Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

mtooler said:
Some of that is true ;) Paul was about as academic as one could be in his day and Luke was a doctor. There's plenty of the Bible that if a document was to be fabricated you wouldnt want in there if you were trying to convince others of its authenticity. Without getting into apologetics too much trying to triangulate whether Jesus was a real person or not is a helpful starting place. if that can be ruled out then the rest has to be a total fairytale.
Click to expand...
Touché or QED. I can't be any clearer really. Never said JC never existed btw, that's just lazy on your behalf.
 
Kapanis said:
Touché or QED. I can't be any clearer really. Never said JC never existed btw, that's just lazy on your behalf.
Click to expand...
Just a starting spot is all, know you didnt reference it, didnt mean offence by it. If Jesus was real then whether he fulfilled what was written about him in the old testament could be viewed, or what Flavius or Josephus write about him in around the new testament. Doing either can start to uncover whether the bible has so been changed to a hotchpot that is no longer gospel.
 
mtooler said:
Just a starting spot is all, know you didnt reference it, didnt mean offence by it. If Jesus was real then whether he fulfilled what was written about him in the old testament could be viewed, or what Flavius or Josephus write about him in around the new testament. Doing either can start to uncover whether the bible has so been changed to a hotchpot that is no longer gospel.
Click to expand...
Garbage
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kapanis said:
Garbage
Click to expand...
Just so we are on the same page I just grabbed a random verse to represent the changes you've mentioned. Here's the different versions of it, make of it what you will if the bible is still decipherable or not over time. John 1:1

New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Study Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Contemporary English Version
In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

Good News Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NET Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

New Heart English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard 1977
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
 
BarneyBent said:
And you have repeatedly ignored questions that poke holes in your logic. Your argument does not take into account the fact that not all straight couples procreate, and some gay couples procreate or adopt. Until you can address that, you have not explained yourself.




Yes. I believe disagreeing with gay rights is discriminatory. By definition. Shamelessly. You are making my argument for me.

Answer
Utter nonsense. That's the catch cry when you don't hear the answer you want.

Cool. So you want them to not be persecuted, but you still need to protect marriage from them. Do you want a medal for that? Is the bar really set that low?

Answer
I'm not protecting anything from homosexuals ....that's your twisted response. How many times do I need to say it. You don't fit marriage because you're not a man and woman ie marriage. That is the definition

“Call it something different”! Why? What is so important? What damage will it do to the institution? Guess what, being told “oh, we want to give you legal equality, sort of, but we don’t want to make it FEEL like we’ve done that, so here, have your own little thing and we straights will keep doing what we’ve been doing” is kinda super offensive. Sends the message that no matter what, homosexual relationships will never be considered as valid or worthy as heterosexual relationships. It’s a kick in the teeth.

Answer
Reinforces my argument that the lobby is about forcing change to get validation and at expense of destroying a tradition that you were never intended to participate in with reason. Importance? BecAuse it's a tradition with historical perspective


Why was it necessary to change the concept of voting? It used to be about giving educated, wealthy landowning men, those who are capable and have valuable contributions to make, a greater say in now government is run. When you include non-landowners, it defeats the entire point!

Oh, and now you want to include women?? Absolutely not, that destroys the original purpose of giving those who have contributions to make, educated, intelligent men, a say in how government is run.

Oh, and now you want to include blacks? That destroys the entire purpose of giving those with contributions to make, educated, intelligent white people, a say in how government is run. Absolutely not!

Answer
Totally irrelevant and self serving argument with no parallel to gay marraige


But you aren’t gay, and you clearly haven’t discussed this issue with many who are, so perhaps, just maybe, you’re missing something. You can be damn right that people want to change an exclusively heterosexual concept to be more inclusive. Again, that’s not a bad thing.

Answer:
Considered. Nah know my own mind and the efficacy of my choice. Thanks anyway

“Woo, we’re technically legally equal, you just don’t want to let us use your word! Thank you so much, you’re so generous!”

Answer
Not my word it's a defined term from society evolved through historical context. So once again emotive self serving nonsense

Yeah, that’s the response you can expect. You don’t deserve a medal for offering conceptually-qualified legal equality. It’s like saying “oh, you’re black? Ok, you can have all the same qualifications as a doctor, but we’re going to call it a Blacktor. You’re welcome.”

Can you see why people aren’t super stoked on that?

Answer
Making it entirely clear because dicks like you want to throw a tanty when they can't intimidate someone to their view. Ie bigots that I'm not discriminatory at all because if I were I would want to perpetuate inequality. Not asking for a medal


You aren’t exactly supporting your assertion of nil homophobia with this paragraph.

