Proposition 8 overturned in California

[Jase]

Apparently, based upon conversations with you, you hate what you THINK it stands for because it's at odds with what you stand for.

No, as a former fundie for a brief period, as well as 10 years of conversing with them, I know the conservative mindset quite well. It's antithetical to Jesus' teachings in my view, and I choose not to stand with it. It's not that people disagree with my views that bothers me, it's the method with which they do it.

Then you recall incorrectly. He was not cheering. Can you prove that it was NOT God's judgment against the country?

Earthquakes happen every single minute in this world. Occam's razor states all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. It makes more sense that a fault line happened to slip near Haiti, then God punishing an entire country, including slaughtering innocent women and children for something their ancient ancestors might have done.

So under what category should we place your abhorrent behavior?

And what abhorrent behavior would I be guilty of Zaac?

 

[Zaac]

Shakab is used 52 times to refer to sexual relations in the Bible. It is always used to denote a case of forced/deceitful sexual relations. Mishkab, in that verse, is best translated as "beds", as that is how the original Hebrew would read.

So literally, it means "A man shall not force himself upon another man, in beds of a woman, it is ritually impure."

Wow. Where exactly are you getting this verb to mean forced/deceitful sexual relations. It IS a verb so it's not used to denote a case of anything.

So what's your source for what this word means in those 52 uses?

 

[Zaac]

Except I never denied that there are atheists and agnostics like that. You implied that Jase was wrong when he said that right wing leaders would be praising God for his righteous judgement and extermination of the gays.

I should add a little siggy at the bottom of all my posts that says "i don't imply what I can say".

And I flat out said the "majority of Christians" would not. I did not say that ALL would not.

Wasn't talking about the extremists. Bush, Bush II, et al, would hardly qualify as extremists. Nor were we talking about conservatives as a whole. We were discussing right-wing leaders, as per:

[

then we should likewise be talking about the left wing leaders who do the same.

 

[Jase]

And I flat out said the "majority of Christians" would not. I did not say that ALL would not.

Can you prove the majority of Christians wouldn't Zaac? The majority support inequality. The majority supported slavery, witch trials, bans on interracial marriage, segregation, etc.

 

[Dogstar]

I should add a little siggy at the bottom of all my posts that says "i don't imply what I can say".

And I flat out said the "majority of Christians" would not. I did not say that ALL would not.

I wasn't referring to your statement about the majority of Christians. You said this:

Zaac[/b] ] What you know is that's what you THINK they would be doing.

in response to a statement about right-wing leaders, which blatantly implies error on Jase's part. Which I then disproved by providing evidence.

then we should likewise be talking about the left wing leaders who do the same.

Knock yourself out. Nobody here is denying that there are left wing leaders who take cheap shots at the religious right. You on the other hand denied Jase's allegations about right-wing leaders. I was merely disproving an unfounded claim.

 

[Cabal]

Funny, I seem to recall just a few months ago, a very prominate Christian leader cheering at the Earthquake in Haiti as God's judgement for their ancestors making a pact with the devil. Or how about the Christian leader asking for the assassination of another country's leader?

Don't even pretend that conservative Christians don't behave that way, because we see it all the time.

To be fair, wasn't that the same guy in both cases? I'm sure there are other cases of equal vileness from that wing of the political spectrum, but only one example doesn't really demonstrate that.

Anyway, yay california, lol @ butthurt trolls

 

[Zaac]

No, as a former fundie for a brief period, as well as 10 years of conversing with them, I know the conservative mindset quite well. It's antithetical to Jesus' teachings in my view, and I choose not to stand with it. It's not that people disagree with my views that bothers me, it's the method with which they do it.

And that's your choice. But you seriously need to stop with all the antithetical , uncompassionate, non-humility stuff because as you keep pointing out, all of this stuff is in YOUR view and has nothing to do with what the word of God actually says.

Earthquakes happen every single minute in this world. Occam's razor states all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. It makes more sense that a fault line happened to slip near Haiti, then God punishing an entire country, including slaughtering innocent women and children for something their ancient ancestors might have done.

It makes more sense that you are as confused about the innocence of women and children as is the majority of the world. They are sinners. There are no innocent women and children.

4But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Matthew 5:44-45

Sure pat was wrong to say it as though he KNEW this was God's judgment because he didn't KNOW. But you're just as wrong to say it was not God's judgment against a country who publicly pledges its allegiance to the devil.

And this isn't ancestors. The government has been rededicating the country to the devil every other year.

And what abhorrent behavior would I be guilty of Zaac?

Let's start with your constant bearing of false witness.

