Prove that God doesn't exist.

[OldTrapper]

Old Trapper,
I've had to be out of town for work, I'm home momentarily to reload the truck and will be leaving early tomorrow. I don't know when I'll be back, but I will try to continue our discussion then.

As a side note:
The American Family Association, a religious right group, is urging that Tillikum (Tilly), the killer whale that killed a trainer at SeaWorld Orlando, be put down, preferably by stoning. Citing Tilly's history of violent altercations, the group is slamming SeaWorld for not listening to Scripture in how to deal with the animal:

Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/american-family-associati_n_484022.html

This is a great example of the intellect we're dealing with in many Christians. That whale is probably smarter than 75% of the Christians in this country and it's kept in a tiny pool by itself and forced to perform idiotic tricks for packs of yammering hominids. The poor creature is probably quite insane now and is totally justified in striking out at its captors.

How about it, DOT (Doctor of Theology or Doctor Old Trapper), are you in favor of stoning the whale too?

Oh yeah, I see another gay-hating Republican is gay and has been arrested for drunk driving besides. No hypocrisy there, eh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/roy-ashburn-arrested-anti_n_485419.html

First off, let me congratulate you on your wonderfully relaible source of information.

Now for some reality. Obviously you were so interested in denigrating Christians you did not take the time to read the article referred to. Or, perhaps you are just being the fool as usual and making up your interpretation of what was said. So, here is the original article for you to read, and then tell me they suggested stoning.

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147492239

Also note, it was not the AFA that made any recommendation. It was a blogger for the AFA.

Anyway, it is obvious that you have more concern over the death of this animal then you have for the life of a human baby. This particular whale killed a man in 1991, then another in 1999, and now the trainer. As the article says, if they had killed the whale back in 1991 as was recommended it would not have killed again.

I say kill it, and I don't care how it is done.

I would also recommend that you become more aware of your own hypocrisy then that of another. Compare this comment by Ashburn to that of Rangle, Jefferson, Clinton, or any left winger that breaks the law:

"I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me - my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

And, just because he opposes "gay rights" does not mean he hates gays. It does mean he believes in the Constitution, and the right of the people to decide these issues, something you would deny.


BTW, you have never told me what the "most famous 6 words of Jesus" are, or at least according to your demented mind.

 

[dahermit]

This particular whale killed a man in 1991, then another in 1999, and now the trainer. As the article says, if they had killed the whale back in 1991 as was recommended it would not have killed again.

If the fools had stopped going within its reach, it could have not killed again. There is no reason to kill that animal. Just leave it alone, in its own enviornment and it would never kill a human.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

First off, let me congratulate you on your wonderfully relaible source of information.

Now for some reality. Obviously you were so interested in denigrating Christians you did not take the time to read the article referred to. Or, perhaps you are just being the fool as usual and making up your interpretation of what was said. So, here is the original article for you to read, and then tell me they suggested stoning.

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147492239

Also note, it was not the AFA that made any recommendation. It was a blogger for the AFA.

Anyway, it is obvious that you have more concern over the death of this animal then you have for the life of a human baby. This particular whale killed a man in 1991, then another in 1999, and now the trainer. As the article says, if they had killed the whale back in 1991 as was recommended it would not have killed again.

I say kill it, and I don't care how it is done.

I would also recommend that you become more aware of your own hypocrisy then that of another. Compare this comment by Ashburn to that of Rangle, Jefferson, Clinton, or any left winger that breaks the law:

"I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me - my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

And, just because he opposes "gay rights" does not mean he hates gays. It does mean he believes in the Constitution, and the right of the people to decide these issues, something you would deny.


BTW, you have never told me what the "most famous 6 words of Jesus" are, or at least according to your demented mind.

I can tell we're going to have a good time bashing each other around, DOT. Most news stories are different than the headlines suggest, that's why I always put in the source and a link.

I am a full supporter of the Constitution, but punishing gay people for no reason is not part of the Constitution, in fact the equal protection clause is abrogated by anti-gay laws. While it may not be "hate" it certainly feels that way when one is on the receiving end.

According to Jesus the two most important commandments in the Bible are: "Love God" and "Love others as yourself." Those six words are largely ignored by Christians today as is notable in your case. Here you are, a DOCTORATE OF THEOLOGY on your wall and you are asking me what the six most important words in the Bible are. Nice.

"...it is obvious that you have more concern over the death of this animal then you have for the life of a human baby."
I have to tell you DOT that this is a great statement, outstanding in that as far as I know there was no baby involved in the whale story at all. Are you on drugs? People who exploit wild animals for money deserve what they get from the animals. I don't know of any babies that do this though, do you?

Why kill the whale? Turn it loose to live the rest of its life as best it can, the whale has done nothing wrong. Slavery is unethical, even animal slavery.

 

[OldTrapper]

I can tell we're going to have a good time bashing each other around, DOT. Most news stories are different than the headlines suggest, that's why I always put in the source and a link.

