Savage fired by MSNBC

[sianews]

Terrible day :(. Can't even speak your mind about the downfall of this countries culture without being fired.


The popular radio talk show host who did a weekend TV show for the cable channel referred to an unidentified caller to his show Saturday as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."



"Oh, you're one of the sodomites," Savage said. "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/6251351.htm

[ice4277]

Uh, yeah. Do you think it would be ok if he started dropping N-bombs and telling black people to go back to Africa, or he wouldn't mind seeing a few clan lynchings? You may not equate the two, but I would, and I would find them both of them very distasteful. If somebody goes on the air and says something like this, there is no way they SHOULDN'T be canned.

[Franklinnoble]

Hmm... I kind of like his use of the word "sodomite." Sounds more polite and sophisticated than "faggot."

[Blackadar]

Yea, I'd say this guy was a little out of bounds.

[CamEdwards]

my station carries Savage, and I really really don't care for him. Kinda surprised that MSNBC would fire him, however. They knew what they were getting when they hired him.

[sabotai]

Uh...yeah...sounds like he was fired because all he did was talk about downfall of the countires culture... :rolleyes:

[Draft Dodger]

I hate the overwhelming movement towards political correctness.

I'm glad someone in charge was able to see through that and fire this fucking lunatic anyways.

[Franklinnoble]

Is bidding a sodomite wishes that he "get AIDS and die" really any different than wishing a drug addict would "overdose and die" or that a drunk driver would "drive off a cliff and die" or that those stupid PBR bullriders would "get stomped by a bull and die?"

So, he doesn't like people that engage in anal sex, and he wishes them the worst possible outcome of one of the well-documented hazards of the activity... Really, his comment could be applied to just about any group of people that happen to share any sort of potentially hazardous pastime.

[Draft Dodger]

except that anal sex isn't necessarily hazardous.

if Fritz and Subby are in a monogamous relationship, they've been thoroughly tested, and they have anal sex together, they aren't really doing anything hazardous, right?

[CamEdwards]

Franklin,

I'm guessing if a person on live television told anybody "I hope you die"... they're probably not going to have their television show when they wake up the next day.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
except that anal sex isn't necessarily hazardous.

if Fritz and Subby are in a monogamous relationship, they've been thoroughly tested, and they have anal sex together, they aren't really doing anything hazardous, right?

I dunno... I'm sure anal sex with Fritz would still remain hazardous. ;)

[Draft Dodger]

oh, and note to Fritz and Subby - if this hypothetical love connection ever does happen, we don't want to know.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Franklin,

I'm guessing if a person on live television told anybody "I hope you die"... they're probably not going to have their television show when they wake up the next day.

True. But like you said, MSNBC knew they were getting a guy that said crap like this when they hired Savage... I just wonder if it's the "I hope you die" part that got him fired or the "You're a sodomite" part.

[ISiddiqui]

if Fritz and Subby are in a monogamous relationship, they've been thoroughly tested, and they have anal sex together, they aren't really doing anything hazardous, right?

I dunno... I hear Fritz is dangerous in bed ;)

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
oh, and note to Fritz and Subby - if this hypothetical love connection ever does happen, we don't want to know.

No, no we don't. Please, for the love of God, no.

[CamEdwards]

I'm guessing it was the "I hope you die" comment that got him fired. That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is).

[Super G]

They got a spot on FOX news for Mr. Savage where he's free to taunt and threaten callers.

""You should only get AIDS and die, you pig." Now that is horribly offensive. Now I hardly disagree with Mr. Savage, but I think he really really went over the borderline.

[vtbub]

It was the I hope you die and the 20 or so seconds of stupidity said after that.

[vtbub]

Here is the clip.

"I HOPE YOU GET AIDS AND DIE, PIG" (http://www.eastcoastbob.com/VIDEO/savageair.rm)

[tucker342]

It's fine to speak your mind, but he crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed.

[vtbub]

The go choke on a sausage and get...food posioning wasn't clever either.

[alterra]

My car only recieves one radio station, so I've sometimes listened to this guy - he is an offensive jerk, but what amused me was how whenever he gets flustered he starts talking about his academic credentials... "I have such and such degrees... how DARE you question my intellect..." Absolutely cracked me up every time.

[Blackadar]

Yea, I'd say his out of bounds.

Just punishment: lock him in the Blue Oyster Bar for a couple of hours.

(For those who conveniently forgot, the movie reference is Police Academy)

[Franklinnoble]

"Proctor, I don't see a salad bar anywhere in here, do you?"

[Tekneek]

Oh well. MSNBC is free to hire and fire anybody they want to. In my mind, this is far worse than the kinds of things NCAA coaches have done and just about everybody here wanted all of them to get fired.

I find it hard to understand how telling someone they should get aids and die is "speak[ing] your mind about the downfall of this [country's] culture..."

Am I offering fair commentary on our society if I say all Democrats and Republicans should die?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by alterra
My car only recieves one radio station,

dude, the "knob" next to the radio lets you change stations.

[Fritz]

Mr. Savage did NOTHING wrong.

[Fritz]

dola

From the clip above, I can see where the pork industry might be upset.

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
Mr. Savage did NOTHING wrong. According to whose standards? Certainly he didn't break any laws, but he obviously violated the code of conduct set forth by his employer. A few years back, a popular DJ in the Washington, DC area (The Greaseman) was fired for critiquing a Lauren Hill song by saying something to the effect of, "those people should be tied to a truck and dragged to death." That was in the wake of the dragging death in Texas that was big news at the time. He didn't break any laws either, but there was no question the guy used horrible judgement and should have been fired.

You are confusing freedom of speech with employment policy...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Subby
You are confusing freedom of speech with employment policy...

You are obviously being an idiot. I said nothing about his firing nor did I say anything about free speech.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Subby
You are confusing freedom of speech with employment policy...

Exactly.

And not only that, but MSNBC is a business. They only make money if they have sponsors. If too many people, or the sponsors themselves, feel certain commentary is inappropriate and will lead to fewer viewers, they have to look at it as a business decision.

I think it's quite easy to make this kind of decision when someone states that they hope a whole group of people contract a disease and die. Free speech or not, no company would allow such speech, particularly not when it's made "on behalf of his employer," which is what he did. My free speech rights don't permit me to go into court and declare the judge brain-dead without some form of punishment both from the judge and my employer. I may be perfectly within my rights to state my opinion, but not in that context.

[Tekneek]

You have the right to say whatever you want to, as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is).
But so are some lucky married guys, who I am sure Savage does not have a problem with. Whether or not it was accurate (which I agree it was) it was certainly intended to degrade homosexuals.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Samdari
But so are some lucky married guys, who I am sure Savage does not have a problem with. Whether or not it was accurate (which I agree it was) it was certainly intended to degrade homosexuals.

and your point is what?

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
You are obviously being an idiot. I said nothing about his firing nor did I say anything about free speech. Well argued.

[Samdari]

You seemed to be excusing the use of the term sodomite because it was technically accurate. He was not using it to be precise, but to attempt to degrade and humiliate an entire group of people.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
and your point is what?
That married guys who get to be sodomites are lucky.

[cuervo72]

Go apply a band-aid and wear a tie-dye, you vegemite lover!

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Samdari
You seemed to be excusing the use of the term sodomite because it was technically accurate. He was not using it to be precise, but to attempt to degrade and humiliate an entire group of people.

so?

up with pedophiles! does that make you happy?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Subby
Well argued.

Thanks! You are easily the second most disingenuous person I know.

[JPhillips]

Don't forget te role of his pretty poor ratings. He has barely increased viewers for his timeslot, and that just didn't balance out with his salary and negative image. If he was catching fire in the ratings my bet is he would still have a job.

But hell I'm sitting on the beach in St. Augustine, so what do I know?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
Thanks! You are the second easiest person I know.

:eek:

[Fritz]

ah, close Bee, but you timing is off.

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
Thanks! You are easily the second most disingenuous person I know. Easily.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
You have the right to say whatever you want to, as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences. Do the masses believe this anymore though? :(

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Do the masses believe this anymore though? :(

I don't know. Clearly, Savage has been reminded of it, though. I think I sometimes forget, at least on messageboards. :)

[MylesKnight]

America is Soft!!!

What a country.. We can go attack and conquer Middle Eastern countries and kill other human beings all day long but when it comes to issues here on the Home Front, one must never, ever, ever even attempt to offend any other American with any kind of comment that could be considered outlandish.

I respect people for speaking their minds and not worrying about following the status quo with the rest of our "normal" society.. More people like Michael Savage (as only the most recent example) are needed, in my opinion.

What a country this is when a former co-worker of mine was fired for someone overhearing a joke about Homosexuals while a current co-worker of mine was allowed to keep their job despite being caught stealing personal items, including cash, from inside of another employee's locked desk. Let me see, the Joker or the Thief? Hmmmm....

I like my job and all but what is the Corporation I work for thinking? Is this how America works?

[Tekneek]

Clearly your employer is more worried about the outcome from possible harrassment claims than employees who steal. That's their prerogative.

Michael Savage is free to think anything he wants to, and he can say anything he wants to. He still has that freedom. That does not mean anybody needs to pay him a salary while he does it.

I regret that the US government got me to buy into the war in Iraq while it was happening. I was against it, then I was raging for it, and now I regret that. It is coming to light that Bush wrote a check that he cannot now cash. So, the US government is willing to go and kill other people in other countries, so our society, and its corporations, should tolerate people acting like assholes?

[MylesKnight]

No debate from me Tekneek, I just stated my opinion on the matter and that's all I've got to say about it, my friend.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Tekneek

I regret that the US government got me to buy into the war in Iraq while it was happening. I was against it, then I was raging for it, and now I regret that. It is coming to light that Bush wrote a check that he cannot now cash. So, the US government is willing to go and kill other people in other countries, so our society, and its corporations, should tolerate people acting like assholes?

WTF does this have to do with the topic (like I am one to ask that sort of question)

[korme]

How could they fire the Macho Man??

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by Fritz
WTF does this have to do with the topic (like I am one to ask that sort of question)

MylesKnight brought up the war. I just offered some extra commentary on it before I addressed his point. He says society thinks it is ok to go off to war and kill people in other countries, but does not like people saying "go get AIDS and die" to one another. The fact is it was the US government going off to Iraq, and it was the US government killing people. A large segment of society did not approve of it then, and even fewer probably approve of it now since Bush's claims never materialized (and they've even taken one of those claims back now, well after the fact). Anyway, at the end of it all, just because the US government goes off and kills people does not mean the rest of us here must keep a soft spot in our hearts for every intolerant asshole's ramblings.

[Leonidas]

So what does eating sausage have to do with being a sodomite anyway?

BTW, in my OOTP league I named a team from Las Vegas the Sodomites. Maybe I should be fired as commish of that league and placed into sensitivity training. I think I should recommend this to Markus over at .400 sports. Add the option for firings due to politically insensitive remarks or actions. Maybe Jim could add this for TCY2.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
How could they fire the Macho Man??

Ooooooooooh Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by MylesKnight

What a country.. We can go attack and conquer Middle Eastern countries

For some reason I read this as "Middle Earth". I think it was the use of the word "conquer".

Speaking of which... I haven't watched my FotR DVD for a good 4 or 5 months and there's really nothing on tv tonight...

