someone mentioned it as a reply and i can't find it.

what part of the bible says - non believers will be brought before christ and slaughtered

and - adulterers will be stoned to death - i really want to find it in the bible.

someone mentioned it as a reply and i can't find it.

what part of the bible says - non believers will be brought before christ and slaughtered

and - adulterers will be stoned to death - i really want to find it in the bible.
*************
M*W: That sounds like something Paul (Apollo) would say, so check the NT epistles.

When the speaker says, "...shall be brought before Christ" that only means that the deed shall be done during the daylight hours. I say this, because "Christ," the metaphorical "salvation of mankind," means nothing but the Sun. That's the myth of it all. To believe anything more anthropomorphically of a "god-being" is mere fantasy. The only "god" of the Earth is the Sun.

someone mentioned it as a reply and i can't find it.

what part of the bible says - non believers will be brought before christ and slaughtered

and - adulterers will be stoned to death - i really want to find it in the bible.

I'm not Christian, but the first thing definitely sounds incorrect; Jesus never condoned slaughter or killing.

The second thing is probably in Deuteronomy, which is full of ridiculous laws and regulations.

no im sure it was in jons gospel but im not sure where :S

On Punishing ‘Immorality’

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
On Destroying Other People

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
On the Evil of Biblical Law

Ezekiel 20:25-26 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.
On Slavery & Subjugation of Women

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.
2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Jesus, on His Second Coming

Matthew 24:29-34
[T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. . . . They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. . . . I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. [Emphasis added.]
16:27-28
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Scientific Errors

(1) Rabbits don’t chew cud.
Deuteronomy 14:6-7
You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney.
(2) No insects (including grasshoppers) are 4-legged.
Leviticus 11:20-22
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
(3) This is only possible on a flat earth.
Matthew 4:8
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
(4) pi does not = 3.
1 Kings 7:23
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim . . . It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
(5) The earth moves. It does not have a foundation.
Psalms 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Selected Contradictions

(1)
2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.
(2)
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
(3)
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith . . . not by works.
James 2:14-17 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? . . . Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.
(4) (Jesus speaking)
Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them.
(5) (Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
(6)
Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and my life was preserved.”
Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.
(7) (Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Bingo. And people wonder why I don't follow Christianity. LoL. :D

I should hope they do not "wonder" why.
Morrals have continually decayed in modern times. It has become accepted that morals change even if it is for the worse.

Homosexuality acceptance today is forseeable.

Christ said that he who lies with a man or uses men for unnatural practices will not inherit God's Kingdom. Jesus means here that there is no room Sex outside the establishment that God intended. That being between a man and woman who have dedicated a oath to a life time bond of loyalty.

Our world dosesn't accept loyalty in any form currently It has become wholely driven on selfish desires rather than what God intended. That is expected because according to scripture we are living in Satan's world not God.s 99% of all the religions are unknowingly serving his purpose to turn as many people against God before he bites the big one.

IF you lived during the time at which Leviticus was writing having sex with a man would have been a death penalty and rightly so. Homosexuallity wasn't used in anything other than depraved hostility against strangers. Some churches use this as bad reasoning to allow homosexuality within the church but God nor Jesus never amends his Laws to stay away from same sex.

God knew that this was damaging not only to other individuals and and unproductive for the sake of children but that it also damages the body as well and it was and still is a medically unsound practice.
Without the bond of marriage homosexuality would spread STD's from persuing sex outside of marriage.

God made marriage it'self a fair bond.
Fair for women and men to chose a mate under a union that would be dedicated to protecting the offspring which were produced. A Mother to nurture a Father to guide direct and provide.

Two men or two women require no life bond assurances to each other. They will never produce any children to require protection. Two men are self sufficient of themselves to not require support of another (especially in bible times) and two women are also incapable of bringing children about but notably two women are ill equiped to protect one another even in todays world which is why the bible decribes woman as the helper and the fine vase ( a weaker vessel) meant to be guarded and protected.

While our society has adapted it has not and likely never will progress beyond the need of such rolls between genders.

99% of all the religions are unknowingly serving his purpose to turn as many people against God before he bites the big one.


And many of that 99 % feel that they are on the right path and you are on the wrong one.


IF you lived during the time at which Leviticus was writing having sex with a man would have been a death penalty and rightly so.



The vast majority of homosexuals are genetically predisposed to be that way.It is not a "learned" behavior as many christian fundamentalists would have you believe.
You are just viewing God thru the eyes of the uptight, ultra patriarchial jewish priesthood...totally cultural and nothing more.

I should hope they do not "wonder" why.
Morrals have continually decayed in modern times. It has become accepted that morals change even if it is for the worse.

Homosexuality acceptance today is forseeable.

Christ said that he who lies with a man or uses men for unnatural practices will not inherit God's Kingdom. Jesus means here that there is no room Sex outside the establishment that God intended. That being between a man and woman who have dedicated a oath to a life time bond of loyalty.

Our world dosesn't accept loyalty in any form currently It has become wholely driven on selfish desires rather than what God intended. That is expected because according to scripture we are living in Satan's world not God.s 99% of all the religions are unknowingly serving his purpose to turn as many people against God before he bites the big one.

IF you lived during the time at which Leviticus was writing having sex with a man would have been a death penalty and rightly so. Homosexuallity wasn't used in anything other than depraved hostility against strangers. Some churches use this as bad reasoning to allow homosexuality within the church but God nor Jesus never amends his Laws to stay away from same sex.

God knew that this was damaging not only to other individuals and and unproductive for the sake of children but that it also damages the body as well and it was and still is a medically unsound practice.
Without the bond of marriage homosexuality would spread STD's from persuing sex outside of marriage.

God made marriage it'self a fair bond.
Fair for women and men to chose a mate under a union that would be dedicated to protecting the offspring which were produced. A Mother to nurture a Father to guide direct and provide.

Two men or two women require no life bond assurances to each other. They will never produce any children to require protection. Two men are self sufficient of themselves to not require support of another (especially in bible times) and two women are also incapable of bringing children about but notably two women are ill equiped to protect one another even in todays world which is why the bible decribes woman as the helper and the fine vase ( a weaker vessel) meant to be guarded and protected.

While our society has adapted it has not and likely never will progress beyond the need of such rolls between genders.


Sorry Saquist, but this is the lengthiest tripe I've read for the month...

And many of that 99 % feel that they are on the right path and you are on the wrong one.

No doubt. Perception though isn't the question...only truth. Medicine Woman believes this...You believe that, the good member above believes another...

But the question is who is?




[QUOTE]The vast majority of homosexuals are genetically predisposed to be that way.It is not a "learned" behavior as many christian fundamentalists would have you believe.
You are just viewing God thru the eyes of the uptight, ultra patriarchial jewish priesthood...totally cultural and nothing more.

It is definitely a learned behavior..but it also to some extent chemical aswell.
But Nova...how could you know from where I'm viewing anything...you're not even in the same room.

Sorry Saquist, but this is the lengthiest tripe I've read for the month.

All systems require order to function. Disfunction is disruption. That is essentially what sexual behavior outside the protection of marriage is. Disruption. It exposes many to risk...a Risk you may feel is neglible.

Tell me EnterpriseD do you have parents?

"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house."

Wow, that sounds like true wisdom from the book of god, and something jesus christ would preach. Oh wait. the bible isn't the word of god? oh wait. Only the parts that you like are the word of god.