However, the stoy you posted was a lie, and you were accsuing me of what? Ddi younot ask if I wanted to stone the whale? Did you not make a big deal of the lie that AFA wanted to stone the whale? Now you are backpesaling when your lie is exposed. Typical.

I am a full supporter of the Constitution, but punishing gay people for no reason is not part of the Constitution, in fact the equal protection clause is abrogated by anti-gay laws. While it may not be "hate" it certainly feels that way when one is on the receiving end.

The I guess you know how a Christian feels when their beliefs are denigrated by the likes of you, or a Consevative when they see the Constitution distorted by the likes of you such as in abortion "rights", prayer in school, etc. Now you want to claim the Constitution demands "marriage" for homosexuals" The equal protection clause applies to laws passed by States. However, you want the USSC to override the Constitution, and force the States to approve of homosexual marriages just as they did on the abortion subject.

According to Jesus the two most important commandments in the Bible are: "Love God" and "Love others as yourself." Those six words are largely ignored by Christians today as is notable in your case. Here you are, a DOCTORATE OF THEOLOGY on your wall and you are asking me what the six most important words in the Bible are. Nice.

Again you take the words of God out of context for your own satisfaction. The scripture actually says "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all your soul, with all your might.". More then 6 words there. The second is as to the first, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", still more then 6 words.

Now, if you had actually come up with a 6 word phrase, which you could not, then you might have a point depending on what one considers the most important. How about "And Jesus wept", or "It is finished"? How about "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

"...it is obvious that you have more concern over the death of this animal then you have for the life of a human baby."
I have to tell you DOT that this is a great statement, outstanding in that as far as I know there was no baby involved in the whale story at all. Are you on drugs? People who exploit wild animals for money deserve what they get from the animals. I don't know of any babies that do this though, do you?

Is it arrogance, or ignorance, that devours you? The fact is ou are more concerned over the welfare of this whale then you are for the life of the unborn. Simple concept.

Why kill the whale? Turn it loose to live the rest of its life as best it can, the whale has done nothing wrong. Slavery is unethical, even animal slavery.

Hope you don't have any pets. Under the law if a dog mauls a child, or a person, it is to be put to death. Why should it be different for the whale?

Then too, I guess we could just turn the dog loose as you sugest for the whale.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, DOT, you have quite a headstart on me so bear with me while I catch up. I'm curious, DOT, have you posted on this site under another name in the last 12 months?

Ahhh, but I am, and your distortion of what the Bible teaches will not change that.

I will not address each of your false contentions since that would obviously take too much time. However, homosexuality was never condoned; genocide was never condoned; incest was forbidden by the Law of Moses; the selling of children spoken of in the OT was for human sacrifice which was condemned, and other examples of selling of children was by poor parents who would do so so the child could get a better upbringing; rape was punishable by death; kidnapping? Where is there an example of that in the OT that is accepted, and not punished?

Let's start with I Samuel 18:26-27 just because it's a fun and pleasant subject which you don't teach about in Sunday school. Murdering 200 Philistine men and then cutting off their foreskins for a dowry.

David and Jonathan had a gay love relationship and in the Bible the story starts in I Samuel 18:1-5 and continues through Jonathan's death and David's grief in II Samuel 1:25-26 in which David says "...thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

The essence of the relationship is brought forward in several places, but none better than Saul's comment in I Samuel 20:30 which reads in part "...do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and to the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"

What about I Samuel 20:41, in which David and Jonathan lay on the ground together kissing and crying until David "exceeded". I don't know about you, but I don't spend a lot of time lying on the ground kissing with other members of my gender, do you? In I Samuel 18:3-4 "...he loved him as his own soul." Jonathan stripped himself naked before David and gave David all his weapons and clothes. Sounds pretty gay to me, if you did that in today's Army you'd be shipped out post haste.

It's funny though that God had nothing to say about this relationship. It could be that God doesn't care about homosexuality since it appears to be a normal variation in the sexual orientations of most of the higher animals. It would also be good to note that much of the Law of Moses was lifted--some of it word for word--from the Code of Hammurabi. You see, Hammurabi was the leader of a extremely violent land-acquistion culture that moved into new lands, slaughtered all the people except for the virgin girls and then repopulated rapidly to hold the land. Hammurabi was death on gay men because they didn't help with the repopulation process--thus he condemned them to death. Lesbians he didn't care about because they could be raped and forced to bear children at Hammurabi's whim.

Moving right along to more kidnapping. Let's begin with Numbers 31:1-10, specifically verse 9 in which they talk about taking the women and children captive. That's kidnapping. Now let's look at Judges 21:1 through Judges 21:23-25, here we have not one, but two cases of kidnapping women for wives.

