Same sex marriages. Your opinon? Volume two.

[Chewbacca]

Ummm, Yorick, Cloudy did ask that we move the religion debate to another thread. Since I wasnt looking for a debate, merely asserting my own educated opinion and then provided a bit of "proof" when asked, I haven't made a new thread. I would recomend making a new thread if you would like to continue reinforcing your beleifs.

You, fortunately, cannot deny me my own truth and the "counter-arguments" to this point (I havent quite read them all) leave me unphased and unmoved from my original veiwpoint that the bible has contradictions, or to use my original phrase is "somewhat contradictory". This veiwpoint that it is somewhat contradictory is not meant to make less it's validity as a book of religion, philosophy, literature, poetry, history or any other of the myriad of ways people can and do percieve the bible. It is simply a veiwpoint that is my own, as well as others.

Peace.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: Atthe end of the day, Timber and Chewbacca, you are both essentially repeating the opinions of others.

I draw my own conclusions and I make my own opinions with my own mind. Thank you very much.

[Timber Loftis]

I repeat, just for effect. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img] WEEKLY RAMBLING THREAD WONDER AWARD!!!!!! [img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]

Yorick, I quote the opinions of others, but you simply post bible quotes at length. Difference?

Look, I can't be bothered to read all you've posted at this point. I'm sure you've made your arguments quite well, but to argue there are absolutely no contradictions in the Bible is pretty difficult. Maybe you have worked to reconcile these for yourself, but I'm sure it's taken some effort. My point is it is likely something reasonable men can disagree on. My Ph.D. theology professors disagreed with you, so maybe, just maybe, your word is not the end all be all absolute truth.

Anyway, if there is anything I can do to bribe you to quit posting the King James version at length, I'll gladly do it. I've got a few copies at home, and I'll grab one and read it when I'm *that* curious, I assure you.

[ 08-13-2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Faceman]

*afraid to join in on a debate so very late*
?Is this still a debate or just a fight on who's getting the last word? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway I'll state my opinion and say some things which probably have already been said on the 9! pages before.

1. homosexual marriage from a religious viewpoint:
No problem. Only thing you need to do is found a new religion that allows it. if there are enough gay people who want to get married they'll join it and you got yourself government funding. Existent religions have their own belief systems and you CANNOT force them to give that up. So probably no catholic marriage for Adam and Steve.

2. social benefits from marriage:
like tax breaks or the possibility to have the life partner inherit. We just have to think on what grounds we grant these to straight married couples and then decide wheter to give them to gays too.
If we focus on the children-issue it would be only logical to completely remove these favours from marriage and add them to parenthood thus taking away privileges from childless straight couples and giving them to homosexuals who have adopted a child for example.
There are of course other factors to marriage like having a person you can completely trust/rely on and who is providing you with strenghth while you're weak etc. and I can't quite see why homosexual couples would not be able to achieve that.
Basically a homosexual and a heterosexual couple only differ on one topic: their way of enjoying sexual intercourse. Now this is nothing that should concern the government because then we'd have to deny marriage to straight couples who choose to only enjoy similar forms of lovemaking.

The hot point of the issue is that a lot of religions would get offended if something that THEY classify as sickness would be named like something that is sacred to them.
And giving gay couples the privileges but not the actual name of "married" would probably offend them.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, I quote the opinions of others, but you simply post bible quotes at length. Difference?

We're talking about opinions about the bible. Opinions about a concrete source.

Mine are from first hand knowledge of this source - an understanding through regular reading of the bible. Yours are from others opinions on the work, rather than from your own in-depth analysis of it.

That is the difference.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Anyway, if there is anything I can do to bribe you to quit posting the King James version at length, I'll gladly do it.

This is proof of what I am saying.

I do not quote from the King James version. I do not read the King James version. I have quoted it ONCE regarding the "Do not murder" section. If you knew the bible, you would know that.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, I quote the opinions of others, but you simply post bible quotes at length. Difference?

We're talking about opinions about the bible. Opinions about a concrete source.

Mine are from first hand knowledge of this source - an understanding through regular reading of the bible. Yours are from others opinions on the work, rather than from your own in-depth analysis of it.

That is the difference. [/QUOTE]It is a difference -- but one that does not matter from my point of view. Why I should let your view become "absolute truth" when there are other learned disagreeing views out there is beyond me. Both are educated opinions.