...And I thought i'd tear it apart surgically.

I should hope they do not "wonder" why.
Morrals have continually decayed in modern times. It has become accepted that morals change even if it is for the worse.

Homosexuality acceptance today is forseeable.

By whose standards? Those as discovered by scientific principle and perhaps the principle of non-interference in others lives as Picard et al would embrace? Or those of the theist regimes who seek to control and suppress?


Christ said that he who lies with a man or uses men for unnatural practices will not inherit God's Kingdom. Jesus means here that there is no room Sex outside the establishment that God intended. That being between a man and woman who have dedicated a oath to a life time bond of loyalty.

Perhaps before posting this, you should have looked up current divorce rates that shatter these man-woman oaths to a lifetime bond of loyalty.


Our world dosesn't accept loyalty in any form currently It has become wholely driven on selfish desires rather than what God intended. That is expected because according to scripture we are living in Satan's world not God.s 99% of all the religions are unknowingly serving his purpose to turn as many people against God before he bites the big one.

I sort of agree with this, except that religions have not become selfish, they've just perpetuated their original behaviours, adapting to modern methods, such as politics, economics and psychology.


IF you lived during the time at which Leviticus was writing having sex with a man would have been a death penalty and rightly so. Homosexuallity wasn't used in anything other than depraved hostility against strangers. Some churches use this as bad reasoning to allow homosexuality within the church but God nor Jesus never amends his Laws to stay away from same sex.

This I have never heard of. Your own King David was written as very loving to his male companion Jonathan. Bear in mind of course, that we're talking about a very old compendium of fiction.


God knew that this was damaging not only to other individuals and and unproductive for the sake of children but that it also damages the body as well and it was and still is a medically unsound practice.

Really. How about infertile women? Maybe they're useless too? And how is homosexuality damaging medically? Are you a medical doctor or a graphics designer?


Without the bond of marriage homosexuality would spread STD's from persuing sex outside of marriage.

LOL you are not serious. You are simply not serious. "A lack of marriage would cause homosexuality to spread STDs" ?? Under what ancient century did you find this utter garbage buried? Are you a statistician? Did you or anyone else in the universe interview a significant portion of people afflicted with STDs to even begin to prove this crap?


God made marriage it'self a fair bond.
Fair for women and men to chose a mate under a union that would be dedicated to protecting the offspring which were produced. A Mother to nurture a Father to guide direct and provide.

What makes you think a single mother is incapable of raising offspring? Or an Uncle? A great aunt?


Two men or two women require no life bond assurances to each other. They will never produce any children to require protection.

Then the fact that two individuals of the same sex are even willing to try to stay together in a committed relationship is all the more celebratory as they are voluntarily pursuing a life bond.

Perhaps you should take into consideration the loveless marriages that there are...of any orientation even, including heterosexual.


Two men are self sufficient of themselves to not require support of another (especially in bible times) and two women are also incapable of bringing children about but notably two women are ill equiped to protect one another even in todays world which is why the bible decribes woman as the helper and the fine vase ( a weaker vessel) meant to be guarded and protected.

One individual human being is self sufficient. One human being, male or female, does not require anyone else for anything.

Does she look like a fine vase to you?

http://www.carlson316wrestling.net/chynatribute/chyna2001.jpg

Does he look like a protector to you?

http://eppsnet.com/~paulepps/images/urkel.jpg


While our society has adapted it has not and likely never will progress beyond the need of such rolls between genders.

Sorry, but I've worked for female executives, and my own staff is mixed gender. I am witness to a powerful politician, and she is a lesbian. With a girlfriend. Earth will progress beyond the necessity of gender rolls, rather we will evolve such that the rolls are choice.

If you're allowed to propagate these prehistoric prejudices, I fear for the future of the Federation.

That scripture is quite consistent with Jewish Law. Because according to Romans all men sinned and fallen short of the glory of God all men deserve the only wages that sin or falling short pay...death.

We're all deserving but the difference is that Jesus died as substition for all the imperfect sacrifices that the Israelites were commanded to give for sin or wrong doing. Like, is irrelevant if one really wants to do what God requires...but their are those that exactly how you describe...fabricating, slicing and dicing the scriptures....

Truth is most humans adapt the truth atheist and those that pretend to fear god.

All systems require order to function. Disfunction is disruption.

Spoken like a true Borg drone. Have you never heard of chaotic systems?


That is essentially what sexual behavior outside the protection of marriage is. Disruption. It exposes many to risk...a Risk you may feel is neglible.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Saquist..a virus is not stopped buy a quaint little commitment ceremony. Marriage does not stop infidelity. Maybe you live on a different Earth than I do...but in my opinion that persons who hide under the illusion that marriage is a magic protector are the ones who are labouring under the misapprehension that their sexual habits are riskless.


Tell me EnterpriseD do you have parents?

A typical fear angle you're starting. Other than the fact that as a Starship I have four hundred and eighty parents of varying genders :D, this tack is irrelevant. Seriously though, if my dad or mom were homosexual, I obviously would not be born. This is a hard fact of life. Placing the fear of not being born into your reader is Vatican propaganda.

...And I thought i'd tear it apart surgically.

I'd appreciate your best shot...



By whose standards? Those as discovered by scientific principle and perhaps the principle of non-interference in others lives as Picard et al would embrace? Or those of the theist regimes who seek to control and suppress?

Who's standards do you require...How Low or High would your rate your chosen standards. I'll let you decided .

The only 'suppression' the bible speaks of are of a people that had promised to follow god and entered into a legal binding covenant of honor and protection.



Perhaps before posting this, you should have looked up current divorce rates that shatter these man-woman oaths to a lifetime bond of loyalty.

This is not your best shot is it? The question is not how what goes wrong in a system but the balance of a perfect system. We are establishing morral ground not an immoral one.



I sort of agree with this, except that religions have not become selfish, they've just perpetuated their original behaviours, adapting to modern methods, such as politics, economics and psychology.

compromising your morals is one of the fastest ways of loosing them. See the Catholic church as well as many other throw scripture away without regard to the one who made that law shows they're thinking outside of God's wishes.



This I have never heard of. Your own King David was written as very loving to his male companion Jonathan. Bear in mind of course, that we're talking about a very old compendium of fiction.

You're talking Fiction...I speak only of testimony.



Really. How about infertile women? Maybe they're useless too? And how is homosexuality damaging medically? Are you a medical doctor or a graphics designer?

I guess you've never seen the results of years sodomy can inflict on the rectal walls...I assure you that the muscle that was meant to act as a valve to the inner intestine is a ONE way path. I'd hate to describe on the forum the results of being incapable of closing that valve which is normally an involuntary action.



LOL you are not serious. You are simply not serious. "A lack of marriage would cause homosexuality to spread STDs" ?? Under what ancient century did you find this utter garbage buried? Are you a statistician? Did you or anyone else in the universe interview a significant portion of people afflicted with STDs to even begin to prove this crap?

Intresting...STD's are spread how? Through sexual contact. An exposure to blood and semen and vaginal fluid that occurs in both hetrosexual and homosexual contact...

What century? That would be the one where we found out contraceptive like condoms prevent the spread of AIDS. Where do you come from...where this is no true?



What makes you think a single mother is incapable of raising offspring? Or an Uncle? A great aunt?

I KNOW because I was.



