PDA

View Full Version : Well thats it...


Natty At School
08-21-2002, 08:00 PM
Either Mek gets banned or I'm leaving, it's up to you guys to decide but I am not going to sit around and post on the same forum as a ****wit like Mek who obviously lives in lala land who's idea of a discussion is gay people who he's literally obsessed with. (which makes me wonder if he's gay and ashamed of the fact) Especially since he doesn't even accept the fact that they have feelings as well. I've found a lot of his commnets offensive, and I'm sure some of you have also found them offensive as well. I feel sorry for Mek I really do, the bible says love everyone unconditionally blah blah blah and that includes gays. I'm sick of his trouble making, his first post back and he couldn't wait to tell us his girlfriend (who I feel really sorry for) is doing some usless essay on whether homosexuality is normal, so as far as I'm concerned he started it because he knows how touchy this fricking issue is. Besides why would anyone want to hang around in a place where he looks not only stupid, but is clearly out numbered. One of my best friends is gay, I wouldn't change him for the world, infact I wouldn't want him to be straight, I love him as he is as does God.

If he isn't banned, the majority of you guys have my email/MSN or ICQ details so thats fine. If you don't you can get them off someone like Fender, Feral, NiKo or Guybrush :) *big huggles n smoochies to everyone* I luv you guys :)

COJ
08-21-2002, 08:29 PM
wow, well Im on Natty's side for this one...

Kj°len
08-21-2002, 09:39 PM
If Mek pushes Natty so far over the edge to accually leave well...then I'll have to agree with her this time....

But Natty was the reason he was banned AND unbanned wasn't she?

Meksilon
08-21-2002, 09:44 PM
Natty, I have never tried to be offensive. I have never attacked individual posters and I don't call people names. You started this. I didn't.

I do not live in lala land, I live in a real word with real people who have feelings and hurt. Where prostitution is legal, where bugery is legal, even where gangbangs are legal.

All you can do is call me homophobic and raciest, when I am clearly neither. I hate racisim, but pollitical correctness goes too far sometimes too. For all the insults you threw at me I gave you one back. And now you've had enough.

You have double-standards Natty, if you can talk to me like this then I can talk to you however I like. But I choose not to treat you as poorly as you've treated me. I chose to treat you better then I have been treated. I'm not interested in revenge, so vengful comments aimed at an insult contest aren't my thing. But I do not like being called homophobic or raciest when I have clearly stated that I do not fear gays... and my girlfriend is half wog (well that's as good as any raciest defence I have)!

I'm sick of you brining up this topic without even arguing a valid point, but rather just trying to insult me.

***

So if you choose Natty's side, it's not because you agree with her beleifs, and it's not because you don't agree with mine. It is because you think she is a better person then me, and you think that she's right and I am some sort of heartless bastard. This is just not true. Should any of you wish to talk to me on messenger please by all means aractus@msn.com I invite you.

Natty we will be sorry to see you go. But if we can't co-exisit then I do not think it's fair to ban me. My behaviour has been much better then yours. All you do is insult me and try to offend me.

Whenever you have the oppertunity you say "Mek hates gays". I do not hate. This isn't about hate. I don't hate prostitutes. I don't hate the guy who owns the Casino that sends pentioners broke. We live in a real world. With low standards. And people who do not know the diffrence between right and wrong.

I know why you think that gays are alright. I understand how you think. And part of what stops you from beleiving the truth is that you think the argument against is childish and "eww, gay gross". This is not so.

=mek=

Kj°len
08-21-2002, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
So if you choose Natty's side, it's not because you agree with her beleifs, and it's not because you don't agree with mine. It is because you think she is a better person then me, and you think that she's right and I am some sort of heartless bastard

Please don't tell us what we think.
We've known her longer, she just happens to be a very nice person. With you, I think that "Meksilon's Gay Talk" was started by you. And if you can live here without speaking about how you think gays are wrong and just let it drop hey I'm fine if you stay, and I'm sure Natty would too. If you just accept that we belief different than you and just go about your business without trying to change what we believe to make yourself more comfortable we'll get along a lot better.

I dont say your a bad perosn Mek, and I'm not trying to insult you but what we believe in is not going to hurt you in any way.

I love everyone as you are suppose to love your neighbor as yourself and I do want peace so... hopefully we can just settle down and not bring up the subject. Ok?

Redwing
08-21-2002, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
I know why you think that gays are alright. I understand how you think. And part of what stops you from beleiving the truth is that you think the argument against is childish and "eww, gay gross". This is not so.

=mek=

I just want to know...is there any reason besides (mistranslated) Biblical quotes for us to believe that being gay is wrong?

Meksilon
08-21-2002, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
I just want to know...is there any reason besides (mistranslated) Biblical quotes for us to believe that being gay is wrong? I don't know why you say mistranslated, NIV is very accurate and is concidered by many to be the best English translation of the Bible ever. King James Version is also quite good, but it's in old style English and more difficuilt to read.

And yes, if you can understand that murder is wrong, or that prostitution is wrong you should be abel to understand relationships.