I didn't say I had an educated opinion. I stated a bit of what I'd learned. Yes, I had two semesters of religion a decade ago, but I'm not representing I know the book like you do. Nevertheless, why don't you just admit that there are other views, other views with good backing and arguments, and that yours is not a verifiable absolute truth regarding the text. It's like the Balrog wings in Tolkein -- there is no 100% answer, as both camps have good points.

As for my "King James" quote, it was a quip, an off-the-cuff comment. I could give a s**t less what version you're quoting -- I just know I've had enough of it and that I can't see you making any points you haven't already.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: You, fortunately, cannot deny me my own truth and the "counter-arguments" to this point (I havent quite read them all) leave me unphased and unmoved from my original veiwpoint that the bible has contradictions, or to use my original phrase is "somewhat contradictory". This veiwpoint that it is somewhat contradictory is not meant to make less it's validity as a book of religion, philosophy, literature, poetry, history or any other of the myriad of ways people can and do percieve the bible. It is simply a veiwpoint that is my own, as well as others. Peace.

Chewbacca, it is unbecoming of you to maintain that viewpoint given that EVERY alleged contradiction has been met and answered comprehensively. To purse such an opinion shows a biased and stubborn refusal to honestly assess the bible.

The bible has stood for centuries. People spend more time reading it, than any other work. People will spend years getting degrees on it's study. A degree for understanding ONE WORK.

It is under CONSTANT sctrutiny from people who a highly critical. Critical of errant translations, misinterpretations and the like.

For you to take the word of an apostate - when the entire list of his has been answered, when bogus elements have been shown for what they are (such as his "problem" with the womans inequality issue, and his refusal to respond to requests to clarify his problem, as no-one can see what the problem is) - is quite out of character for the openminded searcher I took you for.

It's not a matter of "opinion" there are facts. The FACT is the bible is CONSISTENT. The fact is the bible crossreferences itself so comprehensively, that when a "copyists error" occurs, where a single stroke is not adequately drawn (like confusing our 1 with a 7) in one record of a Kings life, there is another record in another biblical book to clarify it.

There are four gospels for a reason. They all show something NEW. A different slant on the same picture. In this way the total picture is seen. Much like you would read four journalistic accounts from different press to gain a fuller picture.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It is a difference -- but one that does not matter from my point of view. Why I should let your view become "absolute truth" when there are other learned disagreeing views out there is beyond me. Both are educated opinions. I didn't say I had an educated opinion. I stated a bit of what I'd learned. Yes, I had two semesters of religion a decade ago, but I'm not representing I know the book like you do. Nevertheless, why don't you just admit that there are other views, other views with good backing and arguments, and that yours is not a verifiable absolute truth regarding the text. It's like the Balrog wings in Tolkein -- there is no 100% answer, as both camps have good points. As for my "King James" quote, it was a quip, an off-the-cuff comment. I could give a s**t less what version you're quoting -- I just know I've had enough of it and that I can't see you making any points you haven't already.

They are truths about a defined subject, not some metaphysical mystery. You can quite easily go to the source and see for yourself, but you have not and will not. Instead you rely on incorrect opinions from others, that though PROVED incorrect, do nothing to change your "opinion", despite "opinion" having nothing to do with FACTS.

What we are talking about is independently verifiable. As such there is truth or untruth. Absolute truth, or speculation has nothing to do with it.

As for the King James comment, off-the-cuff or not, it proves you have little knowledge of the work you are suggesting is contradictory. If you are mistaken about a biblical issue so small, how can you profess to know about the larger biblical elements discussed here?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Atthe end of the day, Timber and Chewbacca, you are both essentially repeating the opinions of others.

I draw my own conclusions and I make my own opinions with my own mind. Thank you very much. [/QUOTE]Not in this case.

The point being, you grabbed the argument of another and used it. I spent time using my own understanding of the bible to answer it. I ended up using anothers writing for later points simply to save time given the "law of diminishing marginal returns" but the fact remains that I am speaking from a PERSONAL IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING of the bible. Whereas you are postulating from anothers understanding.

If you HAD independently made up your own mind, you would have researched these supposed "contradictions" and seen for yourself that they are bogus. Many of his points are so shallow a novice can see through them.

[ 08-13-2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]