Answer
It's the truth whether you like to admit it or accept it or not. You think I'm being homophobic because I quote that you ejaculate inside a guys rectum? And that won't create a baby. Mmmmm don't you? And will it? No homophobia involved Fwit. Had I said that scenario was evil is homophobic. I didn't and won't. self serving BS again

But again, comes back to the point you continually refuse to address - many straight couples can’t or won’t have children but still get married. Many gay couples have children through surrogacy or adoption. The child-rearing factor is not a real factor any more.


Answer:
They are heterosexuals and are currently included in existing definition of marraige accordingly.


If you believe marriage is about children, and on that basis wish to exclude homosexual relationships, then it seems to me you must also support excluding infertile straight couples, and preventing gay couples from being parents at all. If you’re going to exclude gay couples with children, but include straight couples without, then your objection is not about procreation, it’s about orientation. Convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Answer:
The objection is you are destroying the tradition which was only ever structured as a heterosexual concept emanating from heterosexuals preeminent position as the only coupling that can produce a baby. You think I should throw that history and tradition away. I don't


I don't need to convince you. You are not some oracle I should defer to though your smug self righteous and misplaced diatribe about discrimination and homophobia shows you think you are. You are a bigot and that is entirely unrelated to being gay though that is the issue which promotes this hyper sensitivity projecting your persecution hurt on to me. Own your behaviour sentiment and conduct I say. You can't conceive that anyone can have a genuine held belief that doesnt agree with you and what's more if they dare to you will call them discriminatory or homophobic

You represent the worst face of gaydom. You use accusations of homophobia and discrimination as manipulative tools to position yourself (or try) to advantage.
 
Do you have the version that was written by 3 apostles who couldn't write?
 
mtooler said:
Just so we are on the same page I just grabbed a random verse to represent the changes you've mentioned. Here's the different versions of it, make of it what you will if the bible is still decipherable or not over time. John 1:1

New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Study Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Contemporary English Version
In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

Good News Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NET Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

New Heart English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard 1977
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
Click to expand...
Who wrote that by the way? How does Christ translate to that? Because life is Christ apparently.
 
Number37 said:
The Marriage Act (1961) DID NOT define marriage.

In 2004 Howard amended the Marriage Act to include a definition of marriage:
"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
"Certain unions are not marriages.
"A union solemnised in a foreign country between: a man and another man; or a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."


Before 2004 the Marriage Act DID NOT exclude SSM.
Click to expand...

That may be the legislative position for sure. I'm talking about the societal evolution of the concept
 
John couldn't write or read, John1:1 but hey, no wonder his message, in English, is so simple.
 
Kapanis said:
Do you have the version that was written by 3 apostles who couldn't write?
Click to expand...
Check out:
- 1 Corinthians 16:21 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand.
- Galatians 6:11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!
- 2 Thessalonians 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.
- Collossians 4:18 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

Scribes were not uncommon and directly acknowledged in their existence by Paul, pointing out when he wrote a section. He was very learned and used scribes. I don't know whether Peter, James and John scribed it personally or dictated it to a scribe to be honest.
 
Kapanis said:
John couldn't write or read, John1:1 but hey, no wonder his message, in English, is so simple.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go quite that far as all jewish boys schooling consisted of memorising the Torah as their schooling. Those that showed talent would then memorise the old testament and the best of them may become a disciple of a Rabbi who were highly esteemed in society. Hence when Jesus said come follow me, they followed the Rabbi, such was their standing in society.
 
puke said:
Answer:
The objection is you are destroying the tradition which was only ever structured as a heterosexual concept emanating from heterosexuals preeminent position as the only coupling that can produce a baby. You think I should throw that history and tradition away. I don't


I don't need to convince you. You are not some oracle I should defer to though your smug self righteous and misplaced diatribe about discrimination and homophobia shows you think you are. You are a bigot and that is entirely unrelated to being gay though that is the issue which promotes this hyper sensitivity projecting your persecution hurt on to me. Own your behaviour sentiment and conduct I say. You can't conceive that anyone can have a genuine held belief that doesnt agree with you and what's more if they dare to you will call them discriminatory or homophobic

You represent the worst face of gaydom. You use accusations of homophobia and discrimination as manipulative tools to position yourself (or try) to advantage.
Click to expand...


Every person, regardless of sexual orientation is the progeny of a male/female union of dna, yes?