SI

[CAsterling]

Oh please, so he insulted somebody (who basically equates to a customer) - and his employer fired him.
No big deal happens every day.

In some of the offices I have worked in that insult could be considered mild if used between employees - in fact in my current company's New York office, it would be considered positively wimpish.

I have no problem that his employer decided to fire him, thats a company policy option.

However why this phrase can be considered unacceptable outside his office environment is beyond me - If used anywhere else the whole 'Freedom of Speech' issue can be used.

Guess I'm just a stupid foreigner who doesn't understand what the fuss is about !!

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by CAsterling
In some of the offices I have worked in that insult could be considered mild if used between employees - in fact in my current company's New York office, it would be considered positively wimpish.


If this is used in your current office, I'd hate to be your HR manager. It'll end up costing the company big bucks long-term.

[CamEdwards]

CAsterling,

Freedom of Speech, as guaranteed in the Constitution, guarantees us the ability to speak freely without recrimination from the government. It does not absolve one of any punishment employers, private citizens, or talk show hosts care to dish out.

[Tekneek]

And it can create a hostile work environment with that kind of attitude thrown around, which you do have legal protection from.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Ooooooooooh Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

SI

Forget the sausage....SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!

[KWhit]

It amazes me that this guy is getting support from any of you. What he said was extremely offensive. He definitely should have been fired.

Reading between the lines, it seems that many of you believe that since he was derogatory against gays that it should be okay.

I think this board in general could use a little less homophobia.

[clintl]

Anyone who thinks this is a free speech issue forgets that MSNBC also has free speech rights. Those rights include editing and controlling the content it broadcasts. It is under no legal obligation, beyond whatever contractual agreements it made with Savage, to continue to pay him and provide a forum for him to disseminate views it does not agree with.

Savage has the right to say what he wants. He does not have the right to get paid for doing so, nor does he have the right to use any private sector commercial forum he chooses.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by KWhit
It amazes me that this guy is getting support from any of you. What he said was extremely offensive. He definitely should have been fired.

Reading between the lines, it seems that many of you believe that since he was derogatory against gays that it should be okay.

I think this board in general could use a little less homophobia.

I STRONGLY agree.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I STRONGLY agree.

like you needed to post that

[Marmel]

I am just surprised that Galt waited until page two to jump in here. :(

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
I am just surprised that Galt waited until page two to jump in here. :(

This thread was a disaster from the start and I didn't see a reason to post until KWhit offered his gem. Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.
:(

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.


why is it a low point?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
why is it a low point?

There was virtually no discussion of the issues and instead there was anti-gay drivel posted and applauded. It is bad enough when homophobia isn't opposed, but when it becomes fun, it is sickening for me read.

[Marmel]

This is far from a low point of this board John. Most of the discussion was about whether he should have been fired vs. whether he had a right to say what he did, etc...

[Fritz]

I guess even you are not exempt from the "if I don't like something its wrong" mentality.

[Marmel]

dola....

re-reading page one shows me that outside of the predictable FranklinNoble comments, most people said he should have been fired....

I think you are off base here John Galt.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Marmel
dola....

re-reading page one shows me that outside of the predictable FranklinNoble comments, most people said he should have been fired....

I think you are off base here John Galt.

Yeah, that confused me too. It seems that the general consensus is that he should be gone and I concur. Even if you absolutely abhor "political correctness", and I do, it's monumental stupidity to ignore that it exists especially if your job is in the spotlight. Monumental stupidity is definately a worthy reason to be fired no matter how you feel about the opinion expressed.

As far as crossing over the lines go, I think that the statement definately crossed my lines but I don't presume that my opinions or lines necessarily mirror community standards so I won't comment on that one. It does seem obvious though that most people on this thread feel it crossed their lines too so there you go. I'm back to my first paragraph. :)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Marmel
dola....

re-reading page one shows me that outside of the predictable FranklinNoble comments, most people said he should have been fired....

I think you are off base here John Galt. Marmel, clearly Savage should be tarred, feathered, bound, gagged, then crucified upside down. Anything else and we're being soft on homophobia.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
This is far from a low point of this board John. Most of the discussion was about whether he should have been fired vs. whether he had a right to say what he did, etc...

Yes, some of that finally started (and it turned into the same misconceptions about "free speech" that occurs in everyone of these threads). The early parts of the thread are not so bland. These quotes in particular were frightening to me (because of what they said and in some cases how little reaction they got).

"Terrible day . Can't even speak your mind about the downfall of this countries culture without being fired."

" Hmm... I kind of like his use of the word "sodomite." Sounds more polite and sophisticated than "faggot.""

"Is bidding a sodomite wishes that he "get AIDS and die" really any different than wishing a drug addict would "overdose and die" or that a drunk driver would "drive off a cliff and die" or that those stupid PBR bullriders would "get stomped by a bull and die?"

So, he doesn't like people that engage in anal sex, and he wishes them the worst possible outcome of one of the well-documented hazards of the activity... Really, his comment could be applied to just about any group of people that happen to share any sort of potentially hazardous pastime."

"I'm guessing it was the "I hope you die" comment that got him fired. That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is)."

"But so are some lucky married guys, who I am sure Savage does not have a problem with. Whether or not it was accurate (which I agree it was) it was certainly intended to degrade homosexuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and your point is what?"

"More people like Michael Savage (as only the most recent example) are needed, in my opinion."



And I just saw your new post and Axxon's post. My problem isn't that most people did or did not think he should be fired. My problem (and I think KWhit's) is how casually people can be bigotted and it be treated as part of a discussion. Yes, Franklinnoble is particularly notable, but I just found the tone to so many of the posts to be disturbing.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

That was sarcasm, in case anyone didn't realize it. :D

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Marmel, clearly Savage should be tarred, feathered, bound, gagged, then crucified upside down. Anything else and we're being soft on homophobia.

Sounds pretty kinky there Dog. ;)

[Axxon]

John,

being from a culture that faces prejudice all the time ( I was seriously advised by my sister to change my name when I moved here so no one would know I'm hispanic ) my opinion is that I'd much rather the idiots speak their mind rather than hide behind political correctness. That way I can know who to watch out for.

The problem of course is how their speech can influence others to think the same way but they do that anyway and as long as there are rational people involved in the discussion, and there are here, quotes like you pointed out above are unfortunate, but don't bother me so much, although I can see how it could bother some pretty badly so I don't offer this as any kind of "how it should be" post.
If it had truly been a homosexual bashing thread I'd much more see your point but then again, that would be the time for you to post and try and present your view rather than avoid it I'd think.

[CamEdwards]

And this is why politically correct folk with an axe to grind annoy the piss out of me.

80% of the discussion supports Savage's firing, with a few anti-gay jibes thrown in by one, maybe two individuals. Yet it's homophobia, and that's just evil.

You can't force people to applaud your sex life. You can't even force people to stop making fun of it. It might be homophobia, or it might just be a different view of what is moral and what is not.
And I thought you were all about free speech. Weren't you one of the ones advocating the right of a college professor to call for the deaths of a million servicemen and women? I guarantee you more people heard about Nicholas de Genova's comments than Michael Savage's comment.
Can you explain the difference?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I guarantee you more people heard about Nicholas de Genova's comments ...

Who???

Ok, I kid the conservative radio star. :D

[Axxon]

Dola,

yes I was kidding but think about it. Out of context I wouldn't have recognized the name but I surely heard about the incident. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one in this situation either.

[Marmel]

Great point Cam. (especially for a Sox fan).

[Ksyrup]

The fact that none of us jumped down those peoples' throats for making some of those comments doesn't mean we support them. At the time, the discussion was going in a more interesting and substantive direction, and so I think you should take the lack of responses to those people as being an acknowledgement by the participants in this thread that those people weren't adding anything substantive to the discussion worth commenting on.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
And this is why politically correct folk with an axe to grind annoy the piss out of me.

Despite popular misconception at FOFC, I do not support "political correctness."

Originally posted by CamEdwards
80% of the discussion supports Savage's firing, with a few anti-gay jibes thrown in by one, maybe two individuals. Yet it's homophobia, and that's just evil.

Exactly (except for the "evil" part). Even if the majority supports Savage's firing, it has NO bearing on the fact that people here are casually using bigotted language and meaning. This is about homophobia at FOFC not in radio land.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You can't force people to applaud your sex life. You can't even force people to stop making fun of it. It might be homophobia, or it might just be a different view of what is moral and what is not.
And I thought you were all about free speech. Weren't you one of the ones advocating the right of a college professor to call for the deaths of a million servicemen and women? I guarantee you more people heard about Nicholas de Genova's comments than Michael Savage's comment.
Can you explain the difference?

And this is where your conservative diatribe falls apart by using nonsensical strawmen. No one is trying to "force" you to "applaud my sex life." No one is trying to "force" you to "stop making fun of it." It is funny, conservatives seem to understand the concept of "force" very well when they say things like, "No one is forcing you to live in America," or "the government has no right to force me to hire a minority," but they often get confused when talking about words and speech.

I'm engaging in counter-speech (aka a right-wing solution to offensive speech). I do nothing to "force" anyone - I do not report the thread to SD to have you banned - I don't report you to the mythical thought police - I just say, "don't be a bigot." And that "drives you crazy?" It sounds like I'm not the one who is upset that other people's opinions don't match my own.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Axxon
John,

being from a culture that faces prejudice all the time ( I was seriously advised by my sister to change my name when I moved here so no one would know I'm hispanic ) my opinion is that I'd much rather the idiots speak their mind rather than hide behind political correctness. That way I can know who to watch out for.

The problem of course is how their speech can influence others to think the same way but they do that anyway and as long as there are rational people involved in the discussion, and there are here, quotes like you pointed out above are unfortunate, but don't bother me so much, although I can see how it could bother some pretty badly so I don't offer this as any kind of "how it should be" post.
If it had truly been a homosexual bashing thread I'd much more see your point but then again, that would be the time for you to post and try and present your view rather than avoid it I'd think.

I actually agree with in large part. I don't support PC efforts to squash speech and I think there is a large value in knowing who the bigots are. The one thing I would take issue with is that in today's day and age, a lot of -ism's are hidden or even subconscious. In those cases, I think it is still important to call people out on it so that it doesn't become "acceptable" in that culture.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by John Galt
I actually agree with in large part. I don't support PC efforts to squash speech and I think there is a large value in knowing who the bigots are. The one thing I would take issue with is that in today's day and age, a lot of -ism's are hidden or even subconscious. In those cases, I think it is still important to call people out on it so that it doesn't become "acceptable" in that culture.

Which I agree with thus my last sentence. :)


If it had truly been a homosexual bashing thread I'd much more see your point but then again, that would be the time for you to post and try and present your view rather than avoid it I'd think.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Axxon
Which I agree with thus my last sentence. :)

Sorry, I missed the implication to the last sentence. :)

[Axxon]

Originally posted by John Galt
Sorry, I missed the implication to the last sentence. :)

No problem. :)

[KWhit]

Wow. Look what I started.

My point was never that the whole thread was offensive. Yes, many/most people agreed that he should be fired. My point was that I was surprised that everyone didn't see it that way.

This is not about PC running wild. In my mind, what he said was just as offensive as if he would have called someone the n-word.

My belief is that certain people feel the way they do only because he was offensive to gay people and some here may agree with his beliefs. This board consistantly shows bigotry toward homosexuals. This last thread was just one of many instances of homophobia that I find offensive.