=mek=

Natty
08-22-2002, 02:24 AM
I've killed flies before and I've been paid to kiss another girl. Looks like I'm a murderer and a prostitute :rolleyes:

Although relationships are to love people unconditionally, I don't recall anything about sexual preferance being brought into the relationship side of things. Oh well I'm just a stupid catholic apperantly who doesn't know a thing

If redwing is as intelligent as you think, then you obviously wouldn't have ignored her 90% of the time like you did. Seems to me she was more intelligent than you bargined for and that most of her arguments you couldn't even back up. Especially about the gay couple in the bible, not once did Mek make any comment about it whatsoever, and that was after Redwing had provided a link and I kindly pasted everything into a post

You only have this brought up on yourself, your obsessed with homosexuals, more than what real homosexuals are, which I do find quite disturbing that someone who opposes them also claims to know what they think and feel. You would only know what they think and feel if you are actually homosexual yourself, and I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me and tell me what homosexuals think.

Mek got banned the last time coz everyone was fed up with his religious/homosexual bull****, he asked to be unbanned and I said I didn't mind him being unbanned as long as he didn't start up with the religion/homosexual crap again, he agreed it didn't last very long as his first post back was "my girlfriend is doing an essay entitled 'is homosexuality normal'? :D" He just can't help himself.

Redwing
08-22-2002, 04:09 AM
Well I don't want to take personal sides in arguments here. It dun often end well ^^;;

Originally posted by Meksilon
I don't know why you say mistranslated, NIV is very accurate and is concidered by many to be the best English translation of the Bible ever. King James Version is also quite good, but it's in old style English and more difficuilt to read.

And yes, if you can understand that murder is wrong, or that prostitution is wrong you should be abel to understand relationships.

=mek=

You didn't see my post before someone deleted the thread. ^^ (I've actually heard that the NIV is less accurate than the KJV, although I have no way of backing that up cuz I haven't checked ^.^)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm is one of the sites I posted, although I think it's rather vague...I can't find the other two references I had :(

Look at the analyzations of Scripture passages in the Topics Outline, cuz it's really too clunky to post @_@

I personally don't understand how those verses are used to condemn gay people anyway, because they don't make any mention of gay women at all, just men - that was my first hint that maybe the popular understanding wasn't quite right ^.^

Gatorboy
08-22-2002, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Kj°len


Please don't tell us what we think.
We've known her longer, she just happens to be a very nice person. With you, I think that "Meksilon's Gay Talk" was started by you. And if you can live here without speaking about how you think gays are wrong and just let it drop hey I'm fine if you stay, and I'm sure Natty would too. If you just accept that we belief different than you and just go about your business without trying to change what we believe to make yourself more comfortable we'll get along a lot better.

I dont say your a bad perosn Mek, and I'm not trying to insult you but what we believe in is not going to hurt you in any way.

I love everyone as you are suppose to love your neighbor as yourself and I do want peace so... hopefully we can just settle down and not bring up the subject. Ok?


nicely spoken K-Jo,


look everyone,
how about giving it all ONE more chance?
No gay bashing, no bible bashing or whatever,
lets just all try to understand that we all have different views of the world and that it's perfectly okay, if we would all be the same, with the same views of life, how boring would life be?

I remember about a year ago in these forums someone Bashed me for being partly jewish, saying i should be locked in an oven and be murdered like the pig i am or something...do you think i started arguing with him? no, i didnt wanna give him the satisfaction of seing me get hurt...i just ignored the post...
and i think it wouldnt hurt if some of us tried to ignore other peoples bashings as well...

Deadmeat_X
08-22-2002, 07:35 AM
OK one more chance...I can live with that...I don't want Natty to leave, and I don't really like Mek, but maybe Mek will see himself that this way he only makes enemies...

Meksilon
08-22-2002, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Redwing
Well I don't want to take personal sides in arguments here. It dun often end well ^^;;

You didn't see my post before someone deleted the thread. ^^ (I've actually heard that the NIV is less accurate than the KJV, although I have no way of backing that up cuz I haven't checked ^.^)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm is one of the sites I posted, although I think it's rather vague...I can't find the other two references I had :(

Look at the analyzations of Scripture passages in the Topics Outline, cuz it's really too clunky to post @_@

I personally don't understand how those verses are used to condemn gay people anyway, because they don't make any mention of gay women at all, just men - that was my first hint that maybe the popular understanding wasn't quite right ^.^ Redwing, there isn't much in the Bible about incest or beatiality either. I'm not going to say nything about the translations of NIV and KJV all I said were they are both concidered to be very accurate, NIV may be less to-the-word in some areas but neither of us are experts in the area.

It is interesting to note that the gay couple in the book of Sam both had wives. Thus they were both commiting adultry. I thought that was self-explanitry, hence it's not showing gays in a good light at all. But people like Natty will always make claims. They are as ludicris as the claims that light has no place with darkness just as whites have no place with blacks or asians or wogs. The verse talks about sin and holyness.

That's what the KKK thinks. And dispite what Natty keeps saying I never ignored any of your posts. I even offered explinations as to why I hadn't replied to one. And yet it's like she's deliberatly ignoring that for a reason I do not know. It makes me respect her less and less. Everything she says is not to construct an argument, or to support her claim but rather toput me down and to annoy and offend me.