How about a little genocide? Deuteronomy 20:10-18 is nice, people have the option of servitude or being the victims of genocide. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is another example of genocide, but it gets worse. The virgins get kidnapped, they are given 30 days to grieve for the deaths of everyone they know, and then they are raped. If, for some reason, they can't make their rapist happy, then he can turn them out to die--but God was so merciful that He said that they can't sell the women, just turn them out to die. And die they will, because the Israelites would not touch a woman who had known a man, in fact their law said that a woman who was not a virgin on her marriage bed was to be stoned to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21. So here we have genocide, rape, and kidnapping all in one place.

How about a little more rape and genocide? Isaiah 13:15-16, "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." There you have it, DOT, genocide and rape once again.

What have we missed? Oh yeah, incest. Well, Lot impregnated both of his daughters when he was drunk. Sounds like incest to me--and right after God saved his ass too. Genesis 4:17 says that Cain "knew" his wife and she conceived, this has to be either Eve or an unnamed sister since Adam and Eve were the first two people. Shoot, according to Exodus 6:20 even Moses was the product of an incestuous relationship.

Amnon raped Tamar in II Samuel chapter 13, Absalom commited incest in II Samuel 16:15-23 and then David punished the women in II Samuel 20:3.

Selling children is the next subject:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I really like this scripture because it makes the point that beating a slave to death is alright as long as the slave lingers for a day or two before dying. Nice! All of these scriptures point out very clearly that keeping slaves and passing them on to your children as property is acceptable to God.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The KKK has never been a Christian group. Only people like yourself that want to denigrate the Christian religion even try to think such. The KKK was created by the Democrats to prevent Blacks from voting in the South.

Geez, DOT, you don't know sh1t about the KKK, do ya'? They've been using the scriptures you don't know about in the Bible since the beginning of the previous century to preach hatred and bigotry. I lived in a town in Oregon that had one of the most active klans in the country.

And your ASSumption that I was quoting the KKK is just another example of how low you will stoop to try and "prove" your point.

Well, I never suspected that you KNEW you were quoting the KKK, you obviously don't have much education on the subject and that's why I tried to enlighten you.

First, it is you that try to denigrate me by ASSuming I have quoted the KKK. That is a common defense of the fool when caught in their own lies. Transfer the action to another.

You DID quote the KKK even if you were too ignorant to know it.

Secondly, the Bible often refers to false teachings, and false teachers. In fact, it says to judge them by their actions, and words. You might try reading Titus, and especially Titus chapter one.

Next, Genesis, etc., has to do with the Hebrew people marrying pagans. How do you compare this to Christians marrying Christians? Makes one wonder where you are getting your anti-Christian talking points from. The Bible does say "Be ye not unequally yoked" in 2Cor. 6:14-18, yet this has to do with Christians marrying non-Christians, not interdenominational marriages.

But isn't it funny how so many Christian sects have been very violently opposed to inter-faith marriages despite your spin on the subject. Catholics marrying Protestants has caused many deaths.

Lastly, I say what I say of the Catholic, Mormon, and Jehovah Witness DENOMINATIONS, NOT the people themselves, what I do because their beliefs are NOT biblical. Of course, yoiu have to pervert that to make it appear as if I am saying the adherents themselves are not Christians which is a lie.

How can the denomination be unChristian but the followers of that denomination's teachings be Christian?

LOL, and you accused me of using fallacious arguments, etc.? Now, according to your feeble argument, passing laws concerning societal mores is "punishing" someone. Tell me, can society judge a murderer, or should we just let the murderer go free? Now, that is punishment, and judgement, which God approves of. Immoral acts are to be judged by the people, and is not reserved to God alone.

So it's people who decide what moral? They interpret their holy book and pass judgment? Murderers kill people, gay people harm no one. Anyone can see that murderers and thieves harm others, but there is no harm done by gay people loving each other. It's religious crap based on bigotry.

And, are you not judging me with your false judgements?

If I was condemning you in God's Name, then I would be judging you, but I'm not, nor am I passing laws to take anything FROM you that I ACCEPT for myself. You on the other hand condemn in God's Name and pass laws to take from others what you claim for your own. Sheer hypocrisy.

Marriage, with few exceptions, has always been between a man, and a woman. Homosexuals can enter into contracts to protect their legal rights, and I would even agree with civil unions.

You obviously don't know much about the history of marriage either. Civil unions as they stand now do not equal marriage and several of the States that have passed anti-gay marriage amendments has worded them so that even civil unions will not be allowed to approximate the legal force of marriage. I can give you examples of this if you like.

Marriage discrimination also abrogates the US Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law since it treats American citizens differently based on their sex.

Yet you condone the killing of the unborn. The original Hebrew wording has always been "Thou shalt not murder". If it was otherwise one could not kill in self defense, or even kill for food.

I guess I'll just have to assume that your idiotic accusations about my position on abortion are just rectal reclamations (where you pull your thumb out of your ass and lick it off, then say what ever comes to mind first). I don't think abortions are a good idea and I have never said that they are. Once again, it's funny how the Word of God was wrong for so many years and just now is being made "perfect" by changing the wording. Does that make you wonder what else is wrong in the Bible, what people will change next to make the Bible "perfect"?