[Bee]

I don't see why so many are offended by homophobia. If someone is afraid of buying a house, we really should put them in contact with a real estate agent to explain that it's not that scary.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by KWhit
Wow. Look what I started.

My point was never that the whole thread was offensive. Yes, many/most people agreed that he should be fired. My point was that I was surprised that everyone didn't see it that way.

This is not about PC running wild. In my mind, what he said was just as offensive as if he would have called someone the n-word.

My belief is that certain people feel the way they do only because he was offensive to gay people and some here may agree with his beliefs. This board consistantly shows bigotry toward homosexuals. This last thread was just one of many instances of homophobia that I find offensive.

Not to be nitpicky but until the day comes ( which it won't ) where all prejudice is wiped out bigotry, especially on an anonymous internet board will exist and those bashed ( and those who oppose bashing in general ) will find it offensive.

My question though is more, what percentage of the board hold those views not how vocal are the viewholders. While I'll admit that much of this bashing flies below my radar as it doesn't affect me, I don't THINK this board is largely gay bashing. Just a few guys who are very in your face about it.

Am I wrong about this??

BTW, stating that one is morally opposed to homosexuality doesn't constitute bigotry in my opinion so I don't count those guys. I don't understand them because I'm firmly in the "it's genetic" vs "it's choice" camp and find opposing it morally is akin to being morally opposed to hispanics or blacks but as it's a gray area I cut them that slack.

[CamEdwards]

John,

You found this quote to be "disturbing", "bigotted", and "frightening":

"I'm guessing it was the "I hope you die" comment that got him fired. That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is)."

That's my statement. What in particular is disturbing, bigotted, and frightening about that? Engaging in the act of sodomy (either same sex or different sex) makes you a sodomizer or a sodomite. Why does this disturb and frighten you?

Does the fact that you're scared of this statement make you a heterophobe or a bigot towards people who disagree morally with homosexuality as a lifestyle (or simply a sex act)?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
John,

You found this quote to be "disturbing", "bigotted", and "frightening":

"I'm guessing it was the "I hope you die" comment that got him fired. That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is)."

That's my statement. What in particular is disturbing, bigotted, and frightening about that? Engaging in the act of sodomy (either same sex or different sex) makes you a sodomizer or a sodomite. Why does this disturb and frighten you?

Does the fact that you're scared of this statement make you a heterophobe or a bigot towards people who disagree morally with homosexuality as a lifestyle (or simply a sex act)?

I noticed you ignored my last post in reply to you, but turning to your new questions . . .

Your statement disturbed me precisely because of the conclusion you continue to draw. Using "sodomite" is not just axiomatic with "gay" in the way it wasy used. Imagine if someone said, "I hope all those mongoloids go back to Asia and die." Technicially, Asians are mongoloids (or at least many of them are), but the use in that phrase carries meaning beyond the specific word. "Sodomite" plays the same role in Savage's quote. And, calling someone a "sodomite" makes their identity just subject to their desire to have anal sex - being "gay" is about much more than that.

And of all the quotes I listed, this one was actually the least problematic to me and I wouldn't have said anything, but for the other quotes in the thread.

[CamEdwards]

Sorry, I didn't mean to not reply to your last post.

And this is where your conservative diatribe falls apart by using nonsensical strawmen. No one is trying to "force" you to "applaud my sex life." No one is trying to "force" you to "stop making fun of it." It is funny, conservatives seem to understand the concept of "force" very well when they say things like, "No one is forcing you to live in America," or "the government has no right to force me to hire a minority," but they often get confused when talking about words and speech.

I'm engaging in counter-speech (aka a right-wing solution to offensive speech). I do nothing to "force" anyone - I do not report the thread to SD to have you banned - I don't report you to the mythical thought police - I just say, "don't be a bigot." And that "drives you crazy?" It sounds like I'm not the one who is upset that other people's opinions don't match my own.

First of all, I wasn't using a strawman as an example. I was using you as an example. You seem to feel that we should all be more accepting of homosexuality and you're frightened and disturbed by the fact that some people don't approve of homosexuality in general.

You're not engaging in counter-speech, you're not trying to say "don't be a bigot". In fact, you've never said "don't be a bigot". What you've said is more of the same passive-aggressive bullshit that some parents try to use on small children.

And yes, it drives me crazy that a man who stood up for Nicholas de Genova's right to call for the deaths of a million servicemen is not only opposed to Michael Savage's call for the death of an individual, but opposed to people being unaccepting of homosexuality in general.

At least I'm consistent. I think Nicholas de Genova was wrong, and I think Michael Savage was wrong.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
This thread was a disaster from the start and I didn't see a reason to post until KWhit offered his gem. Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.
:(

Funny, I could say the same thing about your thread from about two weeks ago. (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10770&perpage=50&pagenumber=1)

The bottom line here, John, is that when it comes to issues like this, there are, by my admittedly limited observation, three kinds of people.

- Gay people.
- Straight people who think it's OK to be gay.
- Straight people who think it's not OK to be gay.

There's little doubt here where you or I reside within the above categories. I find homosexuality morally reprehensible. I make no apologies for that. I could probably do a better job of making more intelligent arguements when threads like these pop up, but I have a self-destructive tendency to weigh in with lewd comments instead. I've been banned for it - but I dare say on any other topic, others have posted in similar fashion and have repeatedly gotten away with it. Is it any different or less hurtful to cap on Bengals fans?

With regards to the Supreme Court ruling, my opinion is pretty much in line with what Scalia said in his dissent. The court had no business getting involved in the first place with a law that is no longer on the books in most states, and exceptionally rarely enforced in the rest. The decision set all manner of bad precedents, and not just with regards to legislation of sodomy and homosexual lifestyles.

With regards to Savage - I think MSNBC had every right to fire him, and I think he crossed the line with the "I hope you get AIDS and die..." bit. My comments may be hurtful and offensive to you, but I honestly would never wish any harm on anyone just because they didn't agree with me. The only think that bothers me about the Savage firing is the apparent double-standard in the media when it comes to dealing with talk-show personalities that spew hateful messages. Liberal commentators have gotten away with just as much as Savage had to say, and no one has raised an eyebrow.

[Franklinnoble]

Dola...

Cam is doing a much better job at this than I am... I think I'm just gonna shut up for the time being. ;)

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by John Galt
This thread was a disaster from the start and I didn't see a reason to post until KWhit offered his gem. Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.
:(


Do you
1) Strongly Agree
2) Somewhat Agree
3) Somewhat Disagree
4) Strongly Disagree

*press 4*

I feel that the Macho Man joke between shorty, cuervo, and I may have been kindof stupid but in no point represent a low point on the board. In fact, I think it was a fun little pop culture reference.

Thank you for your comments regarding this post. They have been sent to the web site and tabulated.

"SterlingIce: Continually missing the point, since 1997"

SI

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble

The bottom line here, John, is that when it comes to issues like this, there are, by my admittedly limited observation, three kinds of people.

- Gay people.
- Straight people who think it's OK to be gay.
- Straight people who think it's not OK to be gay.



There is a fourth. People who think that what any number of consenting adults do is any of their business therefore there is no need to have any opinion of the OK or not OK ness of the act in general. It simply will never enter my life so even contemplating passing judgement on it seems entirely dishonest and unnecessary to me.

Now, if you want to say that I feel it's ok to be whatever the hell you want to be if you don't hurt anyone then that's me but to break it down to the individual components, gay, Trekkie, Wiccan whatever, simply hasn't ever entered my thought process. I simply don't care or see it as valid in my interactions with people. Period.

[Fritz]

that would be the first or second option Axxon

[vtbub]

Some people just don't understand that it's not worth it to be outraged over everything.

Was Savage wrong? Yes.

Does everything need to be turned into a pity party for the oppresed? No.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
that would be the first or second option Axxon

No, Fritz, it's not. Remember, I am in the "genetic" not "choice" category so it would be the same as saying it's either ok or not ok to be bald or black or short. It's a meaningless fact, no need to have an opinion if it's right or wrong and having said opinion is absurd. The fact offers no interpretation. It is merely a fact.

Do you have an opinion if it's ok or not to have 5 fingers on each hand?? Do we really need to think that deeply on subjects like this? I don't. If you think it's a choice then you can form an opinion yes, but if it's predetermined I just can't see it.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
No, Fritz, it's not. Remember, I am in the "genetic" not "choice" category so it would be the same as saying it's either ok or not ok to be bald or black or short. It's a meaningless fact, no need to have an opinion if it's right or wrong and having said opinion is absurd. The fact offers no interpretation. It is merely a fact.


So if something is genetic you just accept it without moral evaluation? Is this something you would support as a life philosophy?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
So if something is genetic you just accept it without moral evaluation? Is this something you would support as a life philosophy?

Of course. Now, I think if the genetic quirk can harm others then reasonable precautions can and should be taken to protect people but homesexuality doesn't fall into that category. There are laws to protect against unwanted sexual advances and these are perfectly fine but again, to pass judgement on a characteristic of someone who has no control over said characteristic simply because the characteristic exists and doesn't affect you makes no sense to me.

I am certainly not flawless in this thinking but whenever I find myself passing said judgements I do stop myself.

[Leonidas]

Sodomy n 1: sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2: non-coital and esp. anal or oral sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex

OK, everyone read number 2 then decide amongst yourselves who here isn't a sodomite. OK, there might be more than a couple shut-ins out there who qualify, but for the rest of us...

BTW, I see nothing in the definition about sausage or slimjims.

*definition taken straight from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Home and Office Edition 1998

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Leonidas
Sodomy n 1: sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2: non-coital and esp. anal or oral sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex

OK, everyone read number 2 then decide amongst yourselves who here isn't a sodomite. OK, there might be more than a couple shut-ins out there who qualify, but for the rest of us...

BTW, I see nothing in the definition about sausage or slimjims.

*definition taken straight from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Home and Office Edition 1998

But one could commit sodomy with a sausage or a slimjim.

[sterlingice]

I guess I'll throw something "substantive" out there

I don't give a flying fuck (hm... I think that was subconciously intended) who or what you do in the privacy of your own home. That said, I don't want to hear about it- straight, gay, goat, blow up doll, or otherwise. The people that offend me are the ones who constantly insist on talking about it and making an issue of it: I don't want some jackass at work bragging about some girl he fucked last night and I don't need anyone telling me "it's ok that I fuck men". Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass who you fuck- I just don't want to hear about it.

I have some inherent biases toward the homosexual community because a disproportionate percentage seem to insist I accept their sexuality. I don't hate the fact that they're homosexual, I hate the fact that they insist I acknowledge it constantly. It seems as if about 99% of the time there's a story like the Supreme Court decision, the news asks some guy and his title is "Joe Smith, homosexual". Every time someone gets busted for sexual assault and they're asking about it, he doesn't have the title "Joe Smith, heterosexual". This is the kind of discrepancy I'm talking about.

SI

[Axxon]

Originally posted by sterlingice
I guess I'll throw something "substantive" out there

I don't give a flying fuck (hm... I think that was subconciously intended) who or what you do in the privacy of your own home. That said, I don't want to hear about it- straight, gay, goat, blow up doll, or otherwise. The people that offend me are the ones who constantly insist on talking about it and making an issue of it: I don't want some jackass at work bragging about some girl he fucked last night and I don't need anyone telling me "it's ok that I fuck men". Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass who you fuck- I just don't want to hear about it.