 

[Jase]

And that's your choice. But you seriously need to stop with all the antithetical , uncompassionate, non-humility stuff because as you keep pointing out, all of this stuff is in YOUR view and has nothing to do with what the word of God actually says.




It makes more sense that you are as confused about the innocence of women and children as is the majority of the world. They are sinners. There are no innocent women and children.

4But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Matthew 5:44-45

Sure pat was wrong to say it as though he KNEW this was God's judgment because he didn't KNOW. But you're just as wrong to say it was not God's judgment against a country who publicly pledges its allegiance to the devil.

And this isn't ancestors. The government has been rededicating the country to the devil every other year.



Let's start with your constant bearing of false witness.

I'm sorry Zaac, it seems like you were directing all of this to yourself. I will therefore, step out of the discussion so you can continue to reflect on your behavior.

 

[Old Catholic Man]

To be fair, wasn't that the same guy in both cases? I'm sure there are other cases of equal vileness from that wing of the political spectrum, but only one example doesn't really demonstrate that.

I have to agree, I have many very conservative Christian friends who were all horrified at those comments. Certainly some conservatives think like this but assuredly not the majority of Conservative Christians.

T

 

[selfinflikted]

Anyway, yay california, lol @ butthurt trolls

^ THIS. /thread

 

[Zaac]

I wasn't referring to your statement about the majority of Christians. You said this:




in response to a statement about right-wing leaders, which blatantly implies error on Jase's part. Which I then disproved by providing evidence.

How does that imply an error on Jase's part about right wing leaders when I expressed what the majority of Christians weren't doing?

You're trying to tie together something I did not.

Knock yourself out. Nobody here is denying that there are left wing leaders who take cheap shots at the religious right. You on the other hand denied Jase's allegations about right-wing leaders. I was merely disproving an unfounded claim.

You haven't dis-proven anything. What you have proven is your capacity to pat yourself on the back cause you think you pulled off a "got ya" moment.

I know what Jase said. And I know what I said as the result of his comment about conservatives.

So I don't know what you THINK you have disproven as you are not even following the conversation correctly.

 

[Zaac]

I'm sorry Zaac, it seems like you were directing all of this to yourself. I will therefore, step out of the discussion so you can continue to reflect on your behavior.

It was directed at your errant, just like the majority of the world's thought process that there are innocent people in the world.

God rains on whomever He chooses. So your standard for what a HOLY GOD should or should not do to a world of sinners( women and children included0 is irrelevant.

So come on back in and reflect on that Scripture again.

 

[Jase]

It was directed at your errant, just like the majority of the world's thought process that there are innocent people in the world.

God rains on whomever He chooses. So your standard for what a HOLY GOD should or should not do to a world of sinners( women and children included0 is irrelevant.

So come on back in and reflect on that Scripture again.

Sorry, I don't believe in original sin. There is an age of accountability, that most children had yet to reach. Saying a 6 month old baby is evil is disgusting.

 

[Dogstar]

How does that imply an error on Jase's part about right wing leaders when I expressed what the majority of Christians weren't doing?

You're trying to tie together something I did not.

OK. Let's take this from the top, citing everything.

The following, by Jase, is the post you quoted:

We know right wing leaders would be praising God for his righteous judgement and extermination of the gays.

Notice how it is the right wing leaders, not the majority of Christians, being discussed.

This was your reply:

What you know is that's what you THINK they would be doing.

Is there anyone here who could honestly say that you aren't refuting his claim? Anyone at all? Because that's what it is. You are refuting Jase's claim that right-wing leaders praise God for his extermination of the gays by saying that that is what he only THINKS they are doing, as opposed to what they're actually doing.

It is at this point that I displayed the link to the website which specifically shows right wing leaders doing exactly what Jase accused them of, and which results in you trying to distort everything by bringing up the left-wing leaders, the Christian majority, etc, etc, none of which have anything to do with the relevant discussion.

One more time. Jase said that that right-wing leaders praised God for the oppression of gays. You said that Jase only thought so, that it wasn't the reality. I proved otherwise. That's it. At no time are the left-wing leadership of the Christian majority even involved. You seem to be the one intent on dragging them in to muck things up.

So I don't know what you THINK you have disproven as you are not even following the conversation correctly.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Sojourner1]

Shakab is used 52 times to refer to sexual relations in the Bible. It is always used to denote a case of forced/deceitful sexual relations. Mishkab, in that verse, is best translated as "beds", as that is how the original Hebrew would read.

So literally, it means "A man shall not force himself upon another man, in beds of a woman, it is ritually impure."