The Bible says that to learn the mind of God one should study the scripture "line upon line, precept upon precept." The totality of the scripture is based on this principle, and it is not contradictory. If one takes a verse out of context, or by not studying all verses related to a particular topic, then one might think it is contradictory. One must look at scripture in it's totality.

But you don't do that, you have over and over again taken scripture out of context and quoted it here to make a point. If you are not going to cherry pick and use individual scriptures, then you MUST post the whole of the Bible in its entirety every time you quote it.

Allowing people to beat slaves to death as long as the slave takes a couple of days to die is a contradiction of Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself. Or can you reconcile those two things?

As an example, I was arguing religion with one unbeliever, and he made the comment that even the Bible says "there is no God". This is true if taken out of context. The particular verse he was referring to actually said "The fool says in his heart there is not God."

Which is exactly why I post the scripture--chapter and verse--so that you can go and take a look.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

First off, let me congratulate you on your wonderfully relaible source of information.

Now for some reality. Obviously you were so interested in denigrating Christians you did not take the time to read the article referred to. Or, perhaps you are just being the fool as usual and making up your interpretation of what was said. So, here is the original article for you to read, and then tell me they suggested stoning.

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147492239

Also note, it was not the AFA that made any recommendation. It was a blogger for the AFA.

Anyway, it is obvious that you have more concern over the death of this animal then you have for the life of a human baby. This particular whale killed a man in 1991, then another in 1999, and now the trainer. As the article says, if they had killed the whale back in 1991 as was recommended it would not have killed again.

I say kill it, and I don't care how it is done.

I would also recommend that you become more aware of your own hypocrisy then that of another. Compare this comment by Ashburn to that of Rangle, Jefferson, Clinton, or any left winger that breaks the law:

"I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me - my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

And, just because he opposes "gay rights" does not mean he hates gays. It does mean he believes in the Constitution, and the right of the people to decide these issues, something you would deny.


BTW, you have never told me what the "most famous 6 words of Jesus" are, or at least according to your demented mind.

I didn't write the article, I just posted a bit from it and gave a link. The AFA must endorse this blogger since they give him a forum--they have denied by blog any space on their site claiming that we have religious differences.

The hypocrisy is that a gay Republican Christian is pushing to ban gay rights while practicing gay sex on the sly.

Please give your reasoning for the Constitution giving people the right to deny gay people equality please.

Once again you use your rectal reclamation technique to say that I support abortion. Why don't you stop lying or give a supporting quote?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

However, the stoy you posted was a lie, and you were accsuing me of what? Ddi younot ask if I wanted to stone the whale? Did you not make a big deal of the lie that AFA wanted to stone the whale? Now you are backpesaling when your lie is exposed. Typical.

It was a lie? I posted what the article said, the AFA put it on their website, are you calling the AFA liars? I always try to put in my sources so that people can go straight to the horse's mouth. I note that you have given no source for your completely unsubstantiated claim that the AFA is lying on their website. Shame on you!

The I guess you know how a Christian feels when their beliefs are denigrated by the likes of you, or a Consevative when they see the Constitution distorted by the likes of you such as in abortion "rights", prayer in school, etc. Now you want to claim the Constitution demands "marriage" for homosexuals" The equal protection clause applies to laws passed by States. However, you want the USSC to override the Constitution, and force the States to approve of homosexual marriages just as they did on the abortion subject.

You're kind of mixing your arguments here. Bear in mind that the idiot George Bush was pushing for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Supreme Court is the one to decide what the Constitution says, that's why contentious things go to the Supreme Court. There is no legal reason why gay people should be denied full equality in the US--except for religious folks like yourself who wish to judge and punish in God's Name.

As for abortion, that has been argued for decades and will be for more decades without any conclusion that will satisfy everyone. You wish to use the force of law to make everybody do what YOUR conscience tells you is right. You wish to do that with gay rights too, why not let people use their own conscience to decide for themselves? Are you the only person who is capable of having a moral position? Is yours the only real, true relationship with God?

Again you take the words of God out of context for your own satisfaction. The scripture actually says "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all your soul, with all your might.". More then 6 words there. The second is as to the first, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", still more then 6 words.

When you add all that turgid bombast in to those 6 simple but powerful words, does it make you feel better? Do all those extra words roll sonorously off your tongue as you address the multitudes? Does you flaccid little ego get tumescent and precede you like the cow-catcher on a train? When in reality you are just another man with a loud voice and hair in his ears.

You give us a perfect example of why the essence of Jesus' teachings have been largely lost today, you can't take the meaning without the pompous verbose trappings.

Now, if you had actually come up with a 6 word phrase, which you could not, then you might have a point depending on what one considers the most important. How about "And Jesus wept", or "It is finished"? How about "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

How about Love God and Love Others as Yourself, these two commandments above all others.

Is it arrogance, or ignorance, that devours you? The fact is ou are more concerned over the welfare of this whale then you are for the life of the unborn. Simple concept.

