Fellow "christians", why do you think it is better to kill people than be gay?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by akushla99
 


I'm pretty sure murder is illegal everywhere. The Hebrew word used for "kill" in that commandment deals with murder. All murder is killing, however not all killing is murder. Examples would be war, death penalties, and self defense.

edit on 8-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Split hairs much?
Killing with intent - murder...

War - killing with intent...by proxy, sanctioned by popular vote...
Death penalty - killing with intent...by proxy, sanctioned by popular vote...
I will vouchsafe self defense...this is a particularly difficult situation to navigate.

Designing instances where killing is not murder (or vice versa) is an intellectual cop-out...love one another as I have loved you...where does this fit in? Follow thou shalt not kill and you fulfill the other, and vice versa...
A99

A99
edit on 8-2-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Quote
'I'm pretty sure murder is illegal everywhere'

This may be so, but you have outlined instances where it is not illegal, but sanctioned?!

A99



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Quote
'I'm pretty sure murder is illegal everywhere'

This may be so, but you have outlined instances where it is not illegal, but sanctioned?!

A99


The Bible says there is a time for war, and prescribes the death penalty for certain acts and a trial. So there is a distinction between killing and murder of an innocent person.

Btw, war is self-defense, you're trying to kill the enemy before they kill you first. It would however fall under murder if a person in war killed a surrendered or retreating enemy or an unarmed prisoner of war.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Quote
'I'm pretty sure murder is illegal everywhere'

This may be so, but you have outlined instances where it is not illegal, but sanctioned?!

A99


No, re-read what I said. I outlined examples of killing that isn't murder. Manslaughter would be another example of a killing that would not be murder. As stated previously all murders are killings, not all killings are murder.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas


Friendly precaution, delete your youtube history or someone's going to think you like watching homosexual animals getting it on


Ask God about His stance on homosexuality.


vethumanbeing
You have the cell phone number to GOD and Its rascally whereabouts? Friendly precaution I'd like a front row seat watching you throw stones at yourself and trying/attempting to make yourself miss.

I WILL ASK. God, what is your stance on homosexuality? (Within a confessional) Why within the Church hidden well my Son/daughter, Peter! is that YOU??



DelayedChristmas
Dude, I still don't understand what you are saying. Are you making fun of me because you assume something I am not. Are you making fun of me because I am advising Maes2 to not consort the Bible and the Judaic Laws for God's stance on homosexuality and ask God personally?

If I am "throwing stones," I would like to know what stones I am throwing in your eyes.
My opinion on it is that people will always twist scripture to justify what they are doing and to condemn whatever they disagree with. They used scripture to support the owning of slaves. They used scripture to support the Salem witch trials. They used scripture to support the crusades in the middle ages where countless people were murdered. Hitler used it, the KKK uses it, now the homophobes use it.


You well know where (at your sanctimonious feet) the stones are in process becoming; describing your ideas, flying like boomerangs at your head. What is this. You are advising Maes2 to not read the Bible and or Judaic Laws for God's stance on homosexuality and ask God personally. You Said IT. If you talk to God and advise others to do so I WANT THE NUMBER AS WELL.


DelayedChristmas[i/]
This doesn't mean scripture is evil, it doesn't mean Christianity (what it SHOULD be) is evil. It means people have bastardized it, they have twisted it, they have warped it. They don't practice Christianity when they do this, they practice hatred and that's the complete opposite of what Christianity is supposed to be.


Oh I so agree. The entire point of Scripture was as a jump off point to enable humans to bastardize it, use it to twist and warp for their convienence. THIS was THE PLAN (what are they going to do). Use it for personal gain, hey, I just found a credit card in the street $25,000 credit limit in the name of: God. So you would take it to the nearest Home Depot and purchase the foundation materials needed to re-erect Solomons Temple in your backyard. I think you would have other personal selfish needs to be satisfied; which takes us right back to the 'throwing of the stones' analogy.


I never said this:

My opinion on it is that people will always twist scripture to justify what they are doing and to condemn whatever they disagree with. They used scripture to support the owning of slaves. They used scripture to support the Salem witch trials. They used scripture to support the crusades in the middle ages where countless people were murdered. Hitler used it, the KKK uses it, now the homophobes use it


This is by HopSkipJump, not me.

Secondly, am I wrong for emphasizing a believer to consort the Source instead of taking scripture as absolute truth? Scripture is good, but I'd rather talk to God about scripture and come to my own conclusions after close analysis of the material.

Honestly, I have no clue what you are trying to say.

BTWyou already have the number...
edit on 9-2-2013 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


....i dont understand the strange way of pitting 'gay ' and ' kill ' up to eachother ?

see OP,
the main disease in a human is not 'gay ' or ' staeling ' or whatever - but his or her Self
= Ego

and the Dark will do ánything, to keep that Ego ALIVE.
...since God is demanding that the Ego of a person will be broken down - right ?

so
by the one person, the Dark will use ' stealing ' to keep that Ego alive
by another person it will use Haughtyness
or overeating
or love for cars
...it really dont matter - it will search the weak spots of that persons Ego.

the fact
that ' killing ' is mentioned in the commandments, but not ' being gay '
és because killing inflicts directly upon a fellowman
....while ' being gay and holding on to it ' is merely sustaining the own persons Ego
[ which can turn out bad for that person himsélf, in the long run ]

hope i made some sense

...people who are Judging, usually talk from their own Ego
...their selfpride shines through their religious words

its the Ego that is the curse
- not so much those things that the Dark uses to keep that Ego alive

bless



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

You probably won't get any honest or intelligent responses from Christians in here.