Then the fact that two individuals of the same sex are even willing to try to stay together in a committed relationship is all the more celebratory as they are voluntarily pursuing a life bond.

Based on...what? The current divorce rate which you mention above? You're Contradicting yourself. What would possibily make a homosexual relationship more powerfull...Flowerpower perhaps?

Perhaps you should take into consideration the loveless marriages that there are...of any orientation even, including heterosexual.

It looks like you need that reminder more than me. Your argument is going to be stuck invariably on this reality. My position is to represent the perfect system not the imperfect system of infidelity that you are using as an example.



One individual human being is self sufficient. One human being, male or female, does not require anyone else for anything.

Does she look like a fine vase to you?
Only if she'll be norm and not the exception.
That was not a good attempt at a good point Enterprise. I think I'll have the opportunity to show you.


Does he look like a protector to you?

Only if he becomes the standard and not the exception. You see you're thriving so much in this worlds standard of "normal" that you see the bad and the exceptions as a position of strenght when indeed there not.



Sorry, but I've worked for female executives, and my own staff is mixed gender. I am witness to a powerful politician, and she is a lesbian. With a girlfriend. Earth will progress beyond the necessity of gender rolls, rather we will evolve such that the rolls are choice.

That's a wonderful idea but in a nation (America) and truely a world which YOU CAN NOT DENY sees women as inferior to men and pays themless and offers them parental over males just for being a women...a world that has yet to see a female US President...A world which women do not get equal pay even now in many First World Countries shows just how rare justice and FAIR occurs in this far from perfect world.

If you're allowed to propagate these prehistoric prejudices, I fear for the future of the Federation.[/QUOTE]

It is your own predjudices that defy such a future. Your predjudice is against morality it against fairness. Why even have marriage in your world? What is the point? Do you know?

Spoken like a true Borg drone. Have you never heard of chaotic systems?

As Janeway and Tuvok noticed...the universe could use more order and less chaos.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Saquist..a virus is not stopped buy a quaint little commitment ceremony. Marriage does not stop infidelity.

But loyalty does stop a STD. Can you chose to be loyal or is it merely your right to have whom and what you want? Which is fair? Get out your moral measuring stick...



A typical fear angle you're starting. Other than the fact that as a Starship I have four hundred and eighty parents of varying genders :D, this tack is irrelevant. Seriously though, if my dad or mom were homosexual, I obviously would not be born. This is a hard fact of life. Placing the fear of not being born into your reader is Vatican propaganda.


Are your parents still together?

what part of the bible says - non believers will be brought before christ and slaughtered

Probably refers to this parable from Luke:

19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. What the Bible says about democracy

19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

19:19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

19:21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

19:25 And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.

19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

someone mentioned it as a reply and i can't find it.

what part of the bible says - non believers will be brought before christ and slaughtered

You're referring to an old libel misread from Luke 2:19, as I recall. It's a parable. It doesn't mean - or read as, for that matter - people being slaughtered.

and - adulterers will be stoned to death - i really want to find it in the bible.

Somewhere in the OT. The NT rescinded that whole bit, though.

I'm not Christian, but the first thing definitely sounds incorrect; Jesus never condoned slaughter or killing.

The second thing is probably in Deuteronomy, which is full of ridiculous laws and regulations.

i know i have made it my life goal to break as many of them as possible now if only i can find a rock badger to eat

someone mentioned it as a reply and i can't find it.

what part of the bible says - non believers will be brought before christ and slaughtered



The poster was taking a parrable and using it to make a false claim. Read the parrable for yourself:

The Parable of the Minas
Luke 19
11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’
15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’
20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’
24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. [B]27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’”


and - adulterers will be stoned to death - i really want to find it in the bible.

This is in the OT it was the judgement that was carried out against people who comitted Adultry. There is not such call in the NT for Followers of Jesus to carry out punishment for sin, although we warn of Gods eternal punishment for sin.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I'd appreciate your best shot...

Who's standards do you require...How Low or High would your rate your chosen standards. I'll let you decided .

Standards of humanism. Certainly not anything sanctioned by christianity's poor excuse of elitist drone rules.


The only 'suppression' the bible speaks of are of a people that had promised to follow god and entered into a legal binding covenant of honor and protection.

???



This is not your best shot is it? The question is not how what goes wrong in a system but the balance of a perfect system. We are establishing morral ground not an immoral one.

You et al are attempting to establish a cookie cutter society based on christian rules. This is not acceptable.



compromising your morals is one of the fastest ways of loosing them. See the Catholic church as well as many other throw scripture away without regard to the one who made that law shows they're thinking outside of God's wishes.

Rubbish. Foisting your so called morals on others is a sign of dictatorship.



You're talking Fiction...I speak only of testimony.

Conveniently, the best witness to this so called testimony is long dead according to your own lone book of testimony.

Further you hold this tome as truth. It is therefore intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick it. David existed according to your bible, as did Jonathan. I'm not the one who



I guess you've never seen the results of years sodomy can inflict on the rectal walls...I assure you that the muscle that was meant to act as a valve to the inner intestine is a ONE way path. I'd hate to describe on the forum the results of being incapable of closing that valve which is normally an involuntary action.

Well, so far it has had no effect on me. My doctor has also given me a consistent bill of health on my regular physicals. I assure you that you are incorrect and out of line.



Intresting...STD's are spread how? Through sexual contact. An exposure to blood and semen and vaginal fluid that occurs in both hetrosexual and homosexual contact...

Not solely. Careless medical practice and shared drug use also assist the spred of these same diseases.


What century? That would be the one where we found out contraceptive like condoms prevent the spread of AIDS. Where do you come from...where this is no true?

Condoms do not entirely prevent the spread of AIDS. They help greatly however. However, you did not address my rebuttal. Marriage is nowhere near as useful as a condom in preventing the spread of STDs. Your original argument is a campaign of fear.



I KNOW because I was.

Very good. So maybe you can understand that you cannot assume anything that you've never experienced.



Based on...what? The current divorce rate which you mention above? You're Contradicting yourself. What would possibily make a homosexual relationship more powerfull...Flowerpower perhaps?

I never said it. You have. You attributed tangible collateral as the reason for a relationship. Not love...as your own bible maintains. You attempt to put forward that reproduction is humanity's raison d'etre...and this saddens me. If we're here simply to create more humans, we're nothing more than a virus.


It looks like you need that reminder more than me. Your argument is going to be stuck invariably on this reality. My position is to represent the perfect system not the imperfect system of infidelity that you are using as an example.

You are not dealing with reality then. You are postulating a utopia fuelled by christian rules. These rules cannot be assumed to be applicable to every one of the near seven billion humans on the planet. This is sanctimonious and frankly impractical.



Only if she'll be norm and not the exception.
That was not a good attempt at a good point Enterprise. I think I'll have the opportunity to show you.


Only if he becomes the standard and not the exception. You see you're thriving so much in this worlds standard of "normal" that you see the bad and the exceptions as a position of strenght when indeed there not.


Ah, but I have shown exceptions. You have given an absolute that "man" is the protector and "woman" is the charge. This is chauvinist crap of centuries old.



That's a wonderful idea but in a nation (America) and truely a world which YOU CAN NOT DENY sees women as inferior to men and pays themless and offers them parental over males just for being a women...a world that has yet to see a female US President...A world which women do not get equal pay even now in many First World Countries shows just how rare justice and FAIR occurs in this far from perfect world.