Rectal reclamation time again, switch thumbs.

Hope you don't have any pets. Under the law if a dog mauls a child, or a person, it is to be put to death. Why should it be different for the whale?

Then too, I guess we could just turn the dog loose as you sugest for the whale.

While you were getting your internet Doctorate you should also have studied a bit of biology. A dog is a domesticated animal that lives with people. Whales are aquatic and if that whale was returned to the sea it would probably never see another human being. It was captured, it was kept in a cage, it was forced into demeaning work, it was enslaved. It should be returned to the sea of its life and left alone.

 

[OldTrapper]

I didn't write the article, I just posted a bit from it and gave a link. The AFA must endorse this blogger since they give him a forum--they have denied by blog any space on their site claiming that we have religious differences.

Doesn't make any difference. What you consistently ignore is the fact that the writer was calling for the death of the whale, and used scripture to show where it was justified under Mosaic Law. He did NOT call for the stoning of the whale. That was just your lie in order to try and mock a Christian.

The hypocrisy is that a gay Republican Christian is pushing to ban gay rights while practicing gay sex on the sly.

If you had done any research on the guy you would have seen that he was openly gay. That would not have fit your lie though.

Of course, you have made no mention of the NY Democrat Congressman Massa who just resigned over allegations of sexually harassing a male staff member.

Please give your reasoning for the Constitution giving people the right to deny gay people equality please.

It is your lie that I would deny them equality. They have just as much right to marry as I have. The only thing you object to is that it would have to be between a man, and a woman. What you want to do is normalize a behaviour that the majority consider to be immoral by law.

Once again you use your rectal reclamation technique to say that I support abortion. Why don't you stop lying or give a supporting quote?

Is there any quote I could find where you have said that abortions should be illegal, or that it is not a womans "choice" to kill the unborn? Anything other then that is support for abortion even with all of your denials.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Doesn't make any difference. What you consistently ignore is the fact that the writer was calling for the death of the whale, and used scripture to show where it was justified under Mosaic Law. He did NOT call for the stoning of the whale. That was just your lie in order to try and mock a Christian.

I didn't say that they called for stoning, that was the headline of the article.

If you had done any research on the guy you would have seen that he was openly gay. That would not have fit your lie though.

An openly gay man campaigning for the restriction of gay rights? I note that you didn't give a source for you statements here. I read the whole article and I just went back and looked even deeper only to find no mention of Roy Ashburn being gay, all that was in any article I could find--including the police report--was that he was drunk, driving a State vehicle and was in the company of an unnamed man with whom he had just left the gay bar Faces. If you're going to make wild statements and call me a liar, then perhaps sourcing your statements would make you look less disengenuous.

Of course, you have made no mention of the NY Democrat Congressman Massa who just resigned over allegations of sexually harassing a male staff member.

I hadn't heard about that, but he too should be punished for his transgressions. You make too many ASSumptions.

It is your lie that I would deny them equality. They have just as much right to marry as I have. The only thing you object to is that it would have to be between a man, and a woman. What you want to do is normalize a behaviour that the majority consider to be immoral by law.

Denying people the right to marry the people they love--whether it's skin color, religious affiliation, or gender--is discrimination. At one time the majority of Americans didn't want black people to be full citizens either, but that didn'y make it right. As far as I know you have no reason for wishing to persecute gay people except for your religious beliefs. I don't think the Muslims should be able to persecute you because of their beliefs any more than I think you should have that power.

Is there any quote I could find where you have said that abortions should be illegal, or that it is not a womans "choice" to kill the unborn? Anything other then that is support for abortion even with all of your denials.

So, as near as I can tell you have set yourself up as the abitrator of God's Will on Earth. Isn't that abrogating the free will that God gave all of us? Why do you feel that YOU should have the right to force others to obey YOUR religious beliefs?

 

[OldTrapper]

It was a lie? I posted what the article said, the AFA put it on their website, are you calling the AFA liars? I always try to put in my sources so that people can go straight to the horse's mouth. I note that you have given no source for your completely unsubstantiated claim that the AFA is lying on their website. Shame on you!

Again the lie. Post where the article to which you refer actually has the writer calling for an actual stoning. Not the one written by the liars at Huffington, the one written by the AFA blogger.

Then too, you say I have called the writer at AFA a liar which is a lie within itself.

You're kind of mixing your arguments here. Bear in mind that the idiot George Bush was pushing for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Supreme Court is the one to decide what the Constitution says, that's why contentious things go to the Supreme Court. There is no legal reason why gay people should be denied full equality in the US--except for religious folks like yourself who wish to judge and punish in God's Name.

36, count them fool, 36 STATES have passed DOMA laws. Show me where one has been declared unConstitutional.

As for abortion, that has been argued for decades and will be for more decades without any conclusion that will satisfy everyone. You wish to use the force of law to make everybody do what YOUR conscience tells you is right. You wish to do that with gay rights too, why not let people use their own conscience to decide for themselves? Are you the only person who is capable of having a moral position? Is yours the only real, true relationship with God?

