Australia on Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nah, I don’t hate any particular group of people, even when they do or say or think what I consider to be silly things.

I don’t even hate individuals all that much. Not even Karado, even though he bugs the shit out of me sometimes.

If you’ll notice, I very seldom insult people. I will ridicule ideas that I consider erroneous, or beliefs that I believe to be unfounded, and I especially laugh at belief systems that allow one group of people to hate another group. Could be a religious belief, could be a political belief, could be a pseudoscientific ethnological or sociological belief.

Glad that you are a peacemaker. You shall receive peace.

As for me, do not imagine that I came to bring peace to PWI. I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a conservative against a liberal, and a creationist against an evolutionist, and a pro-lifer against a pro-choicer. And a man’s enemies shall be the members of his own forum.

I’m kidding, of course. I have no agenda as sinister as that. I just like shaking up the ant farm sometimes. [/quote]

I do not mind shaking up the ant farm also. Jesus did it in the Temple, so sometimes Christians need to be reminded why they believe what they believe. I welcome a discussion. Here it just turns into Christian Bashing or some other bashing. If you bring research I will consider it.

Your issue with Karado is the same issue I have with Zep. I finally had to ignore him.

22

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

But to make you happy, why do PEOPLE, irrespective of religious affiliation, consider homosexuals to be “second class peoples” as you put it?[/quote]

I don’t know how I wasn’t clear about this with the slide rule analogy. Members of a previous generation wasted their time building and using slide rules when they would’ve been much better served working on the transistor. It would be cruel to compel today’s children to use a slide rule and any child with even a rudimentary understanding of what it does would regard it as inferior.

This is by no means limited to homosexuality and is sorta the basis for all of evolution. You compete successfully or go extinct.

First, doesn’t all non-religious reasoning boil down to entropy? If it’s not a god or supernatural force of arbitrary form with a directed purpose it’s strictly natural forces with no purpose or direction, right?

Second, I don’t consider the relationship between religion and morality to be a simple ‘by extension’ concept and I don’t think you do either. There are certainly an abundance of moral hazards that have nothing to do any religion.

Homosexuality is, biologically, about as close to masturbatory navel-gazing as one can get without touching one’s own sex organs or looking at one’s own navel. Just like the slide rule, hand it to a child and it’s a fun toy. Compel them to interact with the slide rule in any meaningful or purposeful manner and, at best, it’s a waste of time. People, instinctively, were/are repulsed by homosexuality and as long as their experience with it remains only 4-5% of the people that they come across and not in any way homosexual in nature, they don’t care. Well within a generation of rendering sexual reproduction obsolete, sex will follow suit. Mammals didn’t enjoy sex and just happen to reproduce, we needed to reproduce and the enjoyment developed as a result.

Possibly harshing your buzz of a future full of women (and men) who have abundant sex without reproduction but, if you were a woman and didn’t have to give birth to reproduce, why go through the hassle of sterilizing yourself in order to have sex and the other risks associated with it? Especially if the technology to provide or receive a satisfying sexual experience without sterilization or other risk would be far easier to perfect than the artificial womb?

23

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nah, I don’t hate any particular group of people, even when they do or say or think what I consider to be silly things.

I don’t even hate individuals all that much. Not even Karado, even though he bugs the shit out of me sometimes.

If you’ll notice, I very seldom insult people. I will ridicule ideas that I consider erroneous, or beliefs that I believe to be unfounded, and I especially laugh at belief systems that allow one group of people to hate another group. Could be a religious belief, could be a political belief, could be a pseudoscientific ethnological or sociological belief.

Glad that you are a peacemaker. You shall receive peace.

As for me, do not imagine that I came to bring peace to PWI. I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a conservative against a liberal, and a creationist against an evolutionist, and a pro-lifer against a pro-choicer. And a man’s enemies shall be the members of his own forum.

I’m kidding, of course. I have no agenda as sinister as that. I just like shaking up the ant farm sometimes. [/quote]

I do not mind shaking up the ant farm also. Jesus did it in the Temple, so sometimes Christians need to be reminded why they believe what they believe. I welcome a discussion. Here it just turns into Christian Bashing or some other bashing. If you bring research I will consider it.

Your issue with Karado is the same issue I have with Zep. I finally had to ignore him.
[/quote]

I don’t really care that people believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but it is annoying that they want to force their beliefs down everyone’s throat and use a really old book to control people so they can behave exactly like they think someone they have never met nor seen wants everyone to behave. Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions. Yet they STILL want to use that as the basis for rules when it comes to telling people how to live.