Why would you need to see a female US President to accept that gender roles are changing forever? I agree that women have a ways to go, however, they are in a much better position than say just 20 years ago...Carly Fiorina, Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Martha Stewart, the Queen of England...would you like some more examples?

You're right, I cannot deny that prejudices exist...but...your quaint idea that gender roles are impossible to overcome is outdated.


It is your own predjudices that defy such a future. Your predjudice is against morality it against fairness. Why even have marriage in your world? What is the point? Do you know?

Clearly you do not realise that marriage is a personal commitment between individuals. Who are you, indeed who is anyone, to deign that two of the same sex cannot commit to each other? Your reasons for marriage is a shield against STDs and starting a baby factory. If these are the sole reasons you got for commiting to someone, I feel sympathy for you.

And, I am a proud supporter of fairness. I do not however support the "fairness" being ruled by christianity, islam or any of these illogical fads.

Standards of humanism. Certainly not anything sanctioned by christianity's poor excuse of elitist drone rules.

What standards are those?


You et al are attempting to establish a cookie cutter society based on christian rules. This is not acceptable.

Actually Enterprise you said that not I. My post was about Israel. A nation of people you accepted God's rule.




Rubbish. Foisting your so called morals on others is a sign of dictatorship.

It's not rubbish it's reality. Moral decay and at the same time people leaving religion, morals, and ethics behind.




Conveniently, the best witness to this so called testimony is long dead according to your own lone book of testimony.

Further you hold this tome as truth. It is therefore intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick it. David existed according to your bible, as did Jonathan. I'm not the one who

You're not making an sense that I can understand here can you repeat this.



Well, so far it has had no effect on me. My doctor has also given me a consistent bill of health on my regular physicals. I assure you that you are incorrect and out of line.

HAAAA!!!

I'm not I have two nurses in the family and almost all the older women in the family have assisted in nursing homes...and I live in the worlds largest trauma city. This must be a really hard fact for you to swallow. No pun intended. I would say wait for...while you're young and fresh your muscle don't break down as easy but the future will have a different story...muscles atrophy and I assure you what you will go through will not be normal or dignified.



Not solely. Careless medical practice and shared drug use also assist the spred of these same diseases.

You're not disagreeing so you must be agreeing so that's at least on for SaQ



Condoms do not entirely prevent the spread of AIDS. They help greatly however. However, you did not address my rebuttal. Marriage is nowhere near as useful as a condom in preventing the spread of STDs. Your original argument is a campaign of fear.

So you're saying that two people that never have sex with anyone else are still endager of sexualy transmitted diease? What does the virus do? Infection by hormones?



Very good. So maybe you can understand that you cannot assume anything that you've never experienced.

sure I can assumptions are easy.




I never said it. You have. You attributed tangible collateral as the reason for a relationship. Not love...as your own bible maintains. You attempt to put forward that reproduction is humanity's raison d'etre...and this saddens me. If we're here simply to create more humans, we're nothing more than a virus.

I don'tt believe I've ever read anywhere in the bible that says you should get marrried for loves sake. And if that saddens you then that's too bad. Children are a remarkable experience you'll miss out on...They are not viruses and neither are you.



You are not dealing with reality then. You are postulating a utopia fuelled by christian rules. These rules cannot be assumed to be applicable to every one of the near seven billion humans on the planet. This is sanctimonious and frankly impractical.

Obviously I'm refering to the future, one that is outlined by the bible. It is the hope I have. I relate it as a reality because to me it's onlly a matter of time.

You believe in a Star Trek Future. I don't think we'll ever get there. I think we're racing toward self destruct at light speeds. There no hope left in this world that I can see.




Ah, but I have shown exceptions. You have given an absolute that "man" is the protector and "woman" is the charge. This is chauvinist crap of centuries old.


you're Right...we shouldn't expect a husband to protect his wife...that very chauvinist. Women should protect themselves or get themselve karate lessons....



Why would you need to see a female US President to accept that gender roles are changing forever? I agree that women have a ways to go, however, they are in a much better position than say just 20 years ago...Carly Fiorina, Hilary Clinton, Oprah, Martha Stewart, the Queen of England...would you like some more examples?

Sure why not maybe if you present those examples to the Biilions of women world wild that aren't getting paid equally are seen as equals they'll thank you follow your lead.

You're right, I cannot deny that prejudices exist...but...your quaint idea that gender roles are impossible to overcome is outdated.

I never said that but you did.
I believe women are equal to men in intellect and can accomplish anything they want. I aslo recognize that God has placed an organized system in place. And it didn't refer to all women accross the world only women that chose to follow God.



Clearly you do not realise that marriage is a personal commitment between individuals. Who are you, indeed who is anyone, to deign that two of the same sex cannot commit to each other? Your reasons for marriage is a shield against STDs and starting a baby factory. If these are the sole reasons you got for commiting to someone, I feel sympathy for you.

Marriage has always been righteously religiously affliated with God.
Now...if you want to be married you should be man and women according to thousands of years of prescendent.

Nothing prevents to men or to women from making a commitment to each. it happens every day sometimes verbal sometimes simply understood between friends. But there not marrages. They bond. You can get married to another man and pretend that this is a marriage but it's not. Redefining it for your own purposes may suit you but it's still not a marriage.

That's why Gay marriage doesn't offend me at all . The bible says that a third cord is required for marriage and that is God's blessing which came from his direction to become fruitfull and fill thee Earth. I thank you for your sympath but since it's not sanctioned by God it simple isn't a marraiage, it's a bonding.

And, I am a proud supporter of fairness. I do not however support the "fairness" being ruled by christianity, islam or any of these illogical fads.


No one says you have to. But even Star Trek shows reverence not only to the laws of lands they visit but to the beliefs of the people. They don't go out of they're way to label people as "illogical fads", "out dated", "quaint." and "chuavanist"

You don't say these things because you're "fair" you say them because you've nothing but contempt for the culture, my culture. You don't seek any understand you dictate what I believe and get it horribly wrong, which is further insulting. Apparently insulting has become that which proud supporters of fairness do to show their objectivity ...or fairness.

What standards are those?

Those that are less discriminatory and less elitist than the bible's.


Actually Enterprise you said that not I. My post was about Israel. A nation of people you accepted God's rule.

Then this was irrelevant.



It's not rubbish it's reality. Moral decay and at the same time people leaving religion, morals, and ethics behind.

Actually you're trying to link an effect to a cause where there are none. There may be a parallel move, but there is no way you can prove that the eschewing of religion is directly responsible for moral decline.

A side note: I actually suspect that the opposite is true...the overlordship that religion inflicted on the planet is causing a natural rebellious stage.



You're not making an sense that I can understand here can you repeat this.


Sorry I notice that part of my reply was chopped off. What I was saying Saquist, is that

1. You are putting all your faith in testimony...a testimony that you have no way of knowing to be accurate or even feasible, since anyone who can verify it one way or the other have been dead for centuries.

2. You are saying that this book of testimony does not include relationships of the same sex. David and Jonathan was an example of the complete opposite.


HAAAA!!!

I'm not I have two nurses in the family and almost all the older women in the family have assisted in nursing homes...and I live in the worlds largest trauma city. This must be a really hard fact for you to swallow. No pun intended. I would say wait for...while you're young and fresh your muscle don't break down as easy but the future will have a different story...muscles atrophy and I assure you what you will go through will not be normal or dignified.