I have some inherent biases toward the homosexual community because a disproportionate percentage seem to insist I accept their sexuality. I don't hate the fact that they're homosexual, I hate the fact that they insist I acknowledge it constantly.

SI

I agree with the first part but I'd venture to say that the second part is merely the homosexuals insisting that they have the same rights to annoy you with their sexual prowess as the annoying hetero pests. I don't think the word disproportionate is true at all but simply since it's not the norm it sticks in your mind more.

Kinda like the urban legend about er's on full moons. Just isn't fact.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Axxon
But one could commit sodomy with a sausage or a slimjim.

And this brings us full circle to the Macho Man comments :D

SI

[sabotai]

Man, this has been a blast.

Well, you all probably do know that I think it's perfectly fine to be gay. And I love women who help me be a sodomite (of the second definition variety).

Damn, liberals and conservatives are funny folk, aren't they?

[Tekneek]

What is "morally reprehensible" about homosexuality? Define it in clear terms, without quoting anything from any book.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Tekneek
What is "morally reprehensible" about homosexuality? Define it in clear terms, without quoting anything from any book.

You're joking, right?

Explain how homosexuality is morally reprehensible, but don't use your basis for morality in your answer. :rolleyes:

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You're joking, right?

Explain how homosexuality is morally reprehensible, but don't use your basis for morality in your answer. :rolleyes:

Why not, forming moral judgements without being told what to think isn't that hard. Jesus did it. So did Buddha and I'm sure many others. Hell, even Number 5 told himself that killing was wrong and he was programmed for the very opposite. Thinking for one's self is a sadly underutilized gift that we humans were granted by our creator. I imagine he weeps.

[CamEdwards]

Actually, Jesus relied on what his Father told him. I've never studied Buddhism, so I don't feel qualified to state where his moral compass came from.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Actually, Jesus relied on what his Father told him. I've never studied Buddhism, so I don't feel qualified to state where his moral compass came from.

Well, from internal thought and meditation he heard his fathers words. Surely he didn't just read them out of a book.

Besides, you still didn't explain number 5. :)

[Ben E Lou]

Axx:

Without some higher authority, then what in the world does it matter what my morality or your morality is. If there is NOT a standard greater than you and me, then I can say, "Well, according to MY morality, killing isn't wrong." If I make that decision about morality, then how can you claim that you're right and I'm wrong. (You might say, "the government is a higher authority." The government doesn't determine morality though. It determines laws.)

Discussing "morality" without agreeing on a higher standard is an utter waste of time. I WILL say this though. I could stand atop the Sears Tower, and say all day, "I don't believe in the Law of Gravity" and fully believe that it doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what I believe. If I walk off the edge, I WILL fall. In the same way, it doesn't matter whether you or I believe it is immoral. It is, and neither of us can change that.

[Fritz]

SkyDog,

Are you saying that morality is not relative?

[Axxon]

I don't believe that you can claim right and wrong in regards to morality. You certainly can claim right and wrong in regards to public conduct and interaction though and that is the governments job.

Even if, and I really don't know how I feel about this and I've actively been contemplating the issue for over 30 years, there is a definitive final right or wrong morally with no deviation allowed, I don't feel anyone on this planet is qualified to be the one to definitively state what that may be though anyone may well have it down exactly they don't have the authority necessary to make the claim.

That's pretty much why I tell people to look inside themselves and learn what they feel is right and wrong and as long as they can practice that and not harm others then they are most likely on the right path. You can call it meditation, introspection, prayer whatever, it works and it is a better communion with your higher power than what the so called "pillar of the community" ( who tends to have issues of his own as do all people ) tells you and may well not practice.

As for the statement "it is, and neither of us can change that" isn't that rendering a judgement on your fellow man and aren't you as a christian ( assuming you believe the word of christ ) specifically not supposed to do that? Didn't he harp on this several times and several places?

I'm working on my own log, not someone elses mote.

[Ben E Lou]

Fritz: Yes.

Axx: That isn't rendering judgment as all. That is simply stating the truth. Also, your comments about looking inside oneself and determining what is right and wrong confirm what I was saying--that debating morality is useless without acknowledging a higher standard. If that is what you choose to do, of course that is your prerogative.

[Axxon]

Ok, I think I may have misread your statement Skydog. Tell me if I did. When I read "it is, and neither of us can change that" I was assuming you were passing judgement on homosexuality but on reading what you wrote just now and rereading the first post I see that you may be sating if there is a definitive moral law then debating whether something is or isn't moral doesn't matter because if it is then neither of us can change it.

If that's what you meant then I of course agree and withdraw my statement but it is still a wise statement to ponder whenever anyone tries to tell anybody else they are right or wrong for what they do.

It's one of Jesus' most profound concepts and as I said, he makes it many times. He even cautions against judging yourself lest you then open yourself to God's judgement which will be stricter and much worse on you.

That's why I advocate introspection and trying to live a life that feels morally correct to you ( and you certainly can get assistance from outside sources, don't get me wrong, I certainly get much inspiration obviously from Christs words ) and stop judging your morality but merely practicing it.

[Axxon]

Oh, and I disagree about discussing morality. It certainly helps to be exposed to others thoughts as they can add inspiration and fuel to ones inner search for a moral compass. It can only help if this is indeed what both parties are doing. I think that trying to convince others of the absolute truth and finality of your moral code though shouldn't be done.

[Ben E Lou]

Nah. I was talking about homosexual behavior.

Jesus' statements about not judging are often mis-applied, as in this case.

[Axxon]

Sorry man, I'd never have the audacity to tell the master what his words meant. Dude says not to judge, not even yourself. I didn't know that left so much wriggle room for interpretation. You'd think that if you were the all being, all mighty, all knowing creator of everything you could make a point and make it pretty darned crystal clear but I guess not. :)

[JPhillips]

SkyDog: Sorry to get involved here, but I can't let this go. Do you also forgive all debts every seven years as the Bible demands? Do you send your wife away during her period? Do you follow all of the dietary laws?

My point being that eveyone interprets the Bible.(At least I don't know of anyone tat follows everything) For me I try to rely on the words and actions of Jesus. I'm not much concerned with the rest of the Bible. Jesus tells me to love everyone, and although I often fall far from this, that is what I try to do. Jesus never tells me to condemn homosexuals, and I don't.

I don't know whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, and I doubt I will know before its too late to do anything here on Earth. My feeling is that Jesus would have loved homosexuals in the same way he loved prostitutes and tax collectors. That's what I try to do. Love can't ever be immoral.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Do you send your wife away during her period?

Are you insane man, he's merely God but she is SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED. :D

Seriously, you just described my thoughts pretty well. You're my kind of people JPhillips and that is meant as a compliment.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You're joking, right?

Explain how homosexuality is morally reprehensible, but don't use your basis for morality in your answer. :rolleyes:

Tis not a joke. I can explain my point of view on anything without consulting a book. I expect every other human being to be just as capable.

[JPhillips]

Thanks. I have a lot of gay friends and some are more moral than others, but no different than my straight friends. For me it just doesn't matter who someone is attracted to. I know it bothers others, and they have that right. Hopefully none of us waste too much time on a issue that just isn't that important.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by SkyDog
[BDiscussing "morality" without agreeing on a higher standard is an utter waste of time.[/B]

Why must there be a 'higher standard' agreed upon? Who says the standard of the 'Bible' is higher than my own? You?

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by Fritz
SkyDog,

Are you saying that morality is not relative?

Even the 'morality' presented by the Bible is relative. Killing is ok, but killing is not ok. The Bible itself, as well as Christianity throughout history, has determined that the stance on killing is not a moral absolute. If you are willing to admit this stance is not a moral absolute, then why are humans selectively determining which ones will be moral absolutes, when nothing can be worse than killing another human being? If you are willing to rationalize a change in this one, then you must be willing to do the same for all others.

[CamEdwards]

The problem with what you're asking Tekneek, is that even if someone is stupid enough to tell you why homosexuality is "morally reprehensible" without using a book, you'll then use your own definition of morality to try and refute the other person's definition. It's a no win situation.

[Tekneek]

No, I am not looking to refute that opinion, I am looking for someone to make a case for it being 'morally reprehensible' without invoking a single book. It's not that hard, and it is not as devious as you try to make it sound.

[Ben E Lou]

Tekneek, my authority for what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect comes from a book. Otherwise, my opinion has no more authority than yours, and vice versa.

As I said earlier, without an agreed-upon authority source, arguing morality is a waste of time.

[Axxon]

OK, one of the main things we hear about nonjudgement is the old saw "love the sinner, hate the sin." Fine, but this doesn't work really.
How can one even brand someone a sinner without first passing judgement that said person is one?

Also, the whole "sinners are going to hell" thing really must piss God off. After all, isn't that strictly and wholely his choice. I see this as another cautionary reason not to judge others.

Let's look at Judas, who commited a couple of heinous crimes ( betraying Jesus which I actually am not sure broke any real biblical rules, after all Peter did it three times in a night, and suicide, which is definately a no no ) but...the whole crucifiction and dying for our sins thing couldn't have happened had he not done it. So, since Judas WAS doing God's will how can any person living dare judge how God is going to treat him?

It's not our place to. It's our place to "remove the log from our eye than bother with the mote in our brothers." ( paraphrased ). I don't see how I'm misapplying the rule.

I'll even say that his quote ( again paraphrasing ) give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and onto God that which is God's can illustrate the point, don't overstep your boundaries. I know it wasn't said in that context so don't nitpick but it can be used to mean the same thing and as he did say not to judge( God's job ) it's not a stretch. Our job is to be the best we can be and worry not about anybody else's sins but work on our own. Let God decide who's the sinner and who isn't.

This all assumes a judeochristian belief system of course.

[KWhit]

I guess those that think being gay is "morally reprehensible" never masturbate. Because I think it says something about that in the book, too.

Right?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Axxon
OK, one of the main things we hear about nonjudgement is the old saw "love the sinner, hate the sin." Fine, but this doesn't work really.
How can one even brand someone a sinner without first passing judgement that said person is one?Ummmm...considering that many of the high school kids I know drink, use drugs, and engage in premarital sex--all on a regular basis---and I love them like they're my very own children, I can testify that it isn't that difficult to love the sinner.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by KWhit
I guess those that think being gay is "morally reprehensible" never masturbate. Because I think it says something about that in the book, too.

Right? Ummmm....I say, do and think things that are morally reprehensible all the time. I'd be the first to admit that.

[KWhit]

Ok. So back to the (sort of) topic at hand.

Should it be okay to degrade homosexuals because of their actions that you deem as immoral (but of course they deem them moral)?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by KWhit
Ok. So back to the (sort of) topic at hand.

Should it be okay to degrade homosexuals because of their actions that you deem as immoral (but of course they deem them moral)? The general answer to that question is "no," but I'm curious how you'd define "okay" (ie immoral, illegal or what) and what actions you'd consider to "degrade" those who engage in homosexual behavior.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

If you're specifically speaking of Savage's statement when you refer to "degrade," I'd say that it was wrong to say what he said.

[KWhit]

By "okay" I meant immoral. Legally, people can do whatever they want.

And in this particular instance I was referring to Savage's comments. But I'll take it a step further, to show what I meant when I stated earlier that I see a good bit of homophobia on this site.