Or has that been legislated too?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mtooler said:
Check out:
- 1 Corinthians 16:21 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand.
- Galatians 6:11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!
- 2 Thessalonians 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.
- Collossians 4:18 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

Scribes were not uncommon and directly acknowledged in their existence by Paul, pointing out when he wrote a section. He was very learned and used scribes. I don't know whether Peter, James and John scribed it personally or dictated it to a scribe to be honest.
Click to expand...
You've seemed to have just totally ignored any of what iVe said by throwing me more quotes from the bible, a book that as I've explained is deeply flawed on so many levels. So let's just stop this. It's a waste of yours, mine and the poor mods and fellow board members.
 
mtooler said:
I wouldn't go quite that far as all jewish boys schooling consisted of memorising the Torah as their schooling. Those that showed talent would then memorise the old testament and the best of them may become a disciple of a Rabbi who were highly esteemed in society. Hence when Jesus said come follow me, they followed the Rabbi, such was their standing in society.
Click to expand...
Seriously wtf
 
Kapanis said:
Who wrote that by the way? How does Christ translate to that? Because life is Christ apparently.
Click to expand...
Yeah true, Christ made all things is what the Bible teaches and Jesus does claim I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me. Do you mean the original scribe/author of John or the different versions. My favourite is the NIV it was penned by a pretty large council of bible scholars and find it pretty handy. NASB is pretty good too if your looking for one personally to acquire ;)
 
mtooler said:
Interesting statement, but you're applying a modern social construct to a 1960s society. In 1960s marriage participants as being same sex was not even on the radar in common vernacular. So you are right in technicality but not in practice if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

It makes sense but it is complete nonsense.

Pre 1961 the various state Marriage Acts were very proscriptive.
For example:
You could only get married between the hours of 8am and 8pm or your marriage was invalid. In R v Barton the court held that any marriage outside those hours was invalid.
Marriages could only be performed by a minister of religion.

Because marriages could only be performed by ministers of religion, the church basically had the final say on who could and couldn't get married.

The Marriage Act 1961 took marriage out of the hands of the church. It did so explicitly by allowing civil celebrants.
It also did so explicitly by removing references to various groups (Quakers, Jews, Indigenous) and in so doing made every person (of whatever creed) the same.

The amendment of 2004 changed the Act so as to differentiate AGAIN between people for the sole purpose of discriminating against SSM.
 
Kapanis said:
You've seemed to have just totally ignored any of what iVe said by throwing me more quotes from the bible, a book that as I've explained is deeply flawed on so many levels. So let's just stop this. It's a waste of yours, mine and the poor mods and fellow board members.
Click to expand...
I absolutely addressed what you said, the bible used scribes.
 
Number37 said:
It makes sense but it is complete nonsense.

Pre 1961 the various state Marriage Acts were very proscriptive.
For example:
You could only get married between the hours of 8am and 8pm or your marriage was invalid. In R v Barton the court held that any marriage outside those hours was invalid.
Marriages could only be performed by a minister of religion.

Because marriages could only be performed by ministers of religion, the church basically had the final say on who could and couldn't get married.

The Marriage Act 1961 took marriage out of the hands of the church. It did so explicitly by allowing civil celebrants.
It also did so explicitly by removing references to various groups (Quakers, Jews, Indigenous) and in so doing made every person (of whatever creed) the same.

The amendment of 2004 changed the Act so as to differentiate AGAIN between people for the sole purpose of discriminating against SSM.
Click to expand...

Not to mention marriage was practiced before any legislation ever existed in any society like in Genesis 2.
 
puke said:
Answer:
The objection is you are destroying the tradition which was only ever structured as a heterosexual concept emanating from heterosexuals preeminent position as the only coupling that can produce a baby. You think I should throw that history and tradition away. I don't


I don't need to convince you. You are not some oracle I should defer to though your smug self righteous and misplaced diatribe about discrimination and homophobia shows you think you are. You are a bigot and that is entirely unrelated to being gay though that is the issue which promotes this hyper sensitivity projecting your persecution hurt on to me. Own your behaviour sentiment and conduct I say. You can't conceive that anyone can have a genuine held belief that doesnt agree with you and what's more if they dare to you will call them discriminatory or homophobic

You represent the worst face of gaydom. You use accusations of homophobia and discrimination as manipulative tools to position yourself (or try) to advantage.
Click to expand...

You seriously can’t comprehend a straight guy promoting marriage equality can you? Are you seriously that divorced from reality? What world do you live in?

You have bought into “gay agenda” conspiracy theories. I’m straight as a ******* arrow. Go through my post history on social issues if you like, you’ll probably find previous references to my being straight. Normally I wouldn’t care if someone thought I was gay. The only reason I’m stressing the point is that you think the only reason I could hold the position I hold is that I’m actually gay, and it’s important I highlight how preposterous that is.

Fact is, marriage has included people who can’t procreate since forever. Why must you feel the need to exclude a subset?

Marriage has always been heterosexual in the past, sure. What harm does it do to be more inclusive now? Why must we cling to what used to be? Gay couples can already have children. Those that don’t want to are no different from the straight married couples who can’t or don’t want to. What are we losing? What is the cost? There isn’t one.
 
mtooler said:
Not to mention marriage was practiced before any legislation ever existed in any society like in Genesis 2.
Click to expand...

I read a book about how William the Conqueror overnight changed the clergy, from Saxon to Norman, so that the Sarum Rite could be performed in a more British & less Roman manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top