I am not like that and I can't beleive anyone here would support her and not me here. She is saying either I am banned or she is leaving. That is unfair. It is not my fault this happened, as I said I didn't even bring it up. So what if I told you my girlfriend's essay topic? What has that got to do with anything? It was just a part of my life at the time.

Natty always turns an argument into a flame war. There was no need for her abusive comments, and I don't think anyone appreciated them.

So I really don't care if anyone blames me. It isn't my fault and you are blind if you can't see this. I also don't need to repete everythign I say like Natty does.

To Gatorboy, I would like to agree with you. People who thrive on hurting others are what we call "bullies". I don't get any "satisfaction" out of hurting someone, that's wrong. When I hurt someone I am sorry and it is a time to beg their forgivness. Not to laugh at them. I know from personal experience that there is nothing quite like receiving that confession. When someone has wronged me because they deliberatly took the piss out of me and has the guts to approach me and to say they are sorry it is truely amazing. Only one person ever did this mind you, but he's a great person and I love him dearly and have the upmost respect for him.

And no Natty, I do not love him in the way you might pretend in the childish accusations you make of me being gay. I love my friends, and I appreciate them. So don't tell me I turn my back on them because this is not true. I love this girl very much in the same way I love my other friends. And if I was weaker minded I might think that I love her in a way for a relationship. But I don't. She is my friend, and I love her very much as a friend and not as a partner. I love my girlfriend in this way too. But I also have another love for her which dosen't come with friendship. It comes with a relationship. It's the love we can share together.

So don't tell me I'm heartless. Don't tell me I don't have an open mind, it's an open mind that allowed me to change from being someone who thought gays were okay to someone who beleives in himself and has the confidence to say that gays are wrong.

I hope someone, at least one person learned something from what I've said. I had to work it all out on my own, and it's not an easy thing. It takes wisdom and you do not know if you are wise or not. You can only beleive in yourself and rationalise logically the question in your mind.

I'm not saying I hate gays. I don't hate. I am saying that homosexuality is wrong. Just like beastiality and incest. And Natty you have double standards yet again, I said before that masturbation is no sin and you said something like "it's called having sex with yourself and since having sex before marriage is wrong so is masturbation" which I thought didn't even deserve an answer since Marriage joins too people and are you not joined to yourself? So if you're now saying that it isn't wrong that means you've come around from what you beleived before when you said that it is wrong. Hence the double standars.

When I get a domain name this will be my error page, it might ammuse you:

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I websurfed, weak and weary,
****Over many a strange and spurious website of 'hot chicks galore',
****While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning,
****And my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour.
****"'Tis not possible," I muttered, "give me back my cheap hardcore!" -
****Quoth the server, "404".

=mek=

Joshi
08-22-2002, 12:09 PM
sorry mek, but natty's basically given us an ultimatum and if it's between you and her, i choose her. i have nothing against you, you may be a bit on the argumentative side at times, but i've known natty for a long time and i don't want her to leave considering i never actually talk to her outside of the forums (even though i have her MSN, i just never get round to striking up a convo, don't know why). so sorry, there is no middle way here, if it's mek or natty, i choose mek (to go, sorry)

this is so sad.:( but it has to be done unfortunately.

Acrylic
08-22-2002, 02:31 PM
Umm....I dont mean to butt in on ur guys argument cuz clearly i havent been here long enough to understand...but it seems that you like to be mean to people..............................and that is.......well......................evil....i think.....anyways, back to the point.........I'm on Natty's side, cuz you shouldnt be dissing, and most of all disrespecting other people's thoughts, beliefs and religions......thats all I have to say.

-AC

Al-back from the BigWhoop
08-22-2002, 04:24 PM
i ddnt want to have to reply in this topic, but i feel the need to say this:
mek will b more than welcome (at least by me) when he learns that ppl have opinions that may differ with his. im not gonna b hypocrite to say that i care with his life teachings, i dont give a damn it he grows up like this and gets a bullet up his ass in a street discussion. of i course i dont WANT this to happen, i just want to post in a nice forums without anymore bannings.
and if this is the kind of discussion we r gonna have from nowon, i think myself should leave.

Meksilon
08-22-2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar
Umm....I dont mean to butt in on ur guys argument cuz clearly i havent been here long enough to understand...but it seems that you like to be mean to people..............................and that is.......well......................evil....i think.....anyways, back to the point.........I'm on Natty's side, cuz you shouldnt be dissing, and most of all disrespecting other people's thoughts, beliefs and religions......thats all I have to say.

-AC You really didn't read how disrespectful and offensive and downright mean Natty was in the other thread, before I threw back one responce. And since you can't see the thread because someone deleted it I suggest that you remember that next time you choose th throw your oppinion in on a matter which involves the interest of the community.

I don't like to be mean to people, Natty can't seem to stop being mean. So if that is somehow my fault then please explain it.

=mek=

Redwing
08-22-2002, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
Redwing, there isn't much in the Bible about incest or beatiality either. I'm not going to say nything about the translations of NIV and KJV all I said were they are both concidered to be very accurate, NIV may be less to-the-word in some areas but neither of us are experts in the area.