SD, I have seen you use the terms "gay" and "faggotty" to describe things that you don't like or don't agree with. Basically, you're using those words to convey a negative opinion of something, right?

You're certainly not the only one here who does this - you just happen to be the one I'm posting with right now.

It's my opinion that this is degrading behavior toward homosexuals. What are you thoughts about it?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ummmm...considering that many of the high school kids I know drink, use drugs, and engage in premarital sex--all on a regular basis---and I love them like they're my very own children, I can testify that it isn't that difficult to love the sinner.


Missed my point Dog, you have to judge somebody to label them. You labeled them a sinner, not hard to do admittedly and you may not see the subtle distinction; I admit my talent for written words makes it hard for me to be eloquent enough. Still, to label someone anything requires a judgement, even in the most obvious cases.

[Axxon]

Let me use an example to hopefully say what I mean though it may well make things worse.

Let's say tomorrow you wake up and walk outside and a bush in your yard starts burning. From the bush comes the word of God.

"Ben" it says as presumably he won't call you SkyDog, "Ben I know you love and worship me and I need you to do something for me. I need you to sodomize Happy29."

Ok, now, sodomy is a sin but this is God talking to you. You may say he wouldn't tell you to do such a thing but who would have thought he'd tell Abraham to kill his son? Besides, who is anyone to dare question what God may or may not tell anyone to do...unless he's made in our image.

So, God tells you to do this and even though you don't want to, you do it. Are you a sinner in the eyes of God?? Can you be a sinner by doing the will of God? Can anybody look at you and judge you to be a sinner? Would Blackie be pissed he wasn't chosen instead as he's the King of the Sodomites??

Discuss.

[Easy Mac]

Let's ask Al Quaeda, they were commiting murder in the name of God (so they felt). Does that still make their murder moral?

[Ben E Lou]

God will not contradict Himself. He spared Isaac. He would spare me in such a situation as well.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Let's ask Al Quaeda, they were commiting murder in the name of God (so they felt). Does that still make their murder moral?

Can't say. I can't judge their relationship with their God. I know it sucks and can't be tolerated by man's laws and that's good enough for me. I have said repeatedly that the government can and should act to preserve it's best interests. Morality needn't enter the picture.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
God will not contradict Himself. He spared Isaac. He would spare me in such a situation as well.

No offense but that's just dodging the question. God ordered many people killed in the bible but said thou shall not kill is one of the ten most important rules.

If that's not contradictory then nothing is. That is, if man has to judge, there is no denying it is. He gets to decide though, not us, period. Another proof of why christians should leave the judging to God but anyway, lets say he told you to murder Happy29, which he has done, one example aside, and he's meant it, and they've done it, would you be a sinner???

[edit] which he has done in the bible with other people. I don't want you to get the suggestion that I"m saying God has asked you to murder Happy29. :D

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
thou shall not kill is one of the ten most important rules.


Bah, that was just for the Jews.

[John Galt]

I am no biblical scholar and have no current affiliation with an organized religion. However, many gays do and do not believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and the passages that are used to attack gays are primarily due to poor translations (and sometimes poor interpretation). Here is one website that has collected the arguments for the relevant passages in the Bible used in discussing gays as sinners:

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

I always find it troubling that people derive morality from any text given the systemic and inherent problems in interpretation and translation, but if you insist on attacking gays for their "sins," I implore you to read the above link with an open mind.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by KWhit
By "okay" I meant immoral. Legally, people can do whatever they want.

And in this particular instance I was referring to Savage's comments. But I'll take it a step further, to show what I meant when I stated earlier that I see a good bit of homophobia on this site.

SD, I have seen you use the terms "gay" and "faggotty" to describe things that you don't like or don't agree with. Basically, you're using those words to convey a negative opinion of something, right?

You're certainly not the only one here who does this - you just happen to be the one I'm posting with right now.

It's my opinion that this is degrading behavior toward homosexuals. What are you thoughts about it?

This is a very good issue and I'll be the first to admit it, while I don't say these things to people, sometimes when angry I do THINK in this derogatory fashion and it pisses me off because I don't for one second actually believe any of it.

I've thought about this a good bit because I'm fascinated about how the human mind works and this is definately something that gets right to the core of our fundamental makeup.

I think fundamentally there well may be some sort of ingrained ( be it chemical or genetic or evolutionary or whatever but I don't think it's environmental ) part of the male human makeup that somehow equates less masculine as being inferior. Women certainly aren't spared from this either. I've even heard gay friends make comments like this in the heat of battle and surely they don't mean them.

I can't figure it out past this. When I analyse it the thought vaporizes and I can't get a hold of it to figure out where it came from. It seems silly at that point. Luckily for me, I am very, very precise in my speech and not to be politically correct, but to accurately state my thoughts ( thats why so many of my posts are long and boring too ). When these thoughts come up they don't make it through the filter so I'm not needlessly hurtful but I am aware and it does make me think.

I do know though that if I WANT to hurt someone who is not homosexual I can say these things and no matter how tolerant they are it gets a rise out of them. I believe it is more hurtful to them than it is offensive to a homosexual. That's why I'm figuring it goes way deeper than mere bigotry.

I'm sure I offended somebody by posting this though. :)

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
Bah, that was just for the Jews.

:D :D :D

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Tekneek, my authority for what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect comes from a book. Otherwise, my opinion has no more authority than yours, and vice versa.

So, as long as I get my positions/thoughts/opinions from a book they are valid, but if I arrive at them on my own they hold no authority?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
So, as long as I get my positions/thoughts/opinions from a book they are valid, but if I arrive at them on my own they hold no authority? Well, if the book contains ultimate truth, then of course. If the book doesn't, then what's the point?

[Tekneek]

Hah. So, who is this authority that determines what is the ultimate truth? I trust it isn't humans determining this, because who knows what mistakes they may be making.

[vtbub]

Also, what makes you think The Bible is the ultimate truth?

The Koran isn't? The Book of Mormon? Sacred writings of Hindus and Buddists?

That wasn't meant to inflame you, just what is your take on scriptures in other religions.

I don't have a problems with your beliefs, because they are yours. What I don't like is the lack of tolerance for different point of views, in general, not specifically you.

[Tekneek]

I am not trying to make this personal. I'm not sure I understand how any book written by human beings finds the 'ultimate truth' but other books also written by human beings are presumed to fall short of the 'ultimate truth' with no evidence either way.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by vtbub
Also, what makes you think The Bible is the ultimate truth?Well, this would take a very long time to go into in detail, and I seriously doubt it would even be productive. IF the Bible is ultimate truth, then my position makes sense.

[vtbub]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I am truly curious.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well, this would take a very long time to go into in detail, and I seriously doubt it would even be productive. IF the Bible is ultimate truth, then my position makes sense.

I agree with that. I do have an off the wall question which really isn't related to the discussion but..

The first commandment states:
First "I am The Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."

Note it doesn't say there are no other Gods nor that you shouldn't believe in them, just that you shouldn't put them before him. Seems fair enough to me.

Do you believe that a pantheistic reality exists or was God stating something that isn't true, which seems not something he'd likely do? Most christians I've met seem to think there is only one God but still don't think that he was lying here. If there is more than one God, and note, he doesn't claim superiority over them, merely that he hooked them up so they better worship him ( which again seems fair ), then could there not also be more than one "ultimate truth"?

[Axxon]

OK, I lied, it is related but I'm too lazy to edit.

[Axxon]

Here's an article discussing early biblical polytheism.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

[Tekneek]

If _Communion_ is true, then extra-terrestrials HAVE visited the planet and abducted human beings. Which 'based on a true story' books are we supposed to believe and which are we not? We shouldn't believe aliens have come and abducted people, that is way too outlandish. However, we should believe in a God that used to speak to people, burning shrubs, a sea being parted, resurrections, turning water into wine, and other 'miracles' found in the _Holy Bible_.

Is it because believers of _Communion_ don't set up churches? Is that the difference? More people believe the _Holy Bible_, so therefore it is true?

I know this is going off on a tangent. Most people agree that Savage, even if he thinks he is in agreement with God when he tells people to 'get AIDS and die', he deserved to get fired. That's a good thing.

By the way, can anyone tell me what morals are being taught in the following Commandments :

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

Thou shalt not covet

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Axxon
I agree with that. I do have an off the wall question which really isn't related to the discussion but..

The first commandment states:
First "I am The Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."

Note it doesn't say there are no other Gods nor that you shouldn't believe in them, just that you shouldn't put them before him. Seems fair enough to me.

Do you believe that a pantheistic reality exists or was God stating something that isn't true, which seems not something he'd likely do? Most christians I've met seem to think there is only one God but still don't think that he was lying here. If there is more than one God, and note, he doesn't claim superiority over them, merely that he hooked them up so they better worship him ( which again seems fair ), then could there not also be more than one "ultimate truth"? Well, I haven't studied that in particular. However, I know growing up I was taught that the use of the word "gods" doesn't necessarily imply putting other "deities" first--that anything, be it money, popularity, sex, etc. etc. etc. can become a "god."

[Axxon]

Yeah, I was taught that too but was surprised to learn that monotheism was a relatively late entry into the judeo-christian scene once I got more religious training in high school and college. It always interested me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by vtbub
I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I am truly curious. OK. The VERY short version. (I've got a meeting at 2:30, then I need to finish preparing (ironic.....) for a Bible Study that I'm teaching tonight.

1. REASONS I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD
a. personal experience
b. fulfilled prophecy
c. historical accuracy
d. amazing preservation of meaning/intent of original texts over thousands of years

2. REASON I BELIEVE THAT THE OTHERS AREN'T
Well, again, IF the Bible is ultimate truth, then the statement that it makes that it is the final and infallible Word of God pretty much knocks everything else out.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
I don't believe that you can claim right and wrong in regards to morality.

...

I'm working on my own log, not someone elses mote.


It's puzzling to me that someone who obviously has spent a considerable time in the study of scripture would say that there is no authoritative source for what is right or wrong.

2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[clintl]

Originally posted by Tekneek
By the way, can anyone tell me what morals are being taught in the following Commandments :

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

Thou shalt not covet

According to Judeo-Christian tradition, not believing is one of the worst possible sins. All of these are tied into that idea.

[Easy Mac]

I don't think you can argue for the preservation of intent and menaing. Each translator of the Bible has had to make their own interpretation of a passages intent and meaning.

And I don't have the bible memorized word for word, but does it say in the Old Testament that Jesus will die on the cross. Hell, Nostradomus said a great man will be strike by a bolt from the sky, and people have interpreted that to mean JFK, but that doesn't mean a prophecy has been fullfilled.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
IAnd I don't have the bible memorized word for word, but does it say in the Old Testament that Jesus will die on the cross. Hell, Nostradomus said a great man will be strike by a bolt from the sky, and people have interpreted that to mean JFK, but that doesn't mean a prophecy has been fullfilled. Read Isaiah 53, and Psalm 22. The 22nd Psalm is particularly interesting, as it was written before there was such a thing AS crucifixion.

OK. I really gotta go now. Gotta be somewhere in 13 minutes, and it'll take me at least 10 to get there.

[Easy Mac]

cool, gracias

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I don't think you can argue for the preservation of intent and menaing. Each translator of the Bible has had to make their own interpretation of a passages intent and meaning.