Again with the lies. When Roe was signed, effectively perverting the Constitution with a "privacy right" that does not exist there, 11 States had pro-abortion laws already on the books, and 5 more were considering them.

Who was it that forced everyone to accept their way? Was it not liars, and fools, like you?

When you add all that turgid bombast in to those 6 simple but powerful words, does it make you feel better? Do all those extra words roll sonorously off your tongue as you address the multitudes? Does you flaccid little ego get tumescent and precede you like the cow-catcher on a train? When in reality you are just another man with a loud voice and hair in his ears.

LOL, if not for the fecal matter that you call a brain you would have nothing to keep your ears apart. However, it is good that you do not believe in God.

You give us a perfect example of why the essence of Jesus' teachings have been largely lost today, you can't take the meaning without the pompous verbose trappings.

I see. Now even the correct words of God are to you as being pompous.

How about Love God and Love Others as Yourself, these two commandments above all others.

If you think I am going to have to answer for my actions, how much more will be demanded of you?

Now, you kept lying about the 6 "most important" words in the Bible, and yet you did not show 6 words. You showed a phrase which was incomplete from the whole of scripture, in other words out of context, and tried to make something of them for your own ego. So, show me the scripture that you were going use, ok?

Rectal reclamation time again, switch thumbs.

Won't even attempt to say what you would have to switch.

While you were getting your internet Doctorate you should also have studied a bit of biology. A dog is a domesticated animal that lives with people. Whales are aquatic and if that whale was returned to the sea it would probably never see another human being. It was captured, it was kept in a cage, it was forced into demeaning work, it was enslaved. It should be returned to the sea of its life and left alone.

OK, my bad. I should have known you lacked the capacity to understand a simple analogy. The too, were you not the one that was saying the whale should be rehabilitated?

 

[OldTrapper]

Geez, DOT, you don't know sh1t about the KKK, do ya'? They've been using the scriptures you don't know about in the Bible since the beginning of the previous century to preach hatred and bigotry. I lived in a town in Oregon that had one of the most active klans in the country.

You want to learn about the KKK, and how it is muuch more related to your beliefs then mine? Try this site

http://rexcurry.net/kkk-ku-klux-klan-christian-socialism.html

Well, I never suspected that you KNEW you were quoting the KKK, you obviously don't have much education on the subject and that's why I tried to enlighten you.

"Enlighten" me with your hatred, and anger? I doubt it.

But isn't it funny how so many Christian sects have been very violently opposed to inter-faith marriages despite your spin on the subject. Catholics marrying Protestants has caused many deaths.

I mentioned the RCC earlier. The only other two that use such a belief are the Mormons, and the Jehovahs Witness. There might be some minor cults I am unaware of.

How can the denomination be unChristian but the followers of that denomination's teachings be Christian?

I never said that the teachings were Christian. It is possible for some to be "born again" Christians because of their belief in Jesus, and God. It is a "heart" issue to be determined by God.

So it's people who decide what moral? They interpret their holy book and pass judgment? Murderers kill people, gay people harm no one. Anyone can see that murderers and thieves harm others, but there is no harm done by gay people loving each other. It's religious crap based on bigotry.

Gay people never harm anyone? Give it a break. After all of these years of HIV/AIDS homosexuals still oppose mandatory reporting of sexual partners as is required by all other communicable diseases. They opposed testing of blood until the late 90's. How many have died because of the irresponsible behaviour of homosexuals that continues to this day?

And no, I am not forgetting the heterosexual/bisexual male, or female, that continues to have sex with those infected, or share contaminated needles.

If I was condemning you in God's Name, then I would be judging you, but I'm not, nor am I passing laws to take anything FROM you that I ACCEPT for myself. You on the other hand condemn in God's Name and pass laws to take from others what you claim for your own. Sheer hypocrisy.

Liar. I have never condemned in God's name. That is just ruse you use to justify your own actions.

And hey, if you want to give something up feel free to do so. Just don't force me to do the same.

You obviously don't know much about the history of marriage either. Civil unions as they stand now do not equal marriage and several of the States that have passed anti-gay marriage amendments has worded them so that even civil unions will not be allowed to approximate the legal force of marriage. I can give you examples of this if you like.

Is that not a State right, or do you want to rewrite the Constitution as those of your ilk have consistently done?

Marriage discrimination also abrogates the US Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law since it treats American citizens differently based on their sex.

Kind of like the "equal protection" one sees in a divorce, right?

I guess I'll just have to assume that your idiotic accusations about my position on abortion are just rectal reclamations (where you pull your thumb out of your ass and lick it off, then say what ever comes to mind first). I don't think abortions are a good idea and I have never said that they are. Once again, it's funny how the Word of God was wrong for so many years and just now is being made "perfect" by changing the wording. Does that make you wonder what else is wrong in the Bible, what people will change next to make the Bible "perfect"?