When you really stop and think about it…it’s basically the most insanely stupid thing in the history of the universe. Only if you stop and think about it though.

24

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I just like shaking up the ant farm sometimes. [/quote]

Aww shit… I like guessing at where the ants are gonna go and what they’re gonna do right after I shake it.

25

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people … the really old book which has been changed many times [/quote]

This got my attention. I would like to see your proof on the Bible being changed many times. Show me what you got.

By the way the “flying spaghetti monster” is one of my favorites.

26

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people … the really old book which has been changed many times [/quote]

This got my attention. I would like to see your proof on the Bible being changed many times. Show me what you got.

By the way the “flying spaghetti monster” is one of my favorites.
[/quote]

Do I need to google this for you?

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

You can find all sorts of examples if you search, but who cares.

Let’s assume NOTHING has been changed though ever (which is stupid as hell to begin with). Should we use an old book of which generations of people have always disagreed about the meaning of as the basis for our laws? If people who believe can’t agree on the specifics and not everyone even believes that one book then why in the hell would we use it as the basis for anything non religious? “We think gays are going to burn in hell! And we don’t want them to be married either!”

I like the flying spaghetti monster because it includes all faiths. I’m well aware Christians aren’t the only people wanting to use a really old changed book as the reason to do stuff.

It is funny to watch people against the Syria strike because “Americans are against it” but also be against gay marriage when Americans are for it.

27

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people … the really old book which has been changed many times [/quote]

This got my attention. I would like to see your proof on the Bible being changed many times. Show me what you got.

By the way the “flying spaghetti monster” is one of my favorites.
[/quote]

You may be interested in reading about the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest and most complete copy of the Christian Bible in existence.

Written in Koine Greek in the 4th century, it contains plenty of stuff that is not in your Bible, and doesn’t contain a lot of stuff that is.

I make no judgments on the matter one way or the other, except to say that we can’t count on our journalists to get a story right, even when the reporters see an event first hand: personal and political biases always creeps in, rendering even the most objectively-intended account slanted ever so slightly.

Now imagine a transcription of second-, third- and fortieth-hand oral accounts of the event, written down years or centuries or millennia after the fact, further transcribed, translated, transliterated and transubstantiated (wait…forget that last one) over two or more millennia. There is bound to be a few revisions, clerical errors and typos. Even (or especially) if the original story was inspired by (or at least about) God.

Anyway, may you be touched by His noodly appendage.

Ra-men

28

[quote]H factor wrote:

When you really stop and think about it…it’s basically the most insanely stupid thing in the history of the universe. Only if you stop and think about it though. [/quote]

Not. If one was to actually stop and think about it, one would notice that religion, in one form or another, who tend to have some common themes, has been around and a part of human life since the dawn of civilization.

So I’m not sure I would go along with “insanely stupid” as an accurate description.

29

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people … the really old book which has been changed many times [/quote]

This got my attention. I would like to see your proof on the Bible being changed many times. Show me what you got.

By the way the “flying spaghetti monster” is one of my favorites.
[/quote]

Do I need to google this for you?

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

You can find all sorts of examples.

Let’s assume NOTHING has been changed though ever (which is stupid as hell to begin with). Should we use an old book of which generations of people have always disagreed about the meaning of as the basis for our laws? If people who believe can’t agree on the specifics and not everyone even believes that one book then why in the hell would we use it as the basis for anything non religious? “We think gays are going to burn in hell! And we don’t want them to be married either!”

I like the flying spaghetti monster because it includes all faiths. I’m well aware Christians aren’t the only people wanting to use a really old changed book as the reason to do stuff.

It is funny to watch people against the Syria strike because “Americans are against it” but also be against gay marriage when Americans are for it. [/quote]

Did you even read the article before posting?

The changes are called â??variants.â??

“Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.”

This is mine - The other changes were to put more detail to actually explain something that was vague or needed more explanation.

Nothing in your article that actually shows there were changes to the meaning or anything like that. You want to try again?

Now lets deal with “Gays are going to burn in Hell”. I do not know where the Bible says that. It does state that “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” “The wages of sin is death.”

Now if you are trying to say that being Gay is a sin they will die and then be in Hell then yes you are right. It also means that if you sin and do not repent and have Jesus in your heart then you will die and go to Hell. God hates ALL sin. There is not one sin that is less offensive or more offensive to God. ALL sin is offensive.