And I don't have the bible memorized word for word, but does it say in the Old Testament that Jesus will die on the cross. Hell, Nostradomus said a great man will be strike by a bolt from the sky, and people have interpreted that to mean JFK, but that doesn't mean a prophecy has been fullfilled.

Agreed. See my link on the Bible and passages relevant to gays listed above.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
It's puzzling to me that someone who obviously has spent a considerable time in the study of scripture would say that there is no authoritative source for what is right or wrong.

If you want to know the story I'll tell it. It is WHY I spent a lot of time in the study of scripture.

When I was a young child, and I do mean very young, I was a religious prodigy. At the age of 6 I had a baptist preacher try and adopt me from my family to make me "the next Billy Graham." He was a distant relative but still...

At the age of 7 I was the youngest person baptised at the church I was attending. I had to have meetings with the pastor to prove that I was being baptised by my own will and that I understood what I was doing and it was what I wanted.

That was the year I got the town drunk ( we were a small town )to come back to church and it was seen as a big thing. All I did was talk to the man. That kind of influence scares me to this day. I want no part of that; what if I steer them wrong?

This was all fine and good until I hit 14. At that point I could no longer accept a lot of what I was reading and being told. I had a very personal relationship with God and in my heart I could not accept that what I was being told inside was the same as what I was being taught outside but I didn't want to offend God or get him on my bad side. Quite frankly, hell scared me back then.

I can still remember the day that I made "the promise." I said to the God inside that I loved him dearly but there was no way I could be satisfied with what I was hearing from everybody else. I felt there had to be more to the story and that I wanted to find out what that more was but I didn't want to burn in hell for my curiosity but I had to learn more. I promised that no matter what I learned, no matter where it took me, I was doing it for him and I wanted him to always know that and to realize that if I went astray it was for all the right reasons.

I then began really studying spirituality and religion on my own and in earnest. Over the years I've seen that it's really all the same, basically. All that really separates the religions is the man made rules. They all say don't kill, they all have "the golden rule" etc. We have tortured and killed people simply because of dietary laws and when it's ok to eat meet. It's insanity.

Ultimately I divorced myself of any branch of religion but I give every one of them ( including athiests ) the utmost respect. I don't joke about them or mock them, I just can't be a hypocrite and join a group that ultimately will limit my true faith and belief and since I truly don't believe that there is only one right answer and that God is wise and loving enough to see everyone on their own merits I don't really have to limit myself that way.

I don't think that the bible is a bad thing. It's a good thing and it's there to make sure people understand what's right and wrong but it's not the only book God put out there to do that. He has to reach a whole hell of a lot of folks and he has to make sure that they can understand the message and it works with their culture and their understanding of the world. Hell, even Jesus used parables to get folks to understand.

When people misuse the Bible to make their points and I know that they are misusing it ( as opposed to interpreting it in a way that I disagree with ) it burns me up. Same with any other religious tome.

I guess I believe that God is everywhere and in everything and is available to teach us and learn with us and about us all the time not just on sunday and with one book. It doesn't work for me. I'd never presume to tell others that it wouldn't or won't work for them. Obviously it does.

Sometimes I like to make them think a little but there's nothing wrong with that.

Phew, I guess that got awful sappy and maudlin didn't it?

[sabotai]

"I could stand atop the Sears Tower, and say all day, "I don't believe in the Law of Gravity" and fully believe that it doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what I believe. If I walk off the edge, I WILL fall. In the same way, it doesn't matter whether you or I believe it is immoral. It is, and neither of us can change that."

Ladies and gentlemen, we've found our new mrskippy.

[Easy Mac]

Oh, just for the record, the Psalm 22 I read has no mention of the crucifixion. Jesus says, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", but hey, I've been known to quote obscure movies, so its not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus would quote an obscure Bible reference.

But as we know, not every bible is written the same, so perhaps something was lost or gained in various translations.

[digamma]

Also, to play devil's advocate, I don't think it is a given point that you can't have morals without a higher authority.

I think this is the argument C.S. Lewis sort of makes in his book Mere Christianity. He traces different civilizations and religions and notes that they all have certain basic tenets. The leap though is that these basic tenets common to most religions are "divine law," coming from a higher authority.

Another possibility though, is simply that the desire to survive led man to creat laws and moral codes to preserve himself. In order to exit Locke's "state of nature" man had to make rules for getting along with others and surviving. Not killing others, not stealing from others, etc. would be basic rules that would help man survive and prosper. I'm not sure that it necessarily takes a higher authority to get to this point.

[sabotai]

*notes that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 says nothing about crucifixition.*

*notes that Psalm 22:21 mentions unicorns.*

[Axxon]

Originally posted by sabotai
*notes that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 says nothing about crucifixition.*

*notes that Psalm 22:21 mentions unicorns.*

Well, the psalms were basically songs so using them to prove anything on either side is pretty whacked.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
If you want to know the story I'll tell it. It is WHY I spent a lot of time in the study of scripture.

When I was a young child, and I do mean very young, I was a religious prodigy. At the age of 6 I had a baptist preacher try and adopt me from my family to make me "the next Billy Graham." He was a distant relative but still...

At the age of 7 I was the youngest person baptised at the church I was attending. I had to have meetings with the pastor to prove that I was being baptised by my own will and that I understood what I was doing and it was what I wanted.

That was the year I got the town drunk ( we were a small town )to come back to church and it was seen as a big thing. All I did was talk to the man. That kind of influence scares me to this day. I want no part of that; what if I steer them wrong?

This was all fine and good until I hit 14. At that point I could no longer accept a lot of what I was reading and being told. I had a very personal relationship with God and in my heart I could not accept that what I was being told inside was the same as what I was being taught outside but I didn't want to offend God or get him on my bad side. Quite frankly, hell scared me back then.

I can still remember the day that I made "the promise." I said to the God inside that I loved him dearly but there was no way I could be satisfied with what I was hearing from everybody else. I felt there had to be more to the story and that I wanted to find out what that more was but I didn't want to burn in hell for my curiosity but I had to learn more. I promised that no matter what I learned, no matter where it took me, I was doing it for him and I wanted him to always know that and to realize that if I went astray it was for all the right reasons.

I then began really studying spirituality and religion on my own and in earnest. Over the years I've seen that it's really all the same, basically. All that really separates the religions is the man made rules. They all say don't kill, they all have "the golden rule" etc. We have tortured and killed people simply because of dietary laws and when it's ok to eat meet. It's insanity.

Ultimately I divorced myself of any branch of religion but I give every one of them ( including athiests ) the utmost respect. I don't joke about them or mock them, I just can't be a hypocrite and join a group that ultimately will limit my true faith and belief and since I truly don't believe that there is only one right answer and that God is wise and loving enough to see everyone on their own merits I don't really have to limit myself that way.

I don't think that the bible is a bad thing. It's a good thing and it's there to make sure people understand what's right and wrong but it's not the only book God put out there to do that. He has to reach a whole hell of a lot of folks and he has to make sure that they can understand the message and it works with their culture and their understanding of the world. Hell, even Jesus used parables to get folks to understand.

When people misuse the Bible to make their points and I know that they are misusing it ( as opposed to interpreting it in a way that I disagree with ) it burns me up. Same with any other religious tome.

I guess I believe that God is everywhere and in everything and is available to teach us and learn with us and about us all the time not just on sunday and with one book. It doesn't work for me. I'd never presume to tell others that it wouldn't or won't work for them. Obviously it does.

Sometimes I like to make them think a little but there's nothing wrong with that.

Phew, I guess that got awful sappy and maudlin didn't it?

Fascinating story... thank you for sharing.

Do you believe everything Jesus said in the Bible to be true?

[sabotai]

*notes that unicorns also appear in Job, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Isaiah and Daniel* :p

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Fascinating story... thank you for sharing.

Do you believe everything Jesus said in the Bible to be true?

I hate to use definitive statements because then some biblical lawyer will hit me with something but basically yes, I believe that all of his teachings are fundamentally true. I can't think of one that I don't accept. Again, though, my interpretation of the words of Jesus certainly may not 100% agree with traditional biblical scholarship.

I have one example in mind that definately doesn't and it's definately different but doesn't really warp his teaching, just I disagree with the relevance of the statement. :)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
I hate to use definitive statements because then some biblical lawyer will hit me with something but basically yes, I believe that all of his teachings are fundamentally true. I can't think of one that I don't accept. Again, though, my interpretation of the words of Jesus certainly may not 100% agree with traditional biblical scholarship.

I have one example in mind that definately doesn't and it's definately different but doesn't really warp his teaching, just I disagree with the relevance of the statement. :)

I'm only asking because most people will agree that Jesus was a real person, he was an honest person, and he wasn't insane or anything.

That said, Jesus also did claim to be the son of God, and that:


Joh:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Easy Mac

But as we know, not every bible is written the same, so perhaps something was lost or gained in various translations.

Actually Galt's link from earlier in the thread about homosexuality in the bible has some great points about this. It's definitely worth a look if you really want to get closer to understanding what the bible does and doesn't say about gay activities, which is very important because many that think homosexuality is immoral point to the bible for "proof".



Another interesting point I found:

One of the major verses that is used to refute homosexuality is

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."



And yet, just a few lines down is this verse:

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."


Do you guys believe that this is "morally reprehensible" as well?

[sabotai]

"Homosexuals do not pass their genetic material on, and therefore don't work to ensure the survival of this species."

And one could counter by saying that homosexuality helps to prevent over population of a species so that the species will have enough food and water to survive.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Just for debate's sake.

The ultimate goal of any species is to pass on its genetic material to ensure the survival of said species.

Homosexuals do not pass their genetic material on, and therefore don't work to ensure the survival of this species.

Ergo, homosexuals work against the ultimate goal of the human race, and that could be classified as "morally reprehensible."


So do masturbaters.

[sabotai]

dola,

I wonder why christians never bring up the second part of that Leviticus line. They use it to support that it's an "abomination", yet they stop there...what happened to the death penalty for homosexuals? Seems like you are going against God's word by not supporting the death penelty for such an act. I mean, it really couldn't be more clear, could it?

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Just for debate's sake.

The ultimate goal of any species is to pass on its genetic material to ensure the survival of said species.

Homosexuals do not pass their genetic material on, and therefore don't work to ensure the survival of this species.

Ergo, homosexuals work against the ultimate goal of the human race, and that could be classified as "morally reprehensible."

Hell, in that case priests* and nuns are morally reprehensible as well!





*even the ones who don't fondle little boys.

[tucker342]

good point:D

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I'm only asking because most people will agree that Jesus was a real person, he was an honest person, and he wasn't insane or anything.

That said, Jesus also did claim to be the son of God, and that:

That's the one disagreement that I have that makes me not a christian. :) I have already written this once but deleted it and simply mentioned that it existed.

I believe that Jesus meant his life and his teaching. Indeed, if you follow his teachings and do your best to follow his examples you will surely be welcomed by the father; our father.

The one Jesus told us to pray to, starting with the words, "Our father, who art in heaven..."

I feel we are all children of God and Jesus may well be first among the rest but he made no pretense that he was singular in that. "Our" father, who art in heaven.

I feel that to consider the crucifiction and the resurrection as the primary purpose of Jesus' life is a tragic mistake. I have actually had a christian woman tell me that her church taught that it mattered not what Christ said because what mattered was that he died for our sins therefore opening the door to heaven.