Saquist...nursing homes house people who are old and feeble. Muscles atrophy in any event. It's called old age.

FURTHER Saquist, your two nurses and assorted relatives, I'm certain have not sought to give you any usable statistics of the long term effects of anal sex. You are merely trying to create a causal link that is not there, and lend credence to it by citing relation to nurses of unspecified specialities.

There are no proven long term muscular effects. I won't go into the gross details as to why, but I will not suffer anything. That should be the punto finale on that, since it's off topic anyway.



You're not disagreeing so you must be agreeing so that's at least on for SaQ


This is exactly the problem. You theists only see in black and white.




So you're saying that two people that never have sex with anyone else are still endager of sexualy transmitted diease? What does the virus do? Infection by hormones?

What I'm saying is that marriage will never be a foolproof method of ensuring that two people remain faithful to each other sexually. Never.


sure I can assumptions are easy.

Once you understand...



I don'tt believe I've ever read anywhere in the bible that says you should get marrried for loves sake. And if that saddens you then that's too bad. Children are a remarkable experience you'll miss out on...They are not viruses and neither are you.

Really? Wow...so your god just wants us to be viruses. Lovely. We're just here to make more humans. For what? To continually stroke his vast ego?

I'm sorry, but in that case Saquist I consider myself vastly superior morally to the bible, and any character contained therein (I always have in any event, I've just been justified more). I can encompass in my mind that two people will want to commit to each other solely because they love each other...and expect no collateral or product, merely each others presence.

Children btw are lovely...however, I don't want any of my own. It's selfish to create children for the sake of creating them if you aren't ready or willing to take the responsibility.


Obviously I'm refering to the future, one that is outlined by the bible. It is the hope I have. I relate it as a reality because to me it's onlly a matter of time.


You believe in a Star Trek Future. I don't think we'll ever get there. I think we're racing toward self destruct at light speeds. There no hope left in this world that I can see.

You do realise that a "Star Trek" future is devoid of religions for humans right? You do realise that the Bajorans have countless problems stemming from their deeply religious roots right? And that Major Kira had a serious problem finding out her "gods" were scannable aliens right?

At any rate, I think our future will be fine, unfortunately only after religion is eradicated. I say unfortunately because it'll either take a painfully long time, or it'll be a ridiculously violent extraction.



you're Right...we shouldn't expect a husband to protect his wife...that very chauvinist. Women should protect themselves or get themselve karate lessons....

Saquist, you're being unnecessarily collimated. I'm telling you that your absolute definition is centuries old. Personally, if a friend is in danger I'd do what I can to protect him or her. You are portraying an image to your reader of the manly man and the cowering wife.

And actually women should be capable of protecting themselves! It's the nature of the world today. Please recall that protection does not always have to be offensive. There are defensive methods as well.



Sure why not maybe if you present those examples to the Biilions of women world wild that aren't getting paid equally are seen as equals they'll thank you follow your lead.

Sorry, but maybe you live in a different environment than I do. I actually work in a large insurance company with many more women than men...and quite a number of the highest positions are occupied by women (invariably so). Who are very highly paid too.

Of course Saquist, I said that discrimination does indeed exist, however, your absolute is not valid.


I never said that but you did.
I believe women are equal to men in intellect and can accomplish anything they want. I aslo recognize that God has placed an organized system in place. And it didn't refer to all women accross the world only women that chose to follow God.

God is a male chauvinist. Invented by male chauvinists.


Marriage has always been righteously religiously affliated with God.
Now...if you want to be married you should be man and women according to thousands of years of prescendent.

Why? Because it's how it's done?


Nothing prevents to men or to women from making a commitment to each. it happens every day sometimes verbal sometimes simply understood between friends. But there not marrages. They bond. You can get married to another man and pretend that this is a marriage but it's not. Redefining it for your own purposes may suit you but it's still not a marriage.

Saquist, I'm sorry, but a rose by any other name...You conservatives don't seem to realise that civil unions is merely a renaming of marriage, which is a human invention. The renaming was just to keep you quiet.


That's why Gay marriage doesn't offend me at all . The bible says that a third cord is required for marriage and that is God's blessing which came from his direction to become fruitfull and fill thee Earth. I thank you for your sympath but since it's not sanctioned by God it simple isn't a marraiage, it's a bonding.

Right...the simple problem with this is that you believe that a god exists for such a sanctioning. I'm reasonably certain that there is no omnipotent being who is concerned with the petty mewlings of two humans in heat.


No one says you have to. But even Star Trek shows reverence not only to the laws of lands they visit but to the beliefs of the people. They don't go out of they're way to label people as "illogical fads", "out dated", "quaint." and "chuavanist"

This is the Prime Directive, and it applies to races outside the bounds of human territory...on a TV show. We here in Reality-Land of humans however are unlimited by the power of free speech. I can definitely tell you my opinion of your beliefs.


You don't say these things because you're "fair" you say them because you've nothing but contempt for the culture, my culture. You don't seek any understand you dictate what I believe and get it horribly wrong, which is further insulting. Apparently insulting has become that which proud supporters of fairness do to show their objectivity ...or fairness.

Oh I understand religion perfectly. I understand it's organised discrimination and its intent to cookie cut the world's population in its own likeness. And this isn't limited to christianity alone.

Religions are the organizations that aren't fair. Calling uncle like you have and branding me with "contempt for your culture" does not mitigate the overpowering politicking negatives associated with the Vatican and other religious powers on the earth.

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

Bingo. And people wonder why I don't follow Christianity. LoL. :D

Dont take these thing too literally, you have to remember small\smaller groups were killed, slaughtered, annihilated, ridiculed, destroyed. The idea behind stuff like that was to reproduce to survive, they are telling you we need bodies to protect ourselves from those who want to rob and kill us etc.:)

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

In the NT, Jesus rejects that perspective.

well, if I'm Jewish the NT means diddly to me.

In the NT, Jesus rejects that perspective.

It appears to be irrelevant to many christians in any event.

Those that are less discriminatory and less elitist than the bible's.

Like what...



Then this was irrelevant.
actually it wasn't...you just took it out of context.




Actually you're trying to link an effect to a cause where there are none. There may be a parallel move, but there is no way you can prove that the eschewing of religion is directly responsible for moral decline.

Sure I can and they're are many examples...thousands of examples. The only thing I absolutely can not prove is that people without religion are always immoral because it's an absolute that's not true. But the decline of religion and practicing good morals are linked since most religions practice good morals or as you call ..."elitist" practices.

A side note: I actually suspect that the opposite is true...the overlordship that religion inflicted on the planet is causing a natural rebellious stage.

What I suspect is that the heavy hand of religious fanatics has been slipping in Western and western European lands. It's not the opposite it's a direct result, cause and effect.




Sorry I notice that part of my reply was chopped off. What I was saying Saquist, is that

1. You are putting all your faith in testimony...a testimony that you have no way of knowing to be accurate or even feasible, since anyone who can verify it one way or the other have been dead for centuries.

Okay, you can't prove the state that "I'm putting all my faith in testimony.
You also can't prove that I haven't proven them to be accurate or feasible. I have to flag those as claims.

I can only concure with you latter statement that yes indeed these people have been dead for centuries.

2. You are saying that this book of testimony does not include relationships of the same sex. David and Jonathan was an example of the complete opposite.

What's your point...they didn't get married and they didn't have a sexual relationship.