Yes, but the translations on the verses about incest and bestiality are not and never were under doubt. Very few of the KJV's verses' translations are under doubt. (Some of the Psalms were oddly translated, actually, and some references to witchcraft were deliberately altered because King James was deathly afraid of them - similarily he was afraid of gay people)

The references I referred to were by experts in the area. I don't see experts in the area supporting the other side, and I've looked quite hard.

Also, EVERY Biblical expert in this are will support the fact that all the translations so far differ in some ways from the original. They had to take license with many things because we simply don't live in the Israrelite culture anymore...but I think the license they took on certain of the verses is unforgivable. It has caused so much hatred and fear...

The NIV and the KJV may be considered to be very accurate but according to the experts, they're wrong; and I don't value popular opinion...it isn't qualified ^^;;

If the original, unaltered manuscript said one thing...and the King James translation says another...which is the truth?


It is interesting to note that the gay couple in the book of Sam both had wives. Thus they were both commiting adultry. I thought that was self-explanitry, hence it's not showing gays in a good light at all.

I thought you would have remembered - God calls David a "man after his own heart". And at that time, it was customary to have multiple wives (or other sexual partners, at that) God took MAJOR issue with David when he seduced another man's wife. He didn't say a thing about David's concubines, or David's multiple wives.


But people like Natty will always make claims. They are as ludicris as the claims that light has no place with darkness just as whites have no place with blacks or asians or wogs. The verse talks about sin and holyness.

Off topic...what is a "wog"? ^^;;

Guybrush122
08-22-2002, 09:07 PM
Okay, heres my two cents. And I'd like my post to be second to last for this thread...the last should be Mek agreeing with me.

Mek, Natty has given us a choice...her or you. I choose her. Why she has given us this choice? Because you keep bringing up this whole "Homosexuality is wrong" topic. Im not going to get into it anymore, hell, you know all our arguments...if you keep bringing this gay stuff up youre going to get the same thing: youre going to say 'homosexuality is wrong' we're going to say that 'they dont have a choice' and its going to go on like that forever. You cant change ****, nor can we. So I'd kindly like you to shut the **** up so Natty can stay and so can you. I'd have no problem with you if you just put this thing to rest and not talk about it. Yes, you have the right to speak of this, but you also have the right to shut up and not offend others. I'm not saying that you intentionally offended Natty, I'm saying you blindly engaged in an argument in which, as you have learned from past experience, both sides are going to be stubborn as all hell. I want Natty to stay, and for Christ's sake I'm not letting your stubborness and pride cause her to leave.

The fact is, I want both of you to stay. Natty moreso than you...but still, you're not an evil guy...and you might be able to bring forth a certain element to the forums no one else has. And if you attempt to tell me why I want Natty to stay over you I'll make sure you're banned, because you have no right to tell me (and the other forumers) how we think and why we think the way we do. Yet, you're the one who can't let go a simple dumb argument. So let's compromise, shall we, Mek? I want Natty's and your approval on this:

Mek, you shut the hell up about religious and gay arguments...we don't want to go down that road again.

Natty, you agree to stay if Mek shuts up.


Fair?

You can either post or PM me...but for the love of God reply. It's a good deal, trust me.

Metallus
08-22-2002, 10:40 PM
Either Mek gets banned or I'm leavingNatty, the only thing I'd have to say about this statement is: *sigh*. I'm sorry, but these "I'm leaving" threads bother me. This one does in particular because none of the EMI moderators did anything to inform an admin about the drama going on in these forums. If no attempts were made to get Meksilon banned, who's really to blame if you leave?

I need to point out that there are avenues for dealing with this that are more effective than counter-harrassment and ultimata to your peers to get things done. Since you're a moderator and a senior member to this community, it is your responsibility to you to deal with abusive members, and not depend on others.

Sorry, that's just how I feel. All that aside, I would say that Mek's done more than enough to qualify for another ban. Just say the word.

Acrylic
08-22-2002, 11:20 PM
"the word" no really...i think it would do us all a world of good for him to get banned

Meksilon
08-22-2002, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Metallus
Natty, the only thing I'd have to say about this statement is: *sigh*. I'm sorry, but these "I'm leaving" threads bother me. This one does in particular because none of the EMI moderators did anything to inform an admin about the drama going on in these forums. If no attempts were made to get Meksilon banned, who's really to blame if you leave?

I need to point out that there are avenues for dealing with this that are more effective than counter-harrassment and ultimata to your peers to get things done. Since you're a moderator and a senior member to this community, it is your responsibility to you to deal with abusive members, and not depend on others.

Sorry, that's just how I feel. All that aside, I would say that Mek's done more than enough to qualify for another ban. Just say the word. I agree with you. Not only is she the one who has behaved in an untollerable mannar, but she bought this whole thing up and started it. And I really didn't think anyone would support her saying "either mek is banned or I'm leaving", it's really sad that sort of statement gets support.

Her abusive and offensive comments lead me to make one back at her, so if I am banned then you have double-standards. It's like forgetting the person not wearing a helmet on a motorbike and spotting the guy on a push-bike.