However, you do not believe that the babe is a life, and you do not oppose any woman who "chooses" to kill that life.

After anal sex do you lick it clean? Seems like you do since you seem to think others would.

But you don't do that, you have over and over again taken scripture out of context and quoted it here to make a point. If you are not going to cherry pick and use individual scriptures, then you MUST post the whole of the Bible in its entirety every time you quote it.

You cannot give even one example, and all of the verses I have used are supported by others.

Allowing people to beat slaves to death as long as the slave takes a couple of days to die is a contradiction of Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself. Or can you reconcile those two things?

Actually, it did not say that the slave would die. It was referring to if the slave lived. However, if an eye, limb, or some other body part should be destroyed then payment for that part was to be made.

Which is exactly why I post the scripture--chapter and verse--so that you can go and take a look.

EVERY chapter and verse on any subject?

Liar

 

[OldTrapper]

I didn't say that they called for stoning, that was the headline of the article.

Did you, or did you not, post these comments:

As a side note:
The American Family Association, a religious right group, is urging that Tillikum (Tilly), the killer whale that killed a trainer at SeaWorld Orlando, be put down, preferably by stoning. Citing Tilly's history of violent altercations, the group is slamming SeaWorld for not listening to Scripture in how to deal with the animal:

Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_484022.html

<snip>

How about it, DOT (Doctor of Theology or Doctor Old Trapper), are you in favor of stoning the whale too?

So, who is lying now when you say you did not suggest it?

An openly gay man campaigning for the restriction of gay rights? I note that you didn't give a source for you statements here. I read the whole article and I just went back and looked even deeper only to find no mention of Roy Ashburn being gay, all that was in any article I could find--including the police report--was that he was drunk, driving a State vehicle and was in the company of an unnamed man with whom he had just left the gay bar Faces. If you're going to make wild statements and call me a liar, then perhaps sourcing your statements would make you look less disengenuous.

In your pathetic world it would have made no difference.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/03/collusion-people-knew-roy-ashburn-was.html

I hadn't heard about that, but he too should be punished for his transgressions. You make too many ASSumptions.

Of course not. Your sources can't be bothered with Democrat transgressions.

Denying people the right to marry the people they love--whether it's skin color, religious affiliation, or gender--is discrimination. At one time the majority of Americans didn't want black people to be full citizens either, but that didn'y make it right. As far as I know you have no reason for wishing to persecute gay people except for your religious beliefs. I don't think the Muslims should be able to persecute you because of their beliefs any more than I think you should have that power.

How have I persecuted the gay community? Such an assinine statement. Your persecution of the Christian community is more prevalent then that of any persecution of the gay community.

So, as near as I can tell you have set yourself up as the abitrator of God's Will on Earth. Isn't that abrogating the free will that God gave all of us? Why do you feel that YOU should have the right to force others to obey YOUR religious beliefs?

Well, since you are shortsighted I doubt you can tell much of anything. The act of "free will" is conditioned upon injury to another. If you take your concept fo "free will" then we have no use for laws, or morality, or any kind. Morality itself would be based on the whims of the ones in power at the particular time in question.

One thing that comes through clearly is your own anger, and hatred. I've debated a lot of Athiests over the years, and none have been as angry, or hateful, as you. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, and I should go see what some of the other Athiests are now saying. However, since it does not matter to me how you feel, or what you think, more then likely I won't.

People like you will distort what another says, and when challenged on it deny you ever said it. Makes it hard to follow your train of thought.

Then too, you distort everything you say. Take Lot as an example. It was not Lot that seduced his daughters. They got him drunk.

David, and Jonathen, as lovers? You distort the scriptures, as all God haters do, and say this:

The essence of the relationship is brought forward in several places, but none better than Saul's comment in I Samuel 20:30 which reads in part "...do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and to the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"

First off, the word "confusion" is not there. The word used is shame.

Next, your question is answered in the very next verse which your talking points source ignores. Saul says "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom."

What about I Samuel 20:41, in which David and Jonathan lay on the ground together kissing and crying until David "exceeded". I don't know about you, but I don't spend a lot of time lying on the ground kissing with other members of my gender, do you? In I Samuel 18:3-4 "...he loved him as his own soul." Jonathan stripped himself naked before David and gave David all his weapons and clothes. Sounds pretty gay to me, if you did that in today's Army you'd be shipped out post haste.

Again your talking points lies to you. The word "exceeded" is not there. If you had actually read the verses from 31 to 42, you would have seen that the issue was about Saul wanting to kill David. In previous prophecies Saul was told David would take over his kingdom.

Similarly, your talking points lies about Samuel 18:3-4. No where does it say that Jonathen got naked. He took off his robe, and weapons, as a symbol of a covenant between the two.

Anyway, people such as yourself, spend a lot of time rewritiing the bible to fit your own perverted worldview just as many have tried to make Christ out to be a homosexual, or a sexual partner with Mary Magdalene complete with children.