If that's the case then why did he bother teaching at all? It was the teaching and the sermons and the example he set that IS important and is the way and the "life", even if his death was somehow necessary to finalize the deal. That's what I believe he meant and it's how I try to live and again, it's the fundamental reason I certainly can't call myself a christian.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sabotai
dola,

I wonder why christians never bring up the second part of that Leviticus line. They use it to support that it's an "abomination", yet they stop there...what happened to the death penalty for homosexuals? Seems like you are going against God's word by not supporting the death penelty for such an act. I mean, it really couldn't be more clear, could it?

Everybody sins, and nobody keeps all the laws set forth in the Old Testament. Christians readily admit this.

Ro:3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Therefore, were it not for the gift of salvation from Jesus Christ, every person who ever lived would go to hell, basically.

Ro:6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Joh:3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


This doesn't mean we're perfect people after we accept Jesus as savior, nor does it mean we've been given license to sin just because we've accepted salvation.


Ro:10:8: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Ro:10:9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro:10:10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


2Co:5:14: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co:5:15: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
2Co:5:16: Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
2Co:5:17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

[clintl]

Axxon, it sounds like are now a Deist.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by clintl
Axxon, it sounds like are now a Deist.

You know, you just may be right about that. :)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
That's the one disagreement that I have that makes me not a christian. :)

You callin' Jesus a liar? ;)

(I am suddenly reminded of "Major League" - "Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?")

:D

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
You callin' Jesus a liar? ;)

(I am suddenly reminded of "Major League" - "Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?")

:D

I loved that line from the movie. :D

Great movie and a classic line.

[vtbub]

If you ever played Strat Hockey in the early 90's and saw Mario Lemieux and Brett Hull's card, it would be easy to see that not even God could stop them from scoring on rebounds.

[Leonidas]

Since everyone else has gotten to share their feelings on religion I feel somewhat compelled to share some thoughts on the Koran since I have recently made a study of it and have found it very interesting.

The whole purpose of the Koran was to right the wrongs committed by "Christians" who created an off-base, organized religion in the name of Jesus Christ (namely what would become Catholicism). The premise is that while Christ was a true prophet, and the son of God, he was not himself God and he was not here to create a new religion. The Koran was written to right the wrongs committed in God's and Christ's name.

Islam is actually a sort of anti-religion. Organized religion, in the Koran, is another means to push idolotry. Islam in itself is not supposed to be a religion. The Book (the Old Testament) is for all people's of faith and is not supposed to be the root of a religion unto itself. As you may well imagine, Islamic extremists have really F'd the whole thing up and aren't even remotely close to practicing what their own Book preaches.

However, for all of the wonderful things the Koran does say it also has an awful lot of things that just make me go "huh?". Like the parts about getting virgins and wine that won't make you drunk (like what's the point of that) in paradise. Or the part where Mohammed is allowed special privileges with certain women denied to other men just because God said so (perhaps not so coincidentally through the hand of Mohammed himself). And especially the fact the Koran is a bold proponent of slavery.

The Koran recognizes the teachings of Christ, it recognizes the Old Testament simply as The Book, but it does not recognize the New Testament. Oh, and something else kind of interesting, Christians and Jews are not Infidels. The Koran acknowledges there are true believers among the Christians and Jews. While it refers to True Believers as being Muslims (people of the Faith), it does not necessarily look upon Muslims as a part of a specific religious faction. They are just the True Believers and can be of any race or even faith, as long as they are True Believers of the one true God.

Now I feel so much better for getting to spread the word on the Koran as I interpereted it. Have a Blessed Day! ;)

[Axxon]

Originally posted by vtbub
If you ever played Strat Hockey in the early 90's and saw Mario Lemieux and Brett Hull's card, it would be easy to see that not even God could stop them from scoring on rebounds.

I did but since I not a fan of Hockey I don't remember them exactly. It's the damnedest thing but I don't like hockey but love the hockey games that are out. Strat was an extremely fun game and I spent WAY more time with it than a non hockey fan should have.

I know how the soccer hating CM fans must feel. :)

[Axxon]

What I'm happy and simply amazed by is how we're holding a mature, fun and flame free religion thread on FOFC. Did I warp into the twilight zone or something?? :D

[vtbub]

Dice roll on Hull's '91 card on a rebound was pretty much straight goal. Goalie had no chance.

[Franklinnoble]

Trent: "I wish they still had fights in this game so I could bitch-slap Wayne"
Mike: "What they don't have fighting anymore?"
Trent: "Ya, doesn't that suck"
Mike: "Why'd they get rid of the fighting it's the best part of the old version"
Sue: "I think kids were hitting each other or something"
Trent: "Ya, but you make there heads bleed on this one"
Mike: "Make someone's head bleed"
Trent: "I'm making Gretzky's head bleed for super-fan #99 over here"

[sabotai]

"Everybody sins, and nobody keeps all the laws set forth in the Old Testament. Christians readily admit this."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

(quoted so no has to go looking for it.)

Ok. So then the next question is why do christians retain the beleif in the first part of that sentance (both of them have commited an abomination) but not the second part (they shall surely be put to death)? What exactly has negated the meaning of the second part?

[Axxon]

Strictly enforced penal codes I'd imagine.

[sabotai]

Well, I know that's the reason they don't actually go out and kill homosexuals. (Well, most people). But that doesn't say why christians don't _beleive_ they should be put to death.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by sabotai
Well, I know that's the reason they don't actually go out and kill homosexuals. (Well, most people). But that doesn't say why christians don't _beleive_ they should be put to death.

Will someone please at least go to the link I posted? :)

It talks about that passage and 5 others used to argue that homosexuality is a sin. Here it is again:


http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

[Axxon]

Originally posted by John Galt
Will someone please at least go to the link I posted? :)

It talks about that passage and 5 others used to argue that homosexuality is a sin. Here it is again:


http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

But that's too much like work. :)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Everybody sins, and nobody keeps all the laws set forth in the Old Testament. Christians readily admit this."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

(quoted so no has to go looking for it.)

Ok. So then the next question is why do christians retain the beleif in the first part of that sentance (both of them have commited an abomination) but not the second part (they shall surely be put to death)? What exactly has negated the meaning of the second part?

Christ's death on the cross was a one-time sacrifice and payment for all the sins of those who accept him as Lord and savior.
Read Romans, chapter 3 (I could quote the whole thing here - but really, it could take a month to thoroughly examine it).

[sabotai]

John, I realize that a lot of christians do not follow (or at least should not follow) the laws in Leviticus anymore (as the article says). But some christians do take out what they want.

My question is aimed at those who still use this passage to justify their beleif that homosexuality is morally wrong. For those who use this passage, why is it you only use the first part?

[sabotai]

dola,

"Christ's death on the cross was a one-time sacrifice and payment for all the sins of those who accept him as Lord and savior."

Ok...so you are saying that the homosexuals who do accept Jesus as their lord and blah blah blah should not be put to death for being homosexual because Jesus already did?

What about the ones who are not christians?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sabotai
dola,

"Christ's death on the cross was a one-time sacrifice and payment for all the sins of those who accept him as Lord and savior."

Ok...so you are saying that the homosexuals who do accept Jesus as their lord and blah blah blah should not be put to death for being homosexual because Jesus already did?

What about the ones who are not christians?



Ga:3:19: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Ga:3:20: Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Ga:3:21: Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Ga:3:22: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ga:3:23: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Ga:3:24: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga:3:25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Ga:3:26: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

[Franklinnoble]

Sorry... didn't finish my post there...

You can't have salvation by following the law - it's impossible for any human being to adhere to the strict laws set forth in the Old Testament. That doesn't mean that they're not valid - it just proves that we are unworthy of salvation by our own means. As Christians, we have salvation despite our inability to adhere to the law. This does not mean we are now granted license to disobey God; we are called to live righteously and repent humbly should we commit a sin. We are also no longer responsible for enforcing the laws of the old testament. (Heb:10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.)

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Sorry... didn't finish my post there...

You can't have salvation by following the law - it's impossible for any human being to adhere to the strict laws set forth in the Old Testament. That doesn't mean that they're not valid - it just proves that we are unworthy of salvation by our own means.

Which begs the question of why he gave us the laws in the first place and why he waited so long to remedy the situation. An all powerful deity should be able to do more timely and thorough work.

And free will doesn't answer this if the laws are truly impossible not merely unfollowed. I don't get this. What was he thinking.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by clintl
Axxon, it sounds like are now a Deist.

No, if www.deism.com is any indication and it surely must be then I'm no deist. They are VERY anti religion and the bible and I'm simply not that. Shame though, because I agree with alot of their basic concepts but they make the mistake of being too smug and sure of themselves.

I'm pretty sure I'll never be an anything but me but I keep looking nonetheless. :)

[sabotai]

Franklin, you're not even coming to close to answering my question.

Again, why do christians use Leviticus 20:13 to support their claim that homosexuality is immoral, yet do not beleive the second part of the sentance which states that they should be put to death?

I'm not asking about salvation or Jesus or getting into heavan or any of that stuff. I'm not asking if Leviticus is still valid. The christians who use this line to say that homosexuality is wrong are opening the door. Why do they not beleive homosexuals should be put to death when the line that _they_ are using clearly states so?

[sabotai]

deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by sabotai
deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

From their official FAQ:

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it? Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest is up to Providence.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sabotai
Franklin, you're not even coming to close to answering my question.

Again, why do christians use Leviticus 20:13 to support their claim that homosexuality is immoral, yet do not beleive the second part of the sentance which states that they should be put to death?

I'm not asking about salvation or Jesus or getting into heavan or any of that stuff. I'm not asking if Leviticus is still valid. The christians who use this line to say that homosexuality is wrong are opening the door. Why do they not beleive homosexuals should be put to death when the line that _they_ are using clearly states so?

I did try to answer your question:

Heb:10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

The law is clear, but we are no longer tasked with enforcing it.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
Which begs the question of why he gave us the laws in the first place and why he waited so long to remedy the situation. An all powerful deity should be able to do more timely and thorough work.

And free will doesn't answer this if the laws are truly impossible not merely unfollowed. I don't get this. What was he thinking.

Well, I'm only playing amateur Biblical scholar here, but I'm pretty sure the scripture I quoted from Galatians, chapter 3, answers that question. I'm sorry I'm not able to explain it any more clearly - I freely admit I'm not really qualified to teach on the subject.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I did try to answer your question:

Heb:10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

The law is clear, but we are no longer tasked with enforcing it.

So do you believe that God enforces it by killing homosexuals. Do you believe that is what AIDS is all about?

Again, I'd like to point out one of my favorite points. We see here who should be doing the judging, the Lord. Yet again another reference to what many christians see as a very entertaining past time. It's not a wise thing to do folks.

[Axxon]

I'll confess I'm too tired to try and comprehend the Galatians reference right now. I'll have to look at it later when I'm more rested.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
So do you believe that God enforces it by killing homosexuals. Do you believe that is what AIDS is all about?


No, I think we stand to be judged after we're dead.


Again, I'd like to point out one of my favorite points. We see here who should be doing the judging, the Lord. Yet again another reference to what many christians see as a very entertaining past time. It's not a wise thing to do folks.

I think we agree for the most part on this point - although I will maintain that while we are not meant to pass judgement on others, that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge a sinful activity for what it is. We should not endorse sin, but likewise we are not called to persecute the sinful.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
No, I think we stand to be judged after we're dead.