I am not interested in flame wars and I wish she'd stop harrassing me at every breath on this forum.

I do not agree that I should be band find my reasons above.

=mek=

Meksilon
08-22-2002, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
Yes, but the translations on the verses about incest and bestiality are not and never were under doubt.That's the point, there's just as much on those sexual issues as homosexuality so why do Christians question one and not the others?Originally posted by Redwing
The references I referred to were by experts in the area. I don't see experts in the area supporting the other side, and I've looked quite hard.In my Church, and all of my Christian friends beleive that homosexuality is wrong. There are "experts" on both sides, but facts are that only one side can be right.

And I agreed with you that the English translations aren't perfect. But NIV was translated from the original hebrew texts and not from a translation (such as KJV). Most of the issues you are talking about are very minor though, they refer to maybe 1 word in a paragraph. For example (and I'm making this up but this is the kind of thing that is "mistranslated") in Hebrew they use the same word for LOVE and AFFECTION and in verse whatever where it says "the affection between the two was great" it also means "the love between the two was great". That is the sort of thing that is "mistranslated", it's not great big chunks that give compleatly diffrent meanings.Originally posted by Redwing
I thought you would have remembered - God calls David a "man after his own heart". And at that time, it was customary to have multiple wives (or other sexual partners, at that) God took MAJOR issue with David when he seduced another man's wife. He didn't say a thing about David's concubines, or David's multiple wives. God gives Solerman (or however his name is spelled, I can't be bothered checking) so much when he is pleased with him, and then Solerman seems to forget about God and gets himself 600 wives and another 300 mistresses... and God becomes gravely displeased when he starts whorshiping false gods because of his wives.Originally posted by Redwing
Off topic...what is a "wog"? ^^;;Oh no, now you've done it. Any wog will find that so offensive and say repeatedly "WOGS RULE, I'M A WOG, WOGS RULE". Italians are wogs (and a few other boarders).

Joshi
08-23-2002, 12:54 PM
this is my last post in this topic as i don't like it one bit. mek could be a good person to have a disscussion with if:
he chose his words and tone carfully, he has a habit of being offencive without knowing it.

[quote]Originally posted by Mek
You really didn't read how disrespectful and offensive and downright mean Natty was in the other thread, before I threw back one responce. And since you can't see the thread because someone deleted it I suggest that you remember that next time you choose th throw your oppinion in on a matter which involves the interest of the community.


so you're basically saying that he isn't part of the 'community' just because he wasn't around then. he has just as much right to his opinion than any of us do. what you meant is that because he hasn't been around for long and therfor hasn't gotten to know you or natty for long that he really can't give a valid reason for one of you leaving, but what you said was that his opinion didn't matter and he shouldn't really be a part of this disscusion and that's how you can offend people without knowing it.

i know that from all of this, one of you is going to leave and either way i will be sorry. i do not want to see natty leave because of something like this. i do recall her saying something once upon a time ago along the lines of "Nothing will make me leave, i will stay here until the place is entirely dead." (no where near those exact words, but that was the jist of it) and so for her to leave because of this saddens me deeply. i really don't think i even got to know her properly which saddens me even more. i also didn't get to know mek properly which i don't like as all i knoe of him are the insults and flames from him, and the complaints from other people about him. i will continue to read this, just out of interest of what goes on, but i will no longer take part in this disscussion. this is my opinion. if it makes a difference, i will be impressed.:(

Redwing
08-23-2002, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
That's the point, there's just as much on those sexual issues as homosexuality so why do Christians question one and not the others?In my Church, and all of my Christian friends beleive that homosexuality is wrong. There are "experts" on both sides, but facts are that only one side can be right.

And I agreed with you that the English translations aren't perfect. But NIV was translated from the original hebrew texts and not from a translation (such as KJV). Most of the issues you are talking about are very minor though, they refer to maybe 1 word in a paragraph. For example (and I'm making this up but this is the kind of thing that is "mistranslated") in Hebrew they use the same word for LOVE and AFFECTION and in verse whatever where it says "the affection between the two was great" it also means "the love between the two was great". That is the sort of thing that is "mistranslated", it's not great big chunks that give compleatly diffrent meanings.

But mek, don't you understand that that's exactly what could happen in a situation condemning someone? And if you read my link, it explained clearly the words that were in question...and if their original meanings were used, then they were not condemning homosexuality as wrong!

And I don't necessarily mean accidental mistranslations...I believe they were deliberate. They're too obvious to those who are willing to see it. It's also a known fact that King James pressured his translators to alter verses to condemn witchcraft...specifically the kind that James believed was practiced in England, which didn't exist in Biblical times. And they did it. How can the KJV be completely trusted in that case?

And the NIV was deliberately mistranslated - "massaged" in some places. Many, many Christians take issue with it...the translators made it reflect their social code of beliefs which they believed was right. For example, changing Paul's words to say that males having long hair is a sin, when he never said that before.

Oh as for those verses on incest and bestiality, they have been questioned. Just no one found anything wrong with them. The most random things in the Bible have been questioned. You wouldn't believe the number of things in some books that have slightly different meanings in English than the original...the KJV people had a thing for poetic license. But they aren't the issue here.