Why would you say that..?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lone12

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

You probably won't get any honest or intelligent responses from Christians in here.



Why would you say that..?


Because that member is a bigot, that's common language from one.

edit on 9-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by akushla99
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Quote
'I'm pretty sure murder is illegal everywhere'

This may be so, but you have outlined instances where it is not illegal, but sanctioned?!

A99


No, re-read what I said. I outlined examples of killing that isn't murder. Manslaughter would be another example of a killing that would not be murder. As stated previously all murders are killings, not all killings are murder.


You can outline whatever you want...and quote whatever you think the bible says...but how does it match up against OTHER cosmologies?
Interpretations can split hairs as much as they like...this is a psychological cop-out...and the christian religion uses the reality of the ability to create thought-form scapegoats to assuage the responsibility of thier own actions (brought about through FREE WILL)...to install the internal logic of 'sin' (specifically, in the instance of the OP - killing and homosexuality)...to make everything shiny and new (in thier eyes)...claiming the EXCLUSIVE right...Internally consistent - but eminently obviously psychologically driven...the psychology drives the logic, and vice versa...

A99



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


It's not a cop out it's basic exegesis. The Hebrew word for "kill" in the Decalogue deals with murder.

Generally when that specific nuance of the Hebrew language is explained people comment:

"Ahh, I see. That makes sense."
edit on 9-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas



I never said this:

My opinion on it is that people will always twist scripture to justify what they are doing and to condemn whatever they disagree with. They used scripture to support the owning of slaves. They used scripture to support the Salem witch trials. They used scripture to support the crusades in the middle ages where countless people were murdered. Hitler used it, the KKK uses it, now the homophobes use it


This is by HopSkipJump, not me.

Secondly, am I wrong for emphasizing a believer to consort the Source instead of taking scripture as absolute truth? Scripture is good, but I'd rather talk to God about scripture and come to my own conclusions after close analysis of the material.

Honestly, I have no clue what you are trying to say.

BTWyou already have the number

Yes I do but I'm wearing the redial key pad button out. You are absolutely right about not taking scripture as an absolute; concidering God did not write it.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by akushla99
 


It's not a cop out it's basic exegesis. The Hebrew word for "kill" in the Decalogue deals with murder.

Generally when that specific nuance of the Hebrew language is explained people comment:

"Ahh, I see. That makes sense."
edit on 9-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Ah, I see...so it is as I have stated...an interpretation...

Murder, being killing with intent...Killing being murder by default, regardless of interpretation...I understand exactly what you are saying, but it is splitting hairs to assuage the most basic of precepts...thou shalt not claim the destiny of another souls FREE WILL (in vehicle), because it incurs consequences which (christians will claim is 'sin', but is in fact a procedural construct dealing with cause and effect, brought about through the gift of FREE WILL, conferred by a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God on children who should grow up and smell the cheese, eventually)...the fact that a monstrous 'industry' has grown around misinterpretation is unfortunate...but, fortunately we have all the time we need, or want, to open eyes and wake up one day, and get on with the real deal...

The 'contained' processes are self-evident across all cosmologies...it is only when they are specifically coralled to One cosmologie, that, the in-fighting happens...i.e. religions not only squabble about other religions...they squabble and splinter amongst themselves...that house is better given a wide berth...

In relation, specifically to the OP...one element of the 'cause and effect' machinery cannot possibly trump another...being commensurate only with journeys' related to individual soul - but impacting on greater soul-groups in a more subtle way...

A99



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Not so much an interpretation, that implies it's a matter of debate. Definition would be a more precise term.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by akushla99
 


Not so much an interpretation, that implies it's a matter of debate. Definition would be a more precise term.


Perhaps would have been more 'precise', when used within the time it was uttered, and in the context it was uttered in...Gay means something quite different to when it was used to refer to 'having fun'...the distinction, as far as I am concerned is a moot one, regardless of the semantics required to justify its 'translation'...the question, as to its debatability, or not, is a valid one, but does not require the microscopic dissection being afforded it...never has...the gist is decipherable enough...

Back to the OP...one does not trump the other...none do...they are all availed of thier own resultant consequences, requiring a process to be 'outplayed' by the individual, and in some circumstances, the group soul...

A99



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Back to the OP? No way, I addressed that much earlier in this thread. It's a begging the question fallacy.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by akushla99
 


Back to the OP? No way, I addressed that much earlier in this thread. It's a begging the question fallacy.


Its an interesting question, worthy of discussion, but you'd much rather derail?...because we disagree?...apart from this, there is veiled compliment in the exchange...

A99



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by akushla99
 


Back to the OP? No way, I addressed that much earlier in this thread. It's a begging the question fallacy.


Its an interesting question, worthy of discussion, but you'd much rather derail?...because we disagree?...apart from this, there is veiled compliment in the exchange...

A99


The OP begs the question, it's a false premise. I don't know if you have training in classic logic courses, but a fundamental rule is to not address fallacious arguments.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join