Saquist...nursing homes house people who are old and feeble. Muscles atrophy in any event. It's called old age.

Then you really do know what you're looking forward to.

FURTHER Saquist, your two nurses and assorted relatives, I'm certain have not sought to give you any usable statistics of the long term effects of anal sex. You are merely trying to create a causal link that is not there, and lend credence to it by citing relation to nurses of unspecified specialities.

Ohhhh...a casual link... He just happens to be homosexual and has dialated rectum that could pass a grape fruit? Yeah...right. Hang on to that...

There are no proven long term muscular effects. I won't go into the gross details as to why, but I will not suffer anything. That should be the punto finale on that, since it's off topic anyway.

You took us there...and you can't rule out that it will happen to you. You can ignore it....but denial is just denial. I should find you some pictures.




This is exactly the problem. You theists only see in black and white.

I'm not a theist.





What I'm saying is that marriage will never be a foolproof method of ensuring that two people remain faithful to each other sexually. Never.

This is a foregone conclusion. whose speaking in absolutes now?



Really? Wow...so your god just wants us to be viruses. Lovely. We're just here to make more humans. For what? To continually stroke his vast ego?

I didn't say that, you did. If you want to believe your own exageration then who am I to stand in the way?

I'm sorry, but in that case Saquist I consider myself vastly superior morally to the bible, and any character contained therein (I always have in any event, I've just been justified more). I can encompass in my mind that two people will want to commit to each other solely because they love each other...and expect no collateral or product, merely each others presence.

That's a laudable perspective.

Children btw are lovely...however, I don't want any of my own. It's selfish to create children for the sake of creating them if you aren't ready or willing to take the responsibility.

I concur. As well as the Bible.


You do realise that a "Star Trek" future is devoid of religions for humans right? You do realise that the Bajorans have countless problems stemming from their deeply religious roots right? And that Major Kira had a serious problem finding out her "gods" were scannable aliens right?

Negative:
Sisko's Father is Christian religion still exist. Perhaps this is what you want so badly...but I don't think the eradication of people who have ideology toward religion is a very high point of morality. I actually think it's quite low.

At any rate, I think our future will be fine, unfortunately only after religion is eradicated. I say unfortunately because it'll either take a painfully long time, or it'll be a ridiculously violent extraction.

Hitler....




Saquist, you're being unnecessarily collimated. I'm telling you that your absolute definition is centuries old. Personally, if a friend is in danger I'd do what I can to protect him or her. You are portraying an image to your reader of the manly man and the cowering wife.

No that's you...I never said that.
I said that it's the job of man in Christian culture to protect his family. You added cowering and chauvanist...and womenly charges...

And actually women should be capable of protecting themselves! It's the nature of the world today. Please recall that protection does not always have to be offensive. There are defensive methods as well.

what's your point?




Sorry, but maybe you live in a different environment than I do. I actually work in a large insurance company with many more women than men...and quite a number of the highest positions are occupied by women (invariably so). Who are very highly paid too.

Yes I was speaking of a world wide perspective not a perspective that includes observer bias. Thus my statement was of women every where. It's wonderful those women you work with have found equality to their male counter parts.

Of course Saquist, I said that discrimination does indeed exist, however, your absolute is not valid.

I gave no absolute, you did. I stated a fact and facts are always valid.



God is a male chauvinist. Invented by male chauvinists.
I'm sure you think so.



Why? Because it's how it's done?
Because marriage really belongs (in my opinion to people with religion. As we talk about this subject hundreds of people are getting a divorce. and hundreds of people are living with each other with out marriage and have given a commitment to each other...but their still not married. Just so happens marriage is becoming a thing of the past...no one wants it but Gay people...because they can't get it...



Saquist, I'm sorry, but a rose by any other name...You conservatives don't seem to realise that civil unions is merely a renaming of marriage, which is a human invention. The renaming was just to keep you quiet.

That's how I know that your perspective is lacking. Marriages are not the same as civil unions. Civil unions are granted by the state.


Right...the simple problem with this is that you believe that a god exists for such a sanctioning. I'm reasonably certain that there is no omnipotent being who is concerned with the petty mewlings of two humans in heat.

I know you to be wrong not just "reasonably certain."


This is the Prime Directive, and it applies to races outside the bounds of human territory...on a TV show. We here in Reality-Land of humans however are unlimited by the power of free speech. I can definitely tell you my opinion of your beliefs.

No...It's called diplomacy, that which you lack in any discernalbe amounts. It's a filter between the brain and mouth that tends to preserve relations instead of burn them.



Oh I understand religion perfectly. I understand it's organised discrimination and its intent to cookie cut the world's population in its own likeness. And this isn't limited to christianity alone.

I would point out ....You're the only one discriminating against organized people and looking forward to the eradication of the religious.

Religions are the organizations that aren't fair. Calling uncle like you have and branding me with "contempt for your culture" does not mitigate the overpowering politicking negatives associated with the Vatican and other religious powers on the earth.


I'm not associated with the Vatican and your all encompassing swath of discrimination against religions really speaks for it'self. Are you sure you're not an elitist? You're discriminating on the basis of an ideology...plotting against a large amount of people on the basis of their ideology and defining individuals based on sterotypes you've created. You're unconcerned with other perspectives and you're seeking exhalt your own political views over a people by force.

I don't ...think you're a very good person. You don't seem very moral...diplomatic, reasonable, or honest to me. I think you don't allow room for anyone else's perspective but your own. That's makes for a very scary person.

Why are you so angry at the world?

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

No their not...God did not institute the New Law Covenant exemplifing love for your neighbor AND your enemy for them to go out into world passing judgement on the nations. Iran is executing it's Law's as it's country has been established. This has nothing to do with God. If God wanted to pass judgement on these people he would do so but that is not the arranagement he set in place to allow each nation to decide for it's self it's governement..

It's called the appointed times of the nations in the Bible. A time of non interference.

The vast majority of homosexuals are genetically predisposed to be that way.

As far as I'm aware, geneticists haven''t discovered a "gay gene" or will you tell us otherwise? If you believe that it is ok, but don't state it like it is fact if it isn't yet proved.

Ohhhh...a casual link... He just happens to be homosexual and has dialated rectum that could pass a grape fruit? Yeah...right. Hang on to that...


This is SO funny lol

- One guy.
- Who is a magical "he" that appeared in your story suddenly.
- Who might have been engaging in other unmentionable practices.
- Who you haven't actually said was in the nursing home, being taken care of by a relative who TOLD you about a patient's condition, contrary to confidentiality policies.


You took us there...and you can't rule out that it will happen to you. You can ignore it....but denial is just denial. I should find you some pictures.


I can use google just as well as you can.




I'm not a theist.

A christian is also a theist.



This is a foregone conclusion. whose speaking in absolutes now?

Well, admittedly you caught me with that one...however your absolute that marriage is a protector against infidelity is much more incredulous.



I didn't say that, you did. If you want to believe your own exageration then who am I to stand in the way?

No, what you did say is that the reason for marriage is not love according to the omission in the bible. That makes us little more than viruses in my opinion.


That's a laudable perspective.

Thank you. I wish you remembered that before you attempted to demonize me later on in your response.


Negative:
Sisko's Father is Christian religion still exist. Perhaps this is what you want so badly...but I don't think the eradication of people who have ideology toward religion is a very high point of morality. I actually think it's quite low.