As for your friends...well...this isn't a fair comparison...but the Catholics believed with all their hearts, souls, and minds that the Crusades were right...


God gives Solerman (or however his name is spelled, I can't be bothered checking) so much when he is pleased with him, and then Solerman seems to forget about God and gets himself 600 wives and another 300 mistresses... and God becomes gravely displeased when he starts whorshiping false gods because of his wives.

It's Solomon ^^

But God didn't do anything to David about that stuff...and God was very clear and concise with those kings when He was displeased. Look at all that God did to David when he commited adultery and murder.

Oh no, now you've done it. Any wog will find that so offensive and say repeatedly "WOGS RULE, I'M A WOG, WOGS RULE". Italians are wogs (and a few other boarders).

Ummm...okay ^^;; my grandparents are part Italian but I didn't know that ^^

Meksilon
08-23-2002, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Neil Joshi
this is my last post in this topic as i don't like it one bit. mek could be a good person to have a disscussion with if:
he chose his words and tone carfully, he has a habit of being offencive without knowing it.Neil I wanted to be abel to say "hey you didn't read the original thread" without offending AcrylicGuitar, and that was the best I could come up with. All I was saying is "you can only see half the story it isn't right of you to lodge your oppinion based on only it". Clearly he is a part of the community, but he has to respect the fact that he isn't always a part of everything that goes on in it. That's all I was saying.

Also Neil, don't tell me what I was trying to say, because it isn't exaclty like that. It's just he only saw half the story and that's all I was saying.

And the fact is I deliberatly wrote it in a way which wouldn't offend, even though I thought his oppinion was a load of crap and I shouldn't have to put up with people who don't know what's going on butting in. That's how I felt because he offended me. But that's not how I feel about him because I don't know him. And I still don't. And he dosen't know me. And he still dosen't. Which is why he should not have been so quick to post.

=mek=

Acrylic
08-23-2002, 11:04 PM
I dont feel offended until someone swears at me....

Meksilon
08-23-2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Redwing
But mek, don't you understand that that's exactly what could happen in a situation condemning someone? And if you read my link, it explained clearly the words that were in question...and if their original meanings were used, then they were not condemning homosexuality as wrong!Please don't say "original" meanings, it's better to say "alternative" meanings. We don't speak Hebrew, and even if we could read Hebrew we'd have a hard time deceiding which context of a word was intended. But Christians beleive that The Holy Bible is God's word. And because it is God's word what is in it is what we are intended to read. The Bible also clearly explains what Marriage is in a number of sections in both the Old and the New Testiment. Even without the individual verses that say "Homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God" (which is something Paul says in the New Testiment) the fact remains that we have been taught what Marriage is.

And this is the foundation for understanding how two people can be together and united. What is more God even goes so far as to explain the Man's role and the Woman's role! Redwing, THIS is the basis for my argument, not the few scattered verses which condem homosexuality. But thoes which proclaim Holy Marriage! It's a beautiful, WONDERFUL thing that so many people take advantage of! I would say anywhere up to 90% or more of Christian Marriages aren't as Holy as they should be.

But that aside, there are some wonderful ones. I will never forget the Newmarch's even though they moved out of Canberra when I was in Year 7! The family was so nice, the Parents were wonderful their children such as Daniel (my age, my name is Daniel too) were also very nice. They were and perhapps will be one of the best familys I have ever seen, and they did some Missionary work and now live in Melb.Originally posted by Redwing
It's Solomon ^^

But God didn't do anything to David about that stuff...and God was very clear and concise with those kings when He was displeased. Look at all that God did to David when he commited adultery and murder.Don't be too woried about God's actions. His words are far more important and speak clearer and are much easier to understand. :)

God loves us, He loves every last one of us. We didn't earn it, even if we don't deserve it He still loves us so much that it dosen't matter what we've done. It dosen't matter how much we've hurt Him or how much we've hurt others, He is willing to forgive us and accept us whenever we are ready to confess that He is God. We have to be respectful of someone so great.

***

Paul says "don't be yoked together with nonbeleivers" somewhere. Jesus never said "don't Marry people who aren't beleivers". In fact I'm pretty sure that only second-hand information (like what Paul says) is in The Bible. And yet most Christians can easily see that they should not only not Marry non-Christians, but they can see that it's wrong. It is an issue that not everyone agrees on, but it's foundation is in The Bible. The foundation is Marrage which can't possibly exisit without God.

I look foward to hearing your reflections/remarks on this Redwing,

=mek=

Redwing
08-24-2002, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon
Please don't say "original" meanings, it's better to say "alternative" meanings. We don't speak Hebrew, and even if we could read Hebrew we'd have a hard time deceiding which context of a word was intended.

*sigh* I'm quoting people who do speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. By original I mean the meaning of the word at the time it was written, which to me is the only valid meaning.

But Christians beleive that The Holy Bible is God's word. And because it is God's word what is in it is what we are intended to read. The Bible also clearly explains what Marriage is in a number of sections in both the Old and the New Testiment.