If you are going to try and debate the Bible with me, why not try to actually read the book before commenting on it.

I forgot. You're a left wing loonie, and you have no need to use accurate sources, facts, or even anything close to reality.

 

[PLC1]

Now you have me curious, since you've chosen to debate someone with a self affirmed Doctor of Theology degree. How accurate are these scriptural references?

Let's start with I Samuel 18:26-27 just because it's a fun and pleasant subject which you don't teach about in Sunday school. Murdering 200 Philistine men and then cutting off their foreskins for a dowry.

From here

25Then Saul said, ‘Thus shall you say to David, “The king desires no marriage present except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged on the king’s enemies.” ’ Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. 26When his servants told David these words, David was well pleased to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, 27David rose and went, along with his men, and killed one hundred* of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law.

OK, so it was only a hundred foreskins. Must have been a pretty gruesome dowry, nonetheless. It appears from the verse above that the whole request was a ploy to get the Philistines to kill off the pesky suitor, David.

David and Jonathan had a gay love relationship and in the Bible the story starts in I Samuel 18:1-5 and continues through Jonathan's death and David's grief in II Samuel 1:25-26 in which David says "...thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful,
passing the love of women.

Yes, that one seems accurate. I wonder if the word 'love" was translated from "eros" or from "filius"? Surely, the professor can tell us. Much of the OT was translated, retranslated, and is therefore open to a lot of interpretations.

It really doesn't say much about homosexuality one way or the other, it seems to me, unless you do translate "love" as "sex."

The essence of the relationship is brought forward in several places, but none better than Saul's comment in I Samuel 20:30 which reads in part "...do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and to the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"

30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.’ 32Then Jonathan answered his father Saul, ‘Why should he be put to death? What has he done?’ 33But Saul threw his spear at him to strike him; so Jonathan knew that it was the decision of his father to put David to death. 34Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food on the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, and because his father had disgraced him.

Not sure what that means. Could "son of a perverse, rebellious woman" be interpreted and "you SOB!"? He chose the son of Jesse to do what? The whole thing sounds like a murderous rage to me.

OK, one more, as this is getting long:

Moving right along to more kidnapping. Let's begin with Numbers 31:1-10, specifically verse 9 in which they talk about taking the women and children captive. That's kidnapping.

They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8They killed the kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. 10All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned,

Wow! When god sent people to war in those days, they did it right. Looks like you hit the nail on the head with that one.

When God told GWB to go avenge himself against the Iraqis, the instructions were quite different. I wonder how it might have turned out had he instructed him to wage war the way the ancient Israelites did it?

However you interpret the OT, it is mostly about war, killing, plotting, and passing on your DNA by force if necessary. It really doesn't say a lot about sexual orientation. Maybe you're right: God doesn't consider it any big deal. He did, of course, make some people, as well as some of the other higher animals, to be attracted to their own gender. Why that is remains a mystery.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Now you have me curious, since you've chosen to debate someone with a self affirmed Doctor of Theology degree. How accurate are these scriptural references?

From here

OK, so it was only a hundred foreskins. Must have been a pretty gruesome dowry, nonetheless. It appears from the verse above that the whole request was a ploy to get the Philistines to kill off the pesky suitor, David.

According to my Bible and also the Bible Gateway: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Samuel+18&version=KJV
The actual figure IS 200, Saul asked for 100, but David gave him two hundred. Are you saying that this was a good and acceptable thing to do because it was attempted murder?

Yes, that one seems accurate. I wonder if the word 'love" was translated from "eros" or from "filius"? Surely, the professor can tell us. Much of the OT was translated, retranslated, and is therefore open to a lot of interpretations.

It really doesn't say much about homosexuality one way or the other, it seems to me, unless you do translate "love" as "sex."

So you are arguing with the Bible? This is the word of God and cannot be challenged. Or maybe it isn't the word of God and we should give it no more credibility than any other old book. What say you?

Not sure what that means. Could "son of a perverse, rebellious woman" be interpreted and "you SOB!"? He chose the son of Jesse to do what? The whole thing sounds like a murderous rage to me.

OK, one more, as this is getting long:
Wow! When god sent people to war in those days, they did it right. Looks like you hit the nail on the head with that one.

When God told GWB to go avenge himself against the Iraqis, the instructions were quite different. I wonder how it might have turned out had he instructed him to wage war the way the ancient Israelites did it?

However you interpret the OT, it is mostly about war, killing, plotting, and passing on your DNA by force if necessary. It really doesn't say a lot about sexual orientation. Maybe you're right: God doesn't consider it any big deal. He did, of course, make some people, as well as some of the other higher animals, to be attracted to their own gender. Why that is remains a mystery.

As I noted in one of my previous posts, much of the Law of Moses was lifted from the Code of Hammurabi and many of the stories attributed to the Israelites were actually about Hammurabi's people--they slaughtered everybody around them. I suppose it inflated the egos of the writers of the Bible to use those stories to make themselves and their god seem more powerful.