Incorrect. Nowhere in any episode was there any mention of that. And even if i missed it...he's one old coot in a population of nine billion. They only respect other cultures' religion as a necessary developmental stage.


Hitler....

A lineage of Popes.


No that's you...I never said that.
I said that it's the job of man in Christian culture to protect his family. You added cowering and chauvanist...and womenly charges...


True...but that's the image you portrayed what with the fine vase and all.


Yes I was speaking of a world wide perspective not a perspective that includes observer bias. Thus my statement was of women every where. It's wonderful those women you work with have found equality to their male counter parts.

Let me cut out a lot of this argument, we both agree that women are still discriminated against, but witness a different degree. Nuff said.



I'm sure you think so.

I'm pretty sure it's true.


Because marriage really belongs (in my opinion to people with religion. As we talk about this subject hundreds of people are getting a divorce. and hundreds of people are living with each other with out marriage and have given a commitment to each other...but their still not married. Just so happens marriage is becoming a thing of the past...no one wants it but Gay people...because they can't get it...


This is the most high-handed thing I ever heard. The issue with gay marriage is about having the same choices as the rest of citizens. Why should gay people be at a disadvantage because of a genetic difference?

Further, and quite honestly, I don't want to be married either lol. But I agree with the fact that all humans should be given the same freedom of choice.


That's how I know that your perspective is lacking. Marriages are not the same as civil unions. Civil unions are granted by the state.

And you think a marriage can't be anulled by the state? They're human inventions Saquist. The romanticism and extra layer in marriage is added by unnecessary human interference.


I know you to be wrong not just "reasonably certain."

Unluckily, you cannot know this logically.


No...It's called diplomacy, that which you lack in any discernalbe amounts. It's a filter between the brain and mouth that tends to preserve relations instead of burn them.

I'm not a diplomat. And I was a little better at handling TW than you were if I recall...


I would point out ....You're the only one discriminating against organized people and looking forward to the eradication of the religious.

No dear, they're free to worship whatever fantasy they like. My problem is when their lifestyle infringes on mine.


I'm not associated with the Vatican and your all encompassing swath of discrimination against religions really speaks for it'self. Are you sure you're not an elitist? You're discriminating on the basis of an ideology...plotting against a large amount of people on the basis of their ideology and defining individuals based on sterotypes you've created. You're unconcerned with other perspectives and you're seeking exhalt your own political views over a people by force.

I don't ...think you're a very good person. You don't seem very moral...diplomatic, reasonable, or honest to me. I think you don't allow room for anyone else's perspective but your own. That's makes for a very scary person.

Why are you so angry at the world?

Demonizing me I see...attributing the very qualities I see in organized religion to me. Tsk, Saquist I expected better...

This is SO funny lol

- One guy.
- Who is a magical "he" that appeared in your story suddenly.
- Who might have been engaging in other unmentionable practices.
- Who you haven't actually said was in the nursing home, being taken care of by a relative who TOLD you about a patient's condition, contrary to confidentiality policies.

Yes SUDDENLY.....It CAME OUT OF NOWHERE....
Auntie will tell you it's not the first and it won't be the last.



I can use google just as well as you can.

then do so...





A christian is also a theist.
If you say so...I can't take you as an autority though.




Well, admittedly you caught me with that one...however your absolute that marriage is a protector against infidelity is much more incredulous.

I stated a purpose you ...took it as an absolute.
It's not the same.




No, what you did say is that the reason for marriage is not love according to the omission in the bible. That makes us little more than viruses in my opinion.
Yes that certainly is your slant on it alright.

I said "I'm not aware of love being spoken of as the purpose of marriage in the bible" Which is far different from saying ..."The bible says our alonely purpose is breed like rabbits." I stated an ommition...you stated another mis context.



Thank you. I wish you remembered that before you attempted to demonize me later on in your response.

I'm nothing if not objective. I've made it my purpose in life..(along with other things)



Incorrect. Nowhere in any episode was there any mention of that. And even if i missed it...he's one old coot in a population of nine billion. They only respect other cultures' religion as a necessary developmental stage.

Paradise Lost I believe...Sisko said his father quotes the bible and gives the quote...but there are at least three episodes Joseph showed up in...Remeber Sisko is found of quoting.


A lineage of Popes.
and Stalin...



True...but that's the image you portrayed what with the fine vase and all.
My words are merely words and can imply only what they mean.



Let me cut out a lot of this argument, we both agree that women are still discriminated against, but witness a different degree. Nuff said.

I concur.




I'm pretty sure it's true.
Not very absolute of you...



This is the most high-handed thing I ever heard. The issue with gay marriage is about having the same choices as the rest of citizens. Why should gay people be at a disadvantage because of a genetic difference?

This is culture Enterprise you yourself said "There's no difference between marriage and civil unions" you said it was all in our minds." If that's true go get a civil union...It won't bother me I promise and solomonly swear.

Further, and quite honestly, I don't want to be married either lol. But I agree with the fact that all humans should be given the same freedom of choice.

Gender differences are not always given the same choices. Two men are not the same as two women....Not only is that an obvious statement it will always be true...There are times to equal and other times we must recognize the obvious difference between man and woman. A man can never take the place of a woman...that will also forever be true. He'll never give birth, he'll never suckle young...(not legally anyway) He'll never never have a period. Marriage is man and woman. No one is saying you can't be together (except Iran) they just don't want to grant marriage to something that can never be marriage. Don't you understand what marriage is? It's not a prize to be one...it's state of being one and being completed a bond that once God brings together can never be yoked appart.

Can't you be offensive to God without using one of his most sacred gifts to mankind? This not a civil rights issue. It is culture and you're seeking to redine your culture by redfining ours in the most blasphemous way possible...and you don't care but you want Christians to give up...up might as well be burning a cross on the front lawn....

To take somthing you hold sacred (if there is anything Gays hold sacred) and wave it around like a cheap toy and then toss it into a Dogs mouth for him to chew on. Don't you see the more an issue you make it the more Christians stand against it...

You insist on coming to church...and people start leaving them in record numbers...It's not just Homosexuals in a "sacred" place if you can call a church sacred anymore. They sense the hypocracy...false hoods and lies...while their churches are becoming a political domain Gays and Abortion are spoken of acceptingly in church walls...obvious sins aren't sins anymore...

Morals are changing...

God's purposes are supposed to be forever...God dosen't change. he's the same. You can't appreciate Enterprise as a Gay evolutionist but its how he works Good never accepts evil...


And you think a marriage can't be anulled by the state? They're human inventions Saquist. The romanticism and extra layer in marriage is added by unnecessary human interference.

Huh?



Unluckily, you cannot know this logically.
You can't logicaly know that I don't know.



I'm not a diplomat. And I was a little better at handling TW than you were if I recall...

hmmm...TW...(certainly the best of times)
Oh I so enjoyed wailing on him....Yeah I was through with diplomacy and switched over to more...sinister manipulative tactics.



No dear, they're free to worship whatever fantasy they like. My problem is when their lifestyle infringes on mine.

You're hot on me aren't you?:bugeye:



Demonizing me I see...attributing the very qualities I see in organized religion to me. Tsk, Saquist I expected better...

Mirrors only reflect images.
Eradicate,
Fantasy... you should expect no better than this...