The Bible supports many different types of marriage. God killed a man early in the Bible because he wouldn't get his brother's widow pregnant.

Christians as a whole believe the Biblical authors were God-inspired. If a translator changed what they said, and he is right too, what does that say about God?


Even without the individual verses that say "Homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God" (which is something Paul says in the New Testiment) the fact remains that we have been taught what Marriage is.

First, I don't remember seeing that verse...can I have a reference? Secondly if someone said the same about "heterosexual offenders" how would you interpret it then?


And this is the foundation for understanding how two people can be together and united. What is more God even goes so far as to explain the Man's role and the Woman's role! Redwing, THIS is the basis for my argument, not the few scattered verses which condem homosexuality. But thoes which proclaim Holy Marriage! It's a beautiful, WONDERFUL thing that so many people take advantage of! I would say anywhere up to 90% or more of Christian Marriages aren't as Holy as they should be.


Firstly, despite your fervor...I think you're wrong. Besides that, if Men and Women's roles are so ironclad, what about people who are both? They exist - people with both sets of sexual organs and both sets of hormones. What about them? God made them. Would he have put them into a world where he does not provide for their existence? Where do they fit into such a stringent view of nature?

Don't be too woried about God's actions. His words are far more important and speak clearer and are much easier to understand.

But like I just said, his words don't forbid homosexuality. The translators of the King James Version forbade homosexuality. I hope you agree that male prostituion is different than a male-male commited relationship...


God loves us, He loves every last one of us. We didn't earn it, even if we don't deserve it He still loves us so much that it dosen't matter what we've done. It dosen't matter how much we've hurt Him or how much we've hurt others, He is willing to forgive us and accept us whenever we are ready to confess that He is God. We have to be respectful of someone so great.


I agree with you completely. Doesn't that mean we should also respect His word?


Paul says "don't be yoked together with nonbeleivers" somewhere. Jesus never said "don't Marry people who aren't beleivers". In fact I'm pretty sure that only second-hand information (like what Paul says) is in The Bible. And yet most Christians can easily see that they should not only not Marry non-Christians, but they can see that it's wrong. It is an issue that not everyone agrees on, but it's foundation is in The Bible. The foundation is Marrage which can't possibly exisit without God.

Paul said it wasn't good to be 'unequally yoked'. He also said it plain wasn't good to get married. along with alot of other stuff he said as advice, not a replacement for the Old Testament law that Jesus threw out. The law was made for man...not man for the law. (And what do you mean by second-hand information?)

I believe gay people should be allowed to get married. Currently they are only allowed to be unofficially married, which is unfair to them (although equally valid.)

I should also point out that you cannot stop being gay...you can become celibate, which many Christian gay people do because they are convinced it is wrong.

Right now, if you haven't noticed, I'm arguing this like the 'did we land on the moon' argument. So let's use some facts.

(Note that when I say sexuality, I mean sexual attraction to a specific gender. Note also that I am using an edited quote. Don't call me unoriginal, it's just that I'm...well...unoriginal :D)

---------
What is the Nature of Homosexuality?

There are many different beliefs. However, most people hold one of the following concepts:

1. Homosexual Feelings as a Choice:

Homosexuality is an evil, unnatural and sinful lifestyle. It is a matter of choice that can be changed at any time. Keeping children ignorant of homosexuality will assure that they will grow up heterosexual.

2. Homosexual Feelings as a Fixed Orientation:

Homosexuality is a natural orientation for a minority of people. Like other sexual orientations, it is determined early in life, perhaps at conception. Most children grow up heterosexuals; the orientation of their parents and friends have little influence.

Types of Sexual Orientations

Some people believe that there are only two sexual orientations (feelings of sexual attraction):

* Heterosexual - a person who is sexually attracted only to members ofthe opposite gender, or

* Homosexual - a person who is sexually attracted only to members of thesame gender.



This is not a useful model, because it ignores two minorities:

* Asexuals - people who have no feelings of sexual attraction to neithergender

* Bisexuals - people who are attracted (perhaps to different degrees) to both genders

Most researchers into human sexuality look upon sexual orientation as a continuum:

* Those with solely heterosexual feelings form one extreme; they are free to select celibacy, or to seek sexual activity with members of the opposite sex.

* Those with solely homosexual feelings form the other extreme; they can be celibate or enter into relationships with members of their own gender

* In the middle are bisexuals. Being sexually attracted to both genders they can choose:

only heterosexual relationships
only homosexual relationships
relationships with both men and women
celibacy


Most researchers believe that one's orientation is fixed and unchangeable. Prayer, counselling, psychotherapy, electric shocks, castration, frontal lobotomies, etc have all been used to try to change a person's orientation. None have succeeded. These "therapies" can persuade homosexuals to be celibate. They can persuade bisexuals to confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex. But they cannot change one's feelings (one's sexual orientation).



What Determines a Person's Sexual Orientation?

As described above, there are two schools of thought:

1. Orientation is a decision made perhaps at puberty and can be changed at any time by prayer and effort

2. Orientation is fixed early, at least by the time the child reaches school age. It may occur before birth; perhaps at conception; the cause is outside of a person's control.