In other words, this is a patriarchal society we're talking about, where men were dominate and women inferior. It was shameful for a man to ever take on the role of a woman. This practice was common in pagan sex rituals, where one man, would force another man to play the "bottom" or non-dominate role in a sexual relationship - thus putting the "bottom" man into the "beds of a woman".

That was seen as ritually impure in ancient times.

The fact that Hebrew uses different words to denote different forms of "lying" is evidence that the literal English translation is not accurate.

The word "shakab" is not always used to denote a case of forced/deceitful sexual relations. It all depends on the context of the passage from which the verse comes. Several times when the word "lie" is used to describe a forced sexual act the term "carnal" is included (see Lev. 19:20 and Num. 5:13), or the act is described as "forced" (see Deut. 22:25,28). The same word "lie" is used to describe a sexual act between a husband and a wife (see 2 Sam. 11:11, 2 Sam. 12:24). The word is used when explaining what time of the month a man should not "lie" or have sexual relations with a woman. Besides all of that, if you are saying that the word "lie" in Lev. 18:22 is referring to a forced sexual act then you are basically saying that God condones the rape of women, but not of men. "You shall not lie (a forced sexual act) with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." So the interpretation would be that it's only an abomination if you rape a man, but it's not an abomination if you rape a woman.

 

[Zaac]

Sorry, I don't believe in original sin.

You don't have to believe in it. I don't recall a part in God's word where He reached down from His throne and consulted with Jase or any other sinful man as to what would be sin.

There is an age of accountability, that most children had yet to reach.

And what age is that? 5?6?7? Do tell us at what age a person suddenly becomes accountable for his sin?

Saying a 6 month old baby is evil is disgusting.

Who said anything about evil? You said "innocent women and children". I said there aren't any.

 

[Zaac]

OK. Let's take this from the top, citing everything.

The following, by Jase, is the post you quoted:


Notice how it is the right wing leaders, not the majority of Christians, being discussed.

This was your reply:


Is there anyone here who could honestly say that you aren't refuting his claim? Anyone at all? Because that's what it is. You are refuting Jase's claim that right-wing leaders praise God for his extermination of the gays by saying that that is what he only THINKS they are doing, as opposed to what they're actually doing.

It is at this point that I displayed the link to the website which specifically shows right wing leaders doing exactly what Jase accused them of, and which results in you trying to distort everything by bringing up the left-wing leaders, the Christian majority, etc, etc, none of which have anything to do with the relevant discussion.

One more time. Jase said that that right-wing leaders praised God for the oppression of gays. You said that Jase only thought so, that it wasn't the reality. I proved otherwise. That's it. At no time are the left-wing leadership of the Christian majority even involved. You seem to be the one intent on dragging them in to muck things up.


Physician, heal thyself.

Dogstar, I just really don't care. I know what I said and what I referred to. You go on with your theories. I'm moving back to the discussion at hand.

 

[Zaac]

The word "shakab" is not always used to denote a case of forced/deceitful sexual relations. It all depends on the context of the passage from which the verse comes. Several times when the word "lie" is used to describe a forced sexual act the term "carnal" is included (see Lev. 19:20 and Num. 5:13), or the act is described as "forced" (see Deut. 22:25,28). The same word "lie" is used to describe a sexual act between a husband and a wife (see 2 Sam. 11:11, 2 Sam. 12:24). The word is used when explaining what time of the month a man should not "lie" or have sexual relations with a woman. Besides all of that, if you are saying that the word "lie" in Lev. 18:22 is referring to a forced sexual act then you are basically saying that God condones the rape of women, but not of men. "You shall not lie (a forced sexual act) with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." So the interpretation would be that it's only an abomination if you rape a man, but it's not an abomination if you rape a woman.

Jase and the ones who drilled down to the 8th usage(my exaggeration ) of the verb no doubt set out to prove that the English words didn't say what they say.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I know I don't. The "people" aren't intelligent enough as a collective group to make non emotionally based decisions that don't hurt other people. The fact that 2/3rds of Americans can't even name the 3 branches of government or at least 3 members of the Supreme Court, means they certainly have no business voting to deny other people basic human rights.

Riiight...the majority is only smart when they're voting for something you agree with.

Will of the people or not, I just don't think marriage needs to be a government issue.

Frankly, I don't care who you want to marry...just don't force me to honor a marriage that I don't believe in.

 

[Zaac]

Riiight...the majority is only smart when they're voting for something you agree with.

Will of the people or not, I just don't think marriage needs to be a government issue.

Frankly, I don't care who you want to marry...just don't force me to honor a marriage that I don't believe in.

It's not a federal government issue. It always has been a state issue. California voters decided. And now this judge has tried to undo what they decided.