Most people hate the Bible because it shines light on our fallibleness. It shows us we need a Savior and that Savior is Jesus Christ. Our sin separated us from our fellowship with God. Jesus taking our sin and paying for our sins gave us a way back to God.

You may not believe any of this and that is your prerogative. I am not going to shove it down your throat. But I will make sure when you say something incorrect about the Bible; the truth is actually stated.

30

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people … the really old book which has been changed many times [/quote]

This got my attention. I would like to see your proof on the Bible being changed many times. Show me what you got.

By the way the “flying spaghetti monster” is one of my favorites.
[/quote]

Do I need to google this for you?

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

You can find all sorts of examples.

Let’s assume NOTHING has been changed though ever (which is stupid as hell to begin with). Should we use an old book of which generations of people have always disagreed about the meaning of as the basis for our laws? If people who believe can’t agree on the specifics and not everyone even believes that one book then why in the hell would we use it as the basis for anything non religious? “We think gays are going to burn in hell! And we don’t want them to be married either!”

I like the flying spaghetti monster because it includes all faiths. I’m well aware Christians aren’t the only people wanting to use a really old changed book as the reason to do stuff.

It is funny to watch people against the Syria strike because “Americans are against it” but also be against gay marriage when Americans are for it. [/quote]

Did you even read the article before posting?

The changes are called �¢??variants.�¢??

“Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.”

This is mine - The other changes were to put more detail to actually explain something that was vague or needed more explanation.

Nothing in your article that actually shows there were changes to the meaning or anything like that. You want to try again?

Now lets deal with “Gays are going to burn in Hell”. I do not know where the Bible says that. It does state that “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” “The wages of sin is death.”

Now if you are trying to say that being Gay is a sin they will die and then be in Hell then yes you are right. It also means that if you sin and do not repent and have Jesus in your heart then you will die and go to Hell. God hates ALL sin. There is not one sin that is less offensive or more offensive to God. ALL sin is offensive.

Most people hate the Bible because it shines light on our fallibleness. It shows us we need a Savior and that Savior is Jesus Christ. Our sin separated us from our fellowship with God. Jesus taking our sin and paying for our sins gave us a way back to God.

You may not believe any of this and that is your prerogative. I am not going to shove it down your throat. But I will make sure when you say something incorrect about the Bible; the truth is actually stated.
[/quote]

Lol did YOU read the article? You asked for examples of changes. It has them. Including changes in the freaking gospel’s for “christ’s” sake.

But you handwave them away as no big deal. Shocking. I guess you’ll ignore V’s post as well. And that was just the first article I came across. I’m not going to do your research for you. It’s your book study its freaking history.

31

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

When you really stop and think about it…it’s basically the most insanely stupid thing in the history of the universe. Only if you stop and think about it though. [/quote]

Not. If one was to actually stop and think about it, one would notice that religion, in one form or another, who tend to have some common themes, has been around and a part of human life since the dawn of civilization.

So I’m not sure I would go along with “insanely stupid” as an accurate description.

[/quote]

Believing in a higher power or a religion- Dumb to me, but see why some do. Has been around for forever. No big deal.

Basing 2013 laws on a really old book that has been changed which has been argued about the meaning of those words since it was written?

I think insanely stupid fits.

32

[quote]H factor wrote:

Basing 2013 laws on a really old book that has been changed which has been argued about the meaning of those words since it was written?

I think insanely stupid fits.
[/quote]

Which laws are you referring to?

33

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I don’t really care that people … the really old book which has been changed many times [/quote]

This got my attention. I would like to see your proof on the Bible being changed many times. Show me what you got.

By the way the “flying spaghetti monster” is one of my favorites.
[/quote]

You may be interested in reading about the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest and most complete copy of the Christian Bible in existence.

Written in Koine Greek in the 4th century, it contains plenty of stuff that is not in your Bible, and doesn’t contain a lot of stuff that is.

I make no judgments on the matter one way or the other, except to say that we can’t count on our journalists to get a story right, even when the reporters see an event first hand: personal and political biases always creeps in, rendering even the most objectively-intended account slanted ever so slightly.

Now imagine a transcription of second-, third- and fortieth-hand oral accounts of the event, written down years or centuries or millennia after the fact, further transcribed, translated, transliterated and transubstantiated (wait…forget that last one) over two or more millennia. There is bound to be a few revisions, clerical errors and typos. Even (or especially) if the original story was inspired by (or at least about) God.

Anyway, may you be touched by His noodly appendage.