Despite our disagreements and your hatred of me and everything I stand for I think you're better than this angry Gay man. It's so cliche...
You're obviously more than that but during this entire "DISCUSSION" you've seeked to define yourself by insulting me personally.(not that I really care) But Isn't this a bully? Isn't it clear by now Enterprise D you're not going to change my mind by hitting me below the belt.

As far as I'm aware, geneticists haven''t discovered a "gay gene" or will you tell us otherwise? If you believe that it is ok, but don't state it like it is fact if it isn't yet proved.

Yes, that's right.No definite proof yet, and I did not state it was the "sole" factor in determining if someone will be gay or mention a "gay gene".

The evidence so far by researchers shows there is strong evidence that suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate, and that body of evidence increases all the time.Unless I'm wrong genetics are tied to biological processes, correct?


Even older studies indicate such.
Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science, Vol 253, No 5023 (August 30, 1991), pp 1034-1037, and Dean Hamer et al, Science, Vol 261 (1993), pp 321-327 have come to conclusions that clearly show a biological link in the sexual orientation of people.

An excerpt from this source:

"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Most gay people just did not wake up one day and decide to become gay and if they were open to such behaviour there would have to be something within them other than just a "learned behaviour" that would account for this.

I'm not gay but I have worked at places ,lived in cities like Toronto with a large gay population and after knowing many gay people I believe most of them could no more be heterosexual than I could just decide to think of a man as anything other than a buddy or comrade.
Most of them told me they have had those feelings for the same sex even when very young, and in the case of my cousin who was brought up in very heterosexual enviroment,it definetely was not a "learned behaviour".

As far as stating something as fact....I see people on this forum do it all the time. They state something as fact as the body of evidence currently indicates.

God's purposes are supposed to be forever...God dosen't change. he's the same. You can't appreciate Enterprise as a Gay evolutionist but its how he works Good never accepts evil...


The biblical God Yahweh did definetely change as was demonstrated in Gods' nature in the NT conflicting with his nature in the OT.
How many people were ordered stoned to death in the NT versus the Old..hmm?

The biblical God Yahweh did definetely change as was demonstrated in Gods' nature in the NT conflicting with his nature in the OT.
How many people were ordered stoned to death in the NT versus the Old..hmm?

This is somewhat confusing of you to say.
In the one hand God did not order anyone stoned to death. The law existed for the government as a capital punishment for turning against God and breaking the Oath the Israelites had with Jehovah (Yah weh, God) That is Oath is called the Old Covenant to God. These people had promised to right by God.

But we know they would constantly engage in practices in idol worship and go to false God by marrying outside the nation to women and men that brought their false religion with them. This was back and forth throughout Israels history.

But the New Covanant marks a change...but not in God himself but his his change in plan since the Jewish people could not remain faithfull and ultimately rejected his Savior being so stuck in their ways and failing to follow God's example they were cut off.

The New Covenant recognizes that God's people wouldn't be limited to a natioin but would be an international group. This was supposed to be Isreal's purpose to take the truth of God to the entire world but they broke their Oath and finally broke all loyalty to God be putting to death his Son. Those that would follow would have no use of any one nation.

so if they are hanging gay men and stoning adulterers in Iran, aren't they just doing God's work? A Christain God's work at that.

No. They are selectively deciding to follow the laws that where deemed important in the Quran and carrying out punishments that the Quran states must be done in cases where those laws are broken.

For Christians carrying out punishment has been taken out of our hands by the teachings of the Messiah Jesus. But it is still sin to engage in adultery and sodomy. adultery and sodomy are still sin but the consequences of sin are no longer immediate in relation to the sentence for those sins. Sinners have their entire lives (minus and instant) to repent of their sins and accept the Messiah Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

the consequences of sin are no longer immediate in relation to the sentence for those sins

Under the Old Covenant, how often do you think consequence in relation to the sentencing was immediate for any infraction of God's Law--especially when you consider the human heart's inability to keep the Law? For example, check out Deut. 13: 6-11...how often do you think that was obeyed? Consider Joseph's desire to put Mary away privately...I use that not as an example of lawbreaking per se, neither he nor mary were culpable... but, to show the tendancy/proclivity of the human heart to act in accordance with what it deems the greater good. Consider also how easily most turned away from Jesus upon being confronted with His hard sayings recorded in John 6...Given this, I suspect it was the case that there were very few consequences/sentences actually carried out in accordance with the dictates of the Law.

Thankfully, and in accordance with God's Grace, they had the sacrificial system in place to cover both sins of comission AND omission until Christ's sacrifice when all sin of both Jew and Gentile was done away with. Unfortunately, then as now many either neglect the sacrifice altogether or simply go through the motions with no understanding/faith.

Under the Old Covenant, how often do you think consequence in relation to the sentencing was immediate for any infraction of God's Law--especially when you consider the human heart's inability to keep the Law? For example, check out Deut. 13: 6-11...how often do you think that was obeyed? Consider Joseph's desire to put Mary away privately...I use that not as an example of lawbreaking per se, neither he nor mary were culpable... but, to show the tendancy/proclivity of the human heart to act in accordance with what it deems the greater good. Consider also how easily most turned away from Jesus upon being confronted with His hard sayings recorded in John 6...Given this, I suspect it was the case that there were very few consequences/sentences actually carried out in accordance with the dictates of the Law.

Thankfully, and in accordance with God's Grace, they had the sacrificial system in place to cover both sins of comission AND omission until Christ's sacrifice when all sin of both Jew and Gentile was done away with. Unfortunately, then as now many either neglect the sacrifice altogether or simply go through the motions with no understanding/faith.

Deut. 13: 6-11
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.



Wether or not the Jews kept the law and carried out the punishment or failed to keep the law because of favouritism or looking the other way because of family ties has nothing to do with this issue at all.

True Law adherent Jews of the time would have carried out the call of God in this passage and stoned the transgressor.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

True Law adherent Jews of the time would have carried out the call of God in this passage and stoned the transgressor.


Of course they would have...however, my question to you was: "Under the Old Covenant, how often do you think consequence in relation to the sentencing was immediate for any infraction of God's Law"...?

No. They are selectively deciding to follow the laws that where deemed important in the Quran and carrying out punishments that the Quran states must be done in cases where those laws are broken.

For Christians carrying out punishment has been taken out of our hands by the teachings of the Messiah Jesus. But it is still sin to engage in adultery and sodomy. adultery and sodomy are still sin but the consequences of sin are no longer immediate in relation to the sentence for those sins. Sinners have their entire lives (minus and instant) to repent of their sins and accept the Messiah Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Very well said.
Jesus reiterated what Christians were to follow.

Love God
Love your neighbor
Have love among one another.

And after that he said do not judge less you be judged as well. So Christians were to have no governing power. Judgement in the bible means power over life and death, to grant or to take it away. This statement solidified that Christians would be peaceable among the nation and would have no governing over others and no political affliations at all.

Very well said.
Jesus reiterated what Christians were to follow.

Love God
Love your neighbor
Have love among one another.

And after that he said do not judge less you be judged as well. So Christians were to have no governing power. Judgement in the bible means power over life and death, to grant or to take it away. This statement solidified that Christians would be peaceable among the nation and would have no governing over others and no political affliations at all.

Yes Christians should have no part in governing this world. Christians should always act as an outside force giving the word of God to individuals in power. Not trying to take power to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth.

Jesus did that in the hearts of Believers and He will do that in physical reality when He returns to earth in body.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days