I think we agree for the most part on this point - although I will maintain that while we are not meant to pass judgement on others, that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge a sinful activity for what it is. We should not endorse sin, but likewise we are not called to persecute the sinful.

I believe we should acknowledge what is a sinful act for us and not practice it. I don't think we should judge it's sinfulness in others. We're so close to agreeing and yet so far at the same time. :)

You'll be in trouble though when they eventually definitively prove it's genetic though. ;)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon

You'll be in trouble though when they eventually definitively prove it's genetic though. ;)

Not really. People can have a genetic propensity for obesity, and gluttony is still a sin. People can be born with hormonal imbalances that make them more inclined to nymphomania, and adultury is still a sin. People have chemical problems that make them more angry and violent, but rage is still a sin.

We're all born with inherent weaknesses. That doesn't give us permission to indulge them.

[ice4277]

Still, nobody has answered why so many Christians 'pick and choose' the laws they follow from the Old Testament. Why all the focus on the line about homosexuals when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other rules in there that are never paid any attention to?



Just so people know where I stand, I am nominally Catholic but my views tend to fall into line with Axxon's. He probably stated the way I feel about things much better than I ever could.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Not really. People can have a genetic propensity for obesity, and gluttony is still a sin. People can be born with hormonal imbalances that make them more inclined to nymphomania, and adultury is still a sin. People have chemical problems that make them more angry and violent, but rage is still a sin.

We're all born with inherent weaknesses. That doesn't give us permission to indulge them.

Ah, but there are obese who aren't gluttons, celibate nympho's and non cheating adulterers ( not really this last one but I don't know how else to say it ) so there well may be celibate homosexuals therefore you won't be able to say that they are sinners anymore unless you catch one in the act.

What the hell am I even saying? You can't say that now unless you catch them in the act or they admit the act. Simply saying that they are homosexuals doesn't necessary mean they act on anything at all, merely they have a preference should they choose to act and even Leviticus doesn't say THAT's a sin.

Screw it, my head hurts. I'm going to bed. It's been fun talking to everybody on this topic. I'm out. :)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
Ah, but there are obese who aren't gluttons, celibate nympho's and non cheating adulterers ( not really this last one but I don't know how else to say it ) so there well may be celibate homosexuals therefore you won't be able to say that they are sinners anymore unless you catch one in the act.

What the hell am I even saying? You can't say that now unless you catch them in the act or they admit the act. Simply saying that they are homosexuals doesn't necessary mean they act on anything at all, merely they have a preference should they choose to act and even Leviticus doesn't say THAT's a sin.

Screw it, my head hurts. I'm going to bed. It's been fun talking to everybody on this topic. I'm out. :)


M't:5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
M't:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
M't:5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
M't:5:20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
M't:5:21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
M't:5:22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
M't:5:23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
M't:5:24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
M't:5:25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
M't:5:26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
M't:5:27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
M't:5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
M't:5:29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.


I think the above is self explainatory.

Sleep well.:)

[lurker]

Originally posted by Leonidas
The whole purpose of the Koran was to right the wrongs committed by "Christians" who created an off-base, organized religion in the name of Jesus Christ (namely what would become Catholicism). The premise is that while Christ was a true prophet, and the son of God, he was not himself God and he was not here to create a new religion. The Koran was written to right the wrongs committed in God's and Christ's name.

The Quran doesn't actually say that Jesus is God's son (at least according to the version I read), but that he is a prophet.

Originally posted by Leonidas
Islam is actually a sort of anti-religion. Organized religion, in the Koran, is another means to push idolotry. Islam in itself is not supposed to be a religion. The Book (the Old Testament) is for all people's of faith and is not supposed to be the root of a religion unto itself.

Actually, it's supposed to be a continuation of the Old and New Testament (and therefore Judaism and Christianity). And I do believe most sects in Islam consider it to be an organized religion.

Originally posted by Leonidas
As you may well imagine, Islamic extremists have really F'd the whole thing up and aren't even remotely close to practicing what their own Book preaches.

Definitely have to agree with you there.

Originally posted by Leonidas

However, for all of the wonderful things the Koran does say it also has an awful lot of things that just make me go "huh?". Like the parts about getting virgins and wine that won't make you drunk (like what's the point of that) in paradise. Or the part where Mohammed is allowed special privileges with certain women denied to other men just because God said so (perhaps not so coincidentally through the hand of Mohammed himself). And especially the fact the Koran is a bold proponent of slavery.

A lot of that is misinterpretations (in my mind) and mistranslations from Arabic.

Sorry if it seemed like I was nitpicking. I thought your post was really interesting.

[sabotai]

EDIT: Bah, this has been a good convo, but I'm about to head out for the night. (By the time I check this forum again, this'll be on page 2 or 3, so thanks for the good non flame religious debate.)

Hmm, just thought of something. There have been a lot of recent nonflame threads that have in the past turned into flame wars. I really hope this positive trend continues.

[CamEdwards]

sabotai,

I believe in relation to what Franklin has said, most Christians would say that since we are no longer tasket with enforcing the law of God, we don't have to put homosexuals to death.

JohnGalt,

I visited the website you mentioned, and while interesting, I'd really like to see some sources cited on some of the interpretations and language. Some of it just came off as a little too self serving an interpretation.

And I'm left with this question: the author goes to great details to show that God loves homosexuals. I think most mainstream churces believe this. "love the sinner, hate the sin" and all that jazz. But I couldn't find where the author ever found that homosexuality isn't a sin.

I have no doubt God loves all of us. I also have no doubt that all of us are sinners. The question is, are we (speaking about Christians here, no need to get into a religious debate) repentant? Do we want His mercy and forgiveness or do we choose to flaunt our disobedience? This applies to many other things beyond homosexuality, of course, but I thought the website really failed to address that.

[John Galt]

Cam,

I appreciate you taking the time to read the link. There are a lot of other sources that say the same thing. Quite a few years ago there was a book on the subject that had much greater citation. There is a more recent book (I can't remember the title of the old one) called, "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality." From what I've read, that book isn't all that well regarded. For a better, scholarly review, there is a book titled, "The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships."

There are also a bunch of links on the same website I posted to an array of online resources.

As to your point that the text doesn't actually say homosexuality isn't a sin, I think that is true. From what I've read (and I'm very far from an expert), those who argue that the Bible doesn't condemn being gay believe that because they think the Bible doesn't say either way. I think it would be asking too much to find an affirmative reference that being gay is not a sin. Thus, there isn't a need for repentance if you have a loving, monogamous, same-sex relationship.

[CamEdwards]

I guess I could have been more coherent. When I talk about "homosexuality" in my last post, I wasn't talking about "being gay". I was talking about engaging in the actual act of homosexual sex.

Thanks for the info on the other books. I'll have to try and find the second one that you mentioned.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by lurker
The Quran doesn't actually say that Jesus is God's son (at least according to the version I read), but that he is a prophet.

Actually, it's supposed to be a continuation of the Old and New Testament (and therefore Judaism and Christianity). And I do believe most sects in Islam consider it to be an organized religion.

Sorry if it seemed like I was nitpicking. I thought your post was really interesting.

Granted, a lot of what I said is based on my own study and interpretation of the Koran. The Koran may not come right out and say Jesus is the Son of God, but I make that interpretation based on the fact it does acknowledge the immaculate conception, ergo Jesus must be the son of God.

As for being an organized religion, yes many Islamic sects do consider it so. However, my interpretation of the Koran is that it implies organized religions by nature practice idolatry. Some would say, myself included, that the Koran was even written as God's way of denouncing organized religions (Catholicism in particular).

And no, you are not nitpicking, just offering your own reasoned thoughts onto what I said. It's nice to have an intelligent exchange of ideas every now and then. Even on a board devoted to a sim football game :)

[MylesKnight]

Damn.. I thought we were talking about the "Savage Nation".

I'm gonna see if I can get our soon to be newest President of the United States over here to respond to this thread. Just give me a moment.

Ahh, here he is now... http://www.dems.us/images/sharpton.jpg

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Damn.. I thought we were talking about the "Savage Nation".

I'm gonna see if I can get our soon to be newest President of the United States over here to respond to this thread. Just give me a moment.

Ahh, here he is now... http://www.dems.us/images/sharpton.jpg

Any minute now, Tawana Brawley is going to accuse Michael Savage of sexual assault...

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Any minute now, Tawana Brawley is going to accuse Michael Savage of sexual assault...

with a sausage no less.

[Sharpieman]

Who watches MSNBC in the first place???

[Anrhydeddu]

SkyDog and Cam, keep up the good work.
Franklin, you would be more effective, imo, if you use a more modern translation, you think?

[tucker342]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Who watches MSNBC in the first place???

good point

[sabotai]

"Franklin, you would be more effective, imo, if you use a more modern translation, you think?"

That's right, because when one translation of the bible doesn't suite your needs, just use another. ;)

[ice4277]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Franklin, you would be more effective, imo, if you use a more modern translation, you think?"

That's right, because when one translation of the bible doesn't suite your needs, just use another. ;)

I always make sure to use the one that says "thou shalt be both cocky and funny; thusly, thou shall 'know' more women".

Wait, maybe that wasn't out of the Bible...

[Anrhydeddu]

sabotai, there are many ways to say and mean the exact same thing. All authorized IBS translations have not changed meanings from the original Greek Septuagent and NT canons, they just use different words that are more familiar to the reader (like getting rid of "thou" and using "you" or "y'all" in the case of Ben's bible). But if you wish, we can quote the original Greek text.

[sabotai]

"sabotai, there are many ways to say and mean the exact same thing."

And then there are same exact passages that different people interpret many different ways. Anyone can take something from the bible and make it mean what they want it to mean.

"(like getting rid of "thou" and using "you" or "y'all" in the case of Ben's bible)."

Exodus 20:13 Y'all best not be killin' nobody, ya'hear?

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by sabotai
Exodus 20:13 Y'all best not be killin' nobody, ya'hear?

Is this from the "King Cletus Bible" or the "Revised Tex Edition"?

SI

[sabotai]

King Cletus.

Revised Tex is:

Exodus 20:13 Y'all better not be killin' shit!

[CamEdwards]

Don't forget the response of Moses:

"Dew whaht?"

[timmynausea]

I think an important point has been missed in all of this debate. It is a little known fact that Michael "Savage" is not his real name. His name is Michael Weiner, which I believe could've been used to solve this whole situation as I imagine a show called "Weiner Nation" to be nothing less than a homo-erotic, cream dream thrill ride. See? Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by timmynausea
I think an important point has been missed in all of this debate. It is a little known fact that Michael "Savage" is not his real name. His name is Michael Weiner, which I believe could've been used to solve this whole situation as I imagine a show called "Weiner Nation" to be nothing less than a homo-erotic, cream dream thrill ride. See? Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

Dude, mad props to you for waiting seven months to make that your first post.

[timmynausea]

"Dude, mad props to you for waiting seven months to make that your first post."

Thanks. I thought of it back then, (Christmas Eve as I recall), but then nobody brought up ol' Michael Savage until recently so I was basically screwed. Just wait until someone brings up OJ. I have had a real doozy brewin' since about August of '94. See you all in a few months.

[vtbub]

Please enlighten us about Orenthal James