistical reality, there are always exceptions. Not all children raised by abusive, drunken pedophiles turn out to be abusers, drunks, and pedophiles. The majority do, unfortunately. The correlations are staggering. But there are always those that overcome.

If you find that worldview demeaning or offensive, so be it.":

===========================================

Here is a world view I do not find offensive: "Me (and my peeps) have studied some sacred scriptures that have been handed down to us by our parents and ancestors, and we've decided they make sense and work for us, our families and our community. We embrace them and follow them because they help us live our lives."

Here is a world view I DO find offensive: "We've studied these sacred texts carefully and have deemed that they are unequivocably correct. If you just studied them you'd find this out too, and know that We are correct. Even if you happen to come from generations of crappy, dysfunctional people, if you just study and educate yourselves on Our Way and embrace what We believe, you might turn out okay."

Maybe you don't intend to say the latter, but that's how you're coming off. JMHO. I KNOW a lot of communication problems are based on the "what I said is not what you heard" phenomenon; I think the exchange between you and Steff is one of these situations. I'm sad you don't seem to realize how demeaning and dismissive you were to her and her situation - because you're "right."

Your world view is not the only view. And it is certainly not the only "correct" one. Again, JMHO.

[swamp]

Maybe you don't intend to say the latter, but that's how you're coming off. JMHO. I KNOW a lot of communication problems are based on the "what I said is not what you heard" phenomenon; I think the exchange between you and Steff is one of these situations. I'm sad you don't seem to realize how demeaning and dismissive you were to her and her situation - because you're "right."

You world view is not the only view. And it is certainly not the only "correct" one. Again, JMHO.

[Angel!]

Jul 17, 2013 12:28:28 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I come across as an uncompromising know-it-all because the only scriptural issues I've ever discussed at length on NMSNM are homosexuality, marriage, and hell--all of which happen to be subjects closely proscribed by the Bible and yet are rife with demonstrably wrong interpretations.

That and you can't acknowledge that maybe your entire old book of fairy tales is bullshit.

 No matter how well you study the scriptures & prove your point using them, a lot of people just don't believe the bible is the word of god or needs to be followed.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2013 21:36:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 21:05:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

some of them.  some of them are pretty arcane and peculiar, imo.

Understanding them takes study, but it's not rocket science. There are distinctions between laws, classes of laws, ordinances, statutes, the Law of Moses, the fulfillment of the Law, etc. Most Christians have little to no conception of them, but they become increasingly coherent and beautiful given sufficient study.

i think i will take your word for that one.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 12:23:04 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I've never heard poofter, limey wanker maybe.

not a big Zappa fan?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 12:23:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 17, 2013 8:06:57 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

@virgil
You have repeatedly stated that if we have study the scriptures as in depth as you have then we would see that your beliefs are “right”. That’s just not true, though. Everyone interprets things differently, and their interpretation is “right” to them.

I think I can see why people get up in arms over some of your posts. Throw in a “I believe this to be right” or “my interpretation is thus” instead of “if you study the bible you’ll understand that I am right” and maybe we can keep the focus on the message instead of the delivery.

It's possible to argue from a position of scriptural consistency. Certain interpretations are contradictory, or are unsupported, or are flat-out incorrect, in the same way that certain scientific postulates are contradictory, are unsupported, etc., etc.

There are moral issues (my recent debate with Paul over the moral responsibility to repay creditors, for example) where I will argue strenuously for one position but acknowledge that my position is thinly supported or that I can find no scriptures that explicitly contradict an alternate interpretation. Homosexuality is not such an issue. In this thread, I provided the link to Prof. Gagnon's analysis, which mirror's my own justification for my beliefs. I consider it scripturally rigorous. I am a scientist and I endeavour to apply the same standards of objectivity and rigor to my analysis of scripture.

Likewise, in a debate on whether Anne Frank's diary is a piece of Jewish propaganda invented post-WWII, the debater arguing the pro side could undoubtedly procure dozens of reasonable, persuasive arguments that appear correct prima facie, but that upon detailed examination prove to lack consistency, contradict observable fact, lack support, etc., etc. There is a correct answer. Ms. Frank's diary is either authentic or it isn't. It makes no sense for an individual who has looked into the issue and found one position to be consistent, supportable, etc. and the alternative to be thoroughly disprovable to nevertheless equivocate with "...but this is just my interpretation."

I come across as an uncompromising know-it-all because the only scriptural issues I've ever discussed at length on NMSNM are homosexuality, marriage, and hell--all of which happen to be subjects closely proscribed by the Bible and yet are rife with demonstrably wrong interpretations.

There are hundreds more issues where you'd get "tough but equivocal" Virgil, such as in my debate with Paul, where I'm unable to disprove an opposing viewpoint and my language is more equivocating..

interesting.  so, just to be clear, you believe there is at least one interpretation of the Bible that is completely devoid of contradiction?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 12:27:00 GMT -5 swamp said:

I love this.  Virgil is posting theological arguments, and dark and I are talking about poofters and wankers and limeys.

Tenn just chimed in with butt sex.

[zibazinski]

I didn't say they all were gay but a great many were and are. Forced to marry to have an heir but wanting to be with a man was the norm. Hopefully now, they won't bother.

[swamp]

I bet Prince Charles is a limey poofter.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 12:59:55 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jul 17, 2013 12:28:28 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

That and you can't acknowledge that maybe your entire old book of fairy tales is bullshit.

 No matter how well you study the scriptures & prove your point using them, a lot of people just don't believe the bible is the word of god or needs to be followed.

including the 2/3 of the world that don't even acknowledge at as a "sacred text".

