Debate thread (revived)

[lloydkirk1989]

Marriage is not required in a relationship to make it serious.

Thats exactly what the world's problem is. If it were required, the abortion rate would go way down.

Maybe if it's dead it still has the choice to live. If you don't think it's capable of not wanting to life, how can you think it's capable of not wanting to die? It doesn't know what life or death is, it's selfish to assume they do and automatically choose for life.

That is the most perverted thing I've ever heard. Where do you get these ideas? Freud? Unless, there's something seriously wrong with the baby, like its missing a heart, why on earth wouldn't want to live. Have you ever heard of a baby who stopped breathing in his mother's womb, because he didn't feel like living? No. Survival is something built into the human brain.

[4sberg]

EDIT: 1 Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality" [goes on in following verses about other sins and forgiveness]

Hasn't that occurred to you that this is an English translation, and not even the only one? And a translator can write anything. Just for the record, the very term 'homosexuality' originates from the 19th century, so you won't find it in the Bible. Just google for 'arsenokoitai' and see for yourself that things are not as simple as you want them to be. Anyway, the same word appears in 1 Timothy 1:10, and often it is translated differently within one translation. The original word literally means 'man lying (not sleeping) with another man'.

Quite rediculous to debunk Homestar's argument by essentially saying that translators can't substitute a phase with a word that means the same thing in our present day language. There is no change in meaning when a translator substitutes the word 'homosexuality' for 'man lying (not sleeping) with another man.' Again, there is no change in meaning. Translators don't look for ways to complicate things, but to retain the same meaning and put it into the respective language.

Here's the same excerpt from the standard Hungarian Bible:

6,9 Avagy nem tudjátok-é, hogy igazságtalanok nem örökölhetik Istennek országát? Ne tévelyegjetek; se paráznák, se bálványimádók, se házasságtörők, se pulyák, se férfiszeplősítők

This means 'deflowerer of males'. Other translations are 'férfifertőző', 'fajtalan', 'kicsapongó' and some others. These mean 'male contamination', pedophilia and plain promiscuity. No consensus here either.

Don't you get the point? The point is fornication is wrong in whatever form.
By the way, there are many types of methods translators use. (1) "Essentially literal"* and (2) "strictly literal"* translations are the two best. Essential literal translations keep each word as literal as possible from the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. However, they render a word or phrase with an eye for proper syntax and grammer if the translation interferes with the natural flow of the English language--or any other language for that matter. At the same time, they keep the same literal translation. Strictly literal translations render each word in English (or any other language) for the corresponding Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So, this method is more exact, but some parts don't give precise flow to the English language (or any other language).

A lot of Bible translations don't follow either of these methods or they only follow them to a certain extent. Thus, aberrations occur between translations. Just because a translation is made, doesn't automatically make it good. It needs to meet certain tests. These tests aply to any other book that is translated into a different language.

** The ESV is an example of an essentially literal translation. The NASB is an example of a strictly literal translation.

@Homestar. A+ for using the ESV.

[CoBB]

There is no change in meaning when a translator substitutes the word 'homosexuality' for 'man lying (not sleeping) with another man.'

The original meaning is so broad that a literal interpretation would include sleeping in the same tent with another male while camping. Therefore, it has to be adjusted, and that's where it boils down to the translator's personal decisions.

Don't you get the point? The point is fornication is wrong in whatever form.

What exactly qualifies as a marriage in this context? Sex inside a gay marriage must be okay then.

[threefingeredguy]

Yes Timendus, that's it, Leviticus.

[...]nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.

It's right there, in the Bible. So everyone here is "sinning" the same amount as homosexuals, those who practice beastiality, and the incestuous. Leviticus 19:19. Way to sin every day of your life. Unless you concede that sometimes these rules outdated.

[dysfunction]

Since I'm not Christian, I'm not going to argue over what Christianity says about homsexuality, because frankly, I don't care. You don't get to legislate your religious morals on those who do not follow your creed. I don't see why you think you get a say when we're talking about legislating basic civil rights.

[threefingeredguy]

Exactly, religion has no place in politics, especially in America, with out freedom of religion.

[Homestar]

@ threefingeredguy: Incase you didn't know the Old Testament was commands for the Jews, not Christians. Although it would be sinning during that time period, it is no longer, due to the changing of covenants aka. read the book of Hebrews in the New Testement.

The Old testament is still in the Bible for History, and knowledge, phrophesies, ect. but isn't relevant to us today.
--------------------
I wish we could just debate the topic up for debate, and stop going off on rabbit trails, and wild goose chases. I'll try to stay out of religion if you will, because I see it's over some of your heads.

[dysfunction]

...Again with the insults.

[Arcane WIzard]

Marriage is not required in a relationship to make it serious.

Thats exactly what the world's problem is. If it were required, the abortion rate would go way down.

Freedom is never a problem, what you do with it can be. Having said that, I don't see how saying "I do" in a church and having a paper signed imposes an emotional or spiritual change in a relationship that is so significant that it prevents unwanted pregnancies. If you'd get your wife pregnant 1 week before you get married, would you abort or put it up for adoption right away?

Maybe if it's dead it still has the choice to live. If you don't think it's capable of not wanting to life, how can you think it's capable of not wanting to die? It doesn't know what life or death is, it's selfish to assume they do and automatically choose for life.

That is the most perverted thing I've ever heard. Where do you get these ideas? Freud? Unless, there's something seriously wrong with the baby, like its missing a heart, why on earth wouldn't want to live. Have you ever heard of a baby who stopped breathing in his mother's womb, because he didn't feel like living? No. Survival is something built into the human brain.

