ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 1119
Aug 27 07 9:04 PM
For this, I owe you an apology. When I first went to Philemon, the verse that you cited or that I thought that you cited seemed to have nothing to do with slavery. After reading the entire chapter, I could see how some people might have tried to use that particular chapter to try to justify slavery. However, if you read the passage, which I gave, you can see that it hardly justifies slavery. I had originally meant to delete that sentence after that. However, I would still maintain that citing Biblical passages that have absoutley nothing to do with homosexuality don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Straw Man. Your attacking I position I have not represented. I never said that this was your position. However, if you go to the websites that you cited, at least the ones that I can access, do exactly that and I've already presented evidence on the other thread to show this to be so, which you are more than welcome to try to refute.
First, you said that their agenda was religious tolerance. Now, you're saying that they had no agenda. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. What I said was that the only agenda of almost all the translations, except the KJV and the last two, that I cited, had no agenda other than rendering an accurate translation. If you have evidence to the contrary, you're more than welcome to provide it.
since you've consistently refused to argue the information they've presented
Justin, I spent a lot of time doing exactly that, arguing the information that they presented, at least the sites that I was allowed to access, or did you not bother to read what I wrote?
"Secondly, for those who actually do read the Bible, and I'd prefer to discuss this on a separate thread I'd started, it would be very difficult and dishonest to say that practicing homosexuality is not a sin." Appeal to Belief. Simply because "most" people believe something doesn't make it true.
Except that I did present quite a bit of evidence to back up the above statements and, again, you're more than welcome to attempt to refute that evidence.
And you still haven't provided anything to back up the statement that you quoted that states something like, if the Bible is interpreted properly, it shows something like that homosexuals and heterosexuals should live separate lives or something like that. You cited a website which I'm unable to access. If you're going to quote statements like that, it seems to me that you need to at least tell us on what this statement is based.
You contradicted yourself. First you say marriage is not a right, then you say the government can't bestow rights anyway. You're correct... the government can't bestow rights, it can only remove them. As such, the moment marriage became legally defined as "between a man and a woman" the government did, in fact, take away the right for homosexual couples.
You totally lost me here. Where did I contradict myself, particularly since you seem to agree with me? In fact, if you'll reread your paragraph, I think you'll see that you contradicted yourself. First, you state that you agree that marriage is not a right and then you say that they take away the right for homosexual couples. In any case, if you read what I said about this, as far as granting any couples the same privileges as those, who are married, providing that they also accept the same responsibilities, I believe that you'll find that we're essentially in agreement on this.
What is the DPA and where was there any discussion at all of "separate but equal"?
As far as the scientific evidence that you discussed, what is your source for this? It's not my intention to necessarily refute it, but instead of making such statements, it might be helpful if you'd cite your source, and that would benefit everybody.
Share This