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 13:21:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

I bet Prince Charles is a limey poofter.

and a ponce.

[kittensaver]

Jul 17, 2013 13:21:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

I bet Prince Charles is a limey poofter.

I heard (from British friends who had no direct knowledge but loved to gossip) that he was actually a hairy hound-dog that basically disgusted women, but they tolerated him because he was going to be King some day and maybe they could get on the gravy train. Supposedly he had a very hard time finding a wife, and finally had to settle on a 20-year old girl who would look the other way.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 13:25:23 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 17, 2013 13:21:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

I bet Prince Charles is a limey poofter.

I heard (from British friends who had no direct knowledge but loved to gossip) that he was actually a hairy hound-dog that basically disgusted women, but they tolerated him because he was going to be King some day and maybe they could get on the gravy train. Supposedly he had a very hard time finding a wife, and finally had to settle on a 20-year old girl who would look the other way.

what a git.

[swamp]

Jul 17, 2013 13:25:23 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 17, 2013 13:21:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

I bet Prince Charles is a limey poofter.

I heard (from British friends who had no direct knowledge but loved to gossip) that he was actually a hairy hound-dog that basically disgusted women, but they tolerated him because he was going to be King some day and maybe they could get on the gravy train. Supposedly he had a very hard time finding a wife, and finally had to settle on a 20-year old girl who would look the other way.

Or who was too naïve to know she was supposed to look the other way. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Maybe you don't intend to say the latter, but that's how you're coming off.

No, the latter is closer to my actual position. And the statistical reality bears me out.

I also acknowledge that I won't change anyone's opinion on the nature of scripture. As always, it entered into the argument as part of a larger debate. You also have to understand that I'm one man debating 6 (7? 8?) ideologically opposed members. I'm going to state my position as candidly as possible.

It seems as though the debate on the original topic--gay "marriage"--has pretty much run its course at this point.

interesting. so, just to be clear, you believe there is at least one interpretation of the Bible that is completely devoid of contradiction?

Regarding particular issues, certainly.

For example: What is the greatest commandment? There can be an infinite number of theories. Only one is correct and defensible (IMO, if that makes you feel better).

[kittensaver]

Jul 17, 2013 13:30:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Maybe you don't intend to say the latter, but that's how you're coming off.

No, the latter is closer to my actual position. And the statistical reality bears me out.

I also acknowledge that I won't change anyone's opinion on the nature of scripture. As always, it entered into the argument as part of a larger debate. You also have to understand that I'm one man debating 6 (7? 8?) ideologically opposed members. I'm going to state my position as candidly as possible.

It seems as though the debate on the original topic--gay "marriage"--has pretty much run its course at this point.

How does "statistical reality" bear you out as as being "right" and everyone else is "wrong" (or at least left seriously wanting in your eyes)?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 17, 2013 13:33:49 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 17, 2013 13:30:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

No, the latter is closer to my actual position. And the statistical reality bears me out.

I also acknowledge that I won't change anyone's opinion on the nature of scripture. As always, it entered into the argument as part of a larger debate. You also have to understand that I'm one man debating 6 (7? 8?) ideologically opposed members. I'm going to state my position as candidly as possible.

It seems as though the debate on the original topic--gay "marriage"--has pretty much run its course at this point.

How does "statistical reality" bear you out as as being "right" and everyone else is "wrong" (or at least left seriously wanting in your eyes)?

Regarding the issue you took umbrage against: if I have time some at point in the future, I'll post a few studies on the correlation between parental and child divorce, penalties paid by children born out of wedlock, correlations between alcoholism, addiction, infidelity, etc., etc.

[kittensaver]

Jul 17, 2013 13:38:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 17, 2013 13:33:49 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

How does "statistical reality" bear you out as as being "right" and everyone else is "wrong" (or at least left seriously wanting in your eyes)?

Regarding the issue you took umbrage against: if I have time some at point in the future, I'll post a few studies on the correlation between parental and child divorce, penalties paid by children born out of wedlock, correlations between alcoholism, addiction, infidelity, etc., etc.

I did not and do not take umbrage against your statistics. I take umbrage against your contention that your scriptures are right and everyone else is wrong.

[zibazinski]

Well, look, he's married to an almost man. 

[steff]

ain't it fun to be considered a statistical anomaly?  

Here, let's make it even more fun for Virgil to look down on me.   My youngest brother is gay. 

Now, ready....set....GO! run with how divorce creates gays!  

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 13:30:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Maybe you don't intend to say the latter, but that's how you're coming off.

No, the latter is closer to my actual position. And the statistical reality bears me out.

I also acknowledge that I won't change anyone's opinion on the nature of scripture. As always, it entered into the argument as part of a larger debate. You also have to understand that I'm one man debating 6 (7? 8?) ideologically opposed members. I'm going to state my position as candidly as possible.

It seems as though the debate on the original topic--gay "marriage"--has pretty much run its course at this point.

interesting. so, just to be clear, you believe there is at least one interpretation of the Bible that is completely devoid of contradiction?

Regarding particular issues, certainly.

For example: What is the greatest commandment?

no other God before me.  i think that is pretty widely held, and in multiple religions. 

There can be an infinite number of theories. Only one is correct and defensible (IMO, if that makes you feel better).

not really. <<<<<<<<<<edit: to the "feeling better" part.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2013 13:47:12 GMT -5 steff said:

ain't it fun to be considered a statistical anomaly?     

i always enjoyed it.