Ra-men[/quote]

It seems to be an Book before the Bible was actually canonized, so yes there are going to be books, and stories that are not in the Bible today. Before Canonization a lot of books were out there, that were deemed heresy, so it is no shock that this book is different.

I did find it inquisitive that most of the notes were based in the Septuagint parts of the Collection of Books outside of the Hebrew Bible. Maybe that is why the protestants removed them from the Bible and called them Apocryphal, because they have been changed over the years. And these changes actually changed the meanings.

34

[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]

Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.

My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.

If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.

I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.

And no I did not dismiss V post.

35

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Basing 2013 laws on a really old book that has been changed which has been argued about the meaning of those words since it was written?

I think insanely stupid fits.
[/quote]

Which laws are you referring to?[/quote]

ANYTHING. The Bible says x, x, x is constantly being brought up by politicians. Why? Why would a believer like Maddox WANT the Bible to have ANYTHING to do with our laws? Makes 0 sense to me.

Very few people in America believe the same thing. If we even narrowed it down to “the Bible” as the book we want to use we all disagree about the meaning or twist the words to fit our interpretation. So how could anyone think we should use it as the justification for anything?

36

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]

Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.

My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.

If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.

I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.

And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]

Please read this over and over and over and over again:

[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]

And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.

No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.

37

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Basing 2013 laws on a really old book that has been changed which has been argued about the meaning of those words since it was written?

I think insanely stupid fits.
[/quote]

Which laws are you referring to?[/quote]

ANYTHING. The Bible says x, x, x is constantly being brought up by politicians. Why? Why would a believer like Maddox WANT the Bible to have ANYTHING to do with our laws? Makes 0 sense to me.

Very few people in America believe the same thing. If we even narrowed it down to “the Bible” as the book we want to use we all disagree about the meaning or twist the words to fit our interpretation. So how could anyone think we should use it as the justification for anything? [/quote]

Well, to be honest I was hoping to talk about specific laws or particular instances.

I generally agree with your overall point. I’m not a particularly religious guy, but as I get older I get less and less “super anti, I hate religion” type and follow a more live and let live. I was just hoping to talk about specifics because some laws are good, and happen to be in line with the similar thoughts in the holy books. Like not murdering for example… You know what I mean?

38

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

When you really stop and think about it…it’s basically the most insanely stupid thing in the history of the universe. Only if you stop and think about it though. [/quote]

Not. If one was to actually stop and think about it, one would notice that religion, in one form or another, who tend to have some common themes, has been around and a part of human life since the dawn of civilization.

So I’m not sure I would go along with “insanely stupid” as an accurate description.

[/quote]

Believing in a higher power or a religion- Dumb to me, but see why some do. Has been around for forever. No big deal.

Basing 2013 laws on a really old book that has been changed which has been argued about the meaning of those words since it was written?

I think insanely stupid fits.
[/quote]

The majority of our laws are based off of some form of law found in the 10 commandments.

Since religion has been around since the beginning of time, our customs and laws will reflect that.

Are you saying we should do away with any law that is found someplace in the bible?

39

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh yeah and all the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster constantly argue about what the really old book which has been changed many times actually means and constantly come to differing conclusions.[/quote]

Here is your quote about the changes. You are saying that these “Changes” are so big that we should not believe what it says.

My argument is that the changes DO NOT change the meaning of the Bible, so the changes are pointless.

If I wrote “They’re going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Does it change the meaning if I instead wrote “There going to see the Spaghetti Monster.” Just because I changed the word They’re does not change the meaning. You are stuck on the They’re and not the meaning.

I wish you would believe, but you chose not to and that is your choice. Just do not put me down because I choose to believe, it is my choice.

And no I did not dismiss V post.
[/quote]

Please read this over and over and over and over again:

[quote]Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.[/quote]

And that is the changes we know about and can find. You said it hasn’t been changed. Your wrong. Now you want to goalpost shift and say well yeah it’s changed, but not enough to matter.

No. The fucking book (which you believers can’t even agree on the meaning of anyways) has been changed over history many times.
[/quote]

I never goalpost moved anything. I asked for proof of changes. Your “changes” were not about misspellings, but about Religious people arguing about the Bible. That is meaning and not changes.

40

[quote]H factor wrote:

When you really stop and think about it…it’s basically the most insanely stupid thing in the history of the universe. Only if you stop and think about it though. [/quote]

When I stop and think about it, I wonder where the ideas that all men are created equal, that all men should be treated equal under law, and that all men should be made equal by law came from.