It's may be unlikely in your opinion, but you can't scientifically exclude this possiblity. Fetuses do die for unexplainable reasons sometimes, just like some people die for no obvious reason after they are born. We have no way of telling what people are thinking, let alone fetuses. There is brain activity in developed fetuses.

Survival is only physically built in to a certain extend, or there wouldn't be any suicides at all.

I just put this hypothetical situation forward to illustrate that your statement as I understand it (that fetuses are only capable of wanting to live) is not a fact.

There are 3 possiblities: (based on the idea that for choice there must be conciousness and an understood concept of the choice itself)
1. They have no conscious ability to choose anything at all,
2. They can make choices but have no concept of live or death to choose between,
3. They can make a concious choice between life and death.

I see no factual basis to conclude that if they can choose at all (which I personally doubt) they must and absolutely always do choose for live. If the choice is there then both options are possibilities, that's why it's a choice. If there was only one possibility there wouldn't be a choice.

Exactly, religion has no place in politics, especially in America, with out freedom of religion.

Heh, and your freedom of imposing limits or forcing Christianity on those who have a religion the state does not agree with. Did you know that several enforced programs (that help addicts for example) in the United States require you to accept Christianity as your religion? Even if they only preached Christianity that is still not freedom if they do so when you are in a mentally vulnerable state.

Hi, I can help you from your addiction to cocaine that has pushed you to destroy your life. I do this in the name of Christianity so you should accept Jesus as your saviour.

See if you can find any difference between that and putting a gun to someone's head. Enforcing freedom is more than acknowledging the possiblities.

[Arcane WIzard]

...Again with the insults.

Please don't whine about insults from Homestar after claiming my opinions are perverted. If you give yourself the freedom to insult then so should you treat others. Thanks.

[Homestar]

...Again with the insults.

Please don't whine about insults from Homestar after claiming my opinions are perverted. If you give yourself the freedom to insult then so should you treat others. Thanks.

Come on guys, I'm just messin with ya.

[lecks]

i agree with everything lloyd just said. also, if (somehow) the baby doesn't want to live, we all gotta die one day anyway so let it live. let it hate life. let it commit suicide. dont kill it cause if you kill it then it doesnt have the choice of life but if you let it live it still has the choice of death.

Maybe if it's dead it still has the choice to live. If you don't think it's capable of not wanting to life, how can you think it's capable of not wanting to die? It doesn't know what life or death is, it's selfish to assume they do and automatically choose for life.nobody knows if they want to live or die. letting it live still gives it the choice of life and death. killing it only leaves it with death. so if the baby wants to die, you can still let it live and then let it kill itself. if the baby wants to live, let it live cause if you kill it, that choice will be taken away. and as lloyd said, its a human's instinct to survive. want to prove me wrong? hold your breath for 10 minutes.

And if someone doesn't want a baby and they're pregnant, they can just put it up for adoption.

Because being pregnant 9 months, giving birth, and then giving the child away is so easy.

well its an inconvenience and i know it wasnt the victim's idea to have an unplanned pregnancy, but paying thousands of dollars to get an abortion, killing the baby, and even risking your own life in the process is better than waiting 9 months and putting it up for adoption? did you know in order to get an abortion the developing baby has to be a certain maturity or else it wont work? you cant get one too early so if you already waited 6 months, why not wait 3 more and save its life and even maybe save your own.

[CoBB]

why not wait 3 more and save its life and even maybe save your own.

You're asking the wrong people. Ask some girls who are just about to make this decision.

[4sberg]

why not wait 3 more and save its life and even maybe save your own.

You're asking the wrong people. Ask some girls who are just about to make this decision.

Have you conceded your defeat to us, or should Timendus like to save the day?

Mmwwwwhahahaha

[threefingeredguy]

@ threefingeredguy: Incase you didn't know the Old Testament was commands for the Jews, not Christians.

Um, I hate to break it to you, anti-semite, but Christians are Jews. I'll put it in Java format. There's a class Jew. class Christian extends Jew and class Muslim extends Christian. The religions were built on top of each other.

But if you want to go ahead and decide that the Old Testament is rules for Jews only you are saying 3 things:
1) The Jewish faith is every bit a legitimate faith as Christianity. Everyone knows it is and your statement verifies this, even though previous statements you made would have us believing that Christianity is the only right religion and the Judaism is wrong. Or maybe you are just contradicting yourself because you've backed yourself into a corner. Hmm, I think must be it.
2) The rules on homosexuality, beastility, and incest don't apply to Christians either, since they are in the same book, just 1 chapter before. Thus your view on homosexuality is based off your prejudice and not your religion making you a bigot and a bane on society.
3) The ten commandments don't apply to you then, since they are part of the Old Testament. So "Thou shall not kill" is not a rule that applies to Christians and so your view on abortion is baseless and is the product of your own feelings. Now you can have your own view on it, but please, if you want effective policy-making, don't bring religion into the discussion but intelligence.
While religion is important, what is more important is the safety and happiness of the citizens in a country. Read some Locke. Learn about how a government should work. Impartial judges judge the morality of decisions, not people who are blinded by rules that they themselves have stated don't apply to them.

If you don't contradict yourself and you base accusations and arguments from an intelligent thought process instead of rules that were "commands for the Jews, not Christians", I'm sure you'll have much more success in this argument.