The vast bulk of evidence favors the second belief:

* The National Institute of Health (a US Federal Government agency) reported that about 30% of youth suicides are by gays and lesbians who recognize that they are homosexual and realize that they cannot change their sexual orientation - they are stuck being gay or lesbian for the rest of their life. These young people who commit suicide may have been taught to hate or reject homosexuality by their families, religious institutions, schools etc. If they had any hope of changing their orientation, they obviously would seek counselling instead of killing themselves. Their deaths are one more price that society must pay for its homophobia.

* Suppose that every heterosexual asked themselves two simple questions:

1. "what would it take for me to be attracted to a person of the same gender and want to enter into a sexual relationship with her/him?"

The answer is that it is impossible to create such feelings of sexual attraction where they do not exist. This test would be a good indicator of the fixed nature of sexual orientation.

2. "At what age did I choose my sexual orientation?"

The answer is that, as far back as a person can remember, they were either asexual or heterosexual.

* Bishop Benjamin Tutu of South Africa once pointed out that homosexuality cannot be a matter of choice. Who would select a life style that would bring such hatred, abuse and discrimination against them?

* One important type of study involves determining the sexual orientation of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different homes. If sexual orientation is decided genetically at conception, then if one twin is gay or lesbian, the other would be as well. If sexual orientation is determined by life experiences, then if one twin is gay or lesbian, the other would have only about a 5% chance of being homosexual. This type of study has been performed and replicated. In most cases, the identical twin of a homosexual was found to be also homosexual.

* Simon LeVay, a Neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute in California published a study which examined the brains of men who had died of AIDS. He found that the INAH 3 (a structure within the hypothalamus) differed in size between heterosexual and homosexual men. This suggested to the researcher that "sexual orientation has a biological substrate".

* Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University studied the sexual orientation of siblings raised together. If one person was homosexual then the chance of their sibling being homosexual was:

52% for their identical twin
22% for their non-identical twin
about 10% for adopted or non-twin brothers.
This would point to a strong genetic factor at the time of conception.

This type of study tends to have the same serious flaws as in the identical twin studies described above. One sibling may have come to terms with his/her sexual orientation and realized that they are homosexual; the other might also be gay or lesbian but has not come to terms with their sexual orientation. One sibling could be bisexual and identify themselves to the interviewer as heterosexual; the other could also be bisexual and be behaving homosexually.

J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found a relationship between the number of fingertip ridges on men and their sexual orientation. (1) They compared the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number on the corresponding fingers of the right hand. They found that 30% of the homosexuals tested had a surplus of ridges on their left hand, whereas only 14% of the heterosexuals did. This is a particularly interesting finding, because fingerprints are fully determined in a fetus before the 17th week of pregnancy, and do not change thereafter. This would seem to prove that for some adult homosexuals, their orientation was pre-determined before birth, perhaps at conception.
Children who grow up to become homosexuals often engage in "gender inappropriate play" in early childhood. This indicates that the factor which determines sexual orientation takes effect very early in one's life (perhaps before birth).
Gays and Lesbians do not appear to be any less common in societies which condemn homosexuality; they do not seem to be any more common in accepting societies. This would argue against sexual orientation being learned.
Almost all children raised in families headed by two Gays or two Lesbians grow up heterosexual. The sexual orientation of one's parents appear to have little influence over the matter.
Researcher Dean Hamer, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute studied over 100 gay men and found that many of their uncles and male cousins were also gay. This suggested that a genetic effect was determining sexual orientation. They compared the DNA of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that almost all shared genetic markers in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome (one of the two sex chromosomes).
The "gay gene" has yet to be isolated precisely; however, they have found its approximate location.

The DNA of 36 pairs of lesbian sisters were also studied; nocorresponding pattern has yet been found.



Can a Person Change their Sexual Orientation?

There is general agreement among researchers into human sexuality that one's sexual orientation are unchangeable in adulthood. In terms of behaviour by sexually active adults:

Heterosexuals (over 90% of the adult population) can chose to enter into sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex, or be celibate.
Homosexuals (less than 10%) can chose to become involved with members of the same gender or be celibate
Bisexuals (less than 10%) can become involved with members of either gender or be celibate
Researchers have attempted to change people's sexual orientation using counselling, psychotherapy, electric shock treatments, castration and frontal lobotomies (cutting away of brain tissue) without success. Some homosexuals have tried to deny their sexual orientation and marry people of the opposite sex. This usually results in disaster for both spouses.

Many Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians disagree. Some ministries specialize in attempting to change homosexuals and bisexuals into heterosexuals. Their long-term successes appear to be in two areas: 1) convincing bisexuals to restrict their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex 2) convincing homosexuals to be celibate.
----------

Now since you drew a comparison with bestiality and incest I should point out that:

With bestiality: Almost all (if not all) human sexually transmitted diseases have started in animals and transferred to humans through this practice. This includes AIDS, just an FYI

With incest: This results in horrible disfgurations in children because of the inbreeding.

Homosexuality does not have any such horrifying connotations. The only inherent disadvantegous quality is the fact that you can't reproduce.