RicOlie_2

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.

I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.

...

Oh and I'd argue, the response she got is less about Athiest's intolerance of Christians and more about hatred of women.

 No, it is about those atheists' and agnostics' intolerance of that Christian belief. I don't see how it could be attributed to hatred of women, that's just bizarre. It seems fairly obvious why they were angry at her.

If you are going to pick apart the Bible, Ryan, at least make sure you know what you are talking about first.

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.

 As I have said before, it has to be read in context. God was giving the rules for a theocracy, and the Israelites had a history of not being able to worship God properly and giving up on their religion in favour of immoral, idolatrous religions. Thus his rules were harsh back then. The New Testament says in many places that the old law is no longer necessary and it doesn't have to be followed to the letter and the old punishments are no longer applicable.

 Exactly, then let's all decide that the bits condemning gay people are "no longer applicable" and everybody will be happy. Nobody is saying that the Bible hasn't got great things in it too, live and let live.

 Everything in the New Testament is still applicable within the context of the culture at the time. Homosexual sex is condemned in both the New and Old Testaments and thus is wrong according the Bible. I don't cherry-pick the Bible, I take it as a whole and read it in context.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality.

they are?

 They were threatening to rape her and other awful things and the Bible says rape isn't much of an issue.

I can't be bothered to trawl through the Bible for all the nonsense it says, so here is just one quote (Remember if one quote is wrong, then they can all be considered wrong).

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

In slightly plainer speak...

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a virgin, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her"

A shekel is something like 25 cents now, so you can rape a virgin for twelve bucks fifty, bargain! (Cheaper than a Blu-Ray) and since she's forced to marry you, you get to keep raping for the rest of your life free of charge.

So like I said, if you support that ^ then fine quote away from the rest of the Bible and I won't object.

 That's reading the Bible out of context. In our culture, that would not be applicable at all.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think other Churches (I assume you mean a Christian Church) should be allowed to criticize that Church and condemn its practice of gay marriages though.

of course they can criticize and condemn.   The first amendment gives people the freedom to criticize and condemn whatever they like.    I thank God we have that freedom.  If we didn't, I honestly think  that if it weren't for the 1st amendment, those that say they believe homosexuality to be a sin would be risking going to jail just for saying it.   Just read Bingo's posts if you don't believe me. 

 Unfortunately though, we are losing the freedom to speak our minds. There are laws that put limitations on this, and people have gone to jail for things like praying in front of abortion clinics.

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.

I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.

In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...

If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world, then she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it. Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.

Sure, anger, but reasonable anger and not death threats. People should be able to say stuff like that without having people say she should die or be raped. The issue is not serious enough that those who are against homosexual sex should be killed.

As I was saying in another thread, my moral compass is dictated by my empathy for other human beings. Her's was obviously dictated by her own selfish interests and a 2000 year old book. Without the book, she might have stopped and thought for even a single fraction of a second of her life about how other people feel and wouldn't have got "emotional whiplash" when she realised that somebody she knew to be a good person from personnal experience belonged to a group she had previously arrogantly and callously labelled as bad.

Not everyone experiences empathy or thinks logically, so basing one's moral beliefs on that cannot, and does not, work for everyone.

Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.

 As I have said before, it has to be read in context. God was giving the rules for a theocracy, and the Israelites had a history of not being able to worship God properly and giving up on their religion in favour of immoral, idolatrous religions. Thus his rules were harsh back then. The New Testament says in many places that the old law is no longer necessary and it doesn't have to be followed to the letter and the old punishments are no longer applicable.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

what about civil unions?    There has to be some way for the law to recognize a spouse as next of kin.   

 I suppose I phrased that badly, but I don't think governments should be involved with marriage any further than recognizing it.

what about recognizing gay marriage?

I think in this case gay marriage should be recognized (though don't quote me for it, I change my mind daily and I am undecided on the matter),

 this might help you decide:

RicOlie_2 said:

The Catholic Church only requires Catholics to follow its rules.

 Yes, that is what I base my opinion on, but since the Church is often opposed to legalizing it, I'm not sure which stance to take, especially since I don't know enough on the issue.

Warbler said:

therefore if a group set up church where gay marriage wasn't believed to be a sin and they wanted to marry homosexuals, they should be allowed to do it and the marriages recognized by the government?

 Theoretically, but then again, I have no fixed opinion on the matter (of the legality of gay marriage). I believe it is wrong, but I don't think everything that is wrong should be illegal. I think other Churches (I assume you mean a Christian Church) should be allowed to criticize that Church and condemn its practice of gay marriages though.

But again, as I said, I am undecided at the moment on whether or not it should be legal or not. I have definitely decided it's wrong, of course, but legality is a whole other issue.

Yeah, and I don't see any way of rescuing my bishop either.

B-6b

I love the how "Jedi Knight" became "hopeless situation."

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

what about civil unions?    There has to be some way for the law to recognize a spouse as next of kin.   

 I suppose I phrased that badly, but I don't think governments should be involved with marriage any further than recognizing it.

what about recognizing gay marriage?

I think in this case gay marriage should be recognized (though don't quote me for it, I change my mind daily and I am undecided on the matter), but I would say it should be up to the organizations to decide whether or not they will marry these people.

RicOlie_2 said:

Ideally, I think that their should be organizations/businesses who perform marriages/unions akin to funeral homes arranging funerals and memorial services.

I would assume this would include churches.

 Yes, marriages in churches would be recognized.

Bingowings said:

Yes I would prefer it if people would die rather than becoming destructively obsessed with the genital friction of consenting adults to the point of political activism. The difference between Warbs FOADs and this is I'm serious.

Such people are too dangerous to live.

Look what they did to world after the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Least I be godwined :

She wasn't the victim of a lynch mob, she was opposed by justifiably angry people.

If she were a victim of a lynch mob the scene would look like this :

Going around saying consenting adults manipulating their genitals in private is akin to murder which is a capital offense in the USA is frankly insane.

Barking evil madness.

Her defense is the same text this lovely Iranian chap uses.

Honestly go away, rethink your life and come back refreshed or just go away.

 You realize that you're being hypocritical? You're saying that those who are speaking out against something they believe is wrong should die, but equating that same thing they think is wrong with murder, which is punishable by death in some states (but not of course believing it merits death) is absurd? To state it more clearly: you say we're wrong, we say no, we're not, to which you respond: "You should die for saying that, it's ridiculous."

I don't get the logic Bingowings.

Doh, I should have seen that coming! Well, I guess my best option is to move right back. R-6b

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

what about civil unions?    There has to be some way for the law to recognize a spouse as next of kin.   

 I suppose I phrased that badly, but I don't think governments should be involved with marriage any further than recognizing it. Ideally, I think that their should be organizations/businesses who perform marriages/unions akin to funeral homes arranging funerals and memorial services. Of course, if the government decided not to perform civil unions anymore, there would be a problem because such organizations would not be preëxistent. That's how I think it should be, but it is not necessarily a practicable option in our society right now.

R-6a

*sigh*, (probably) better to lose my silver general than my bishop.

An easier way of saying that, Bingo, is "I would prefer if you died..."

Bingowings said:

The improvements made to Google Translate have seriously reduced the humour in the average Wilfredo post.

 Not if you translate to and from multiple languages. I did that once with a large document and went from English to another language and back over and over again until I had done every language and the result was hilarious.

Ripplin said:

ratio tile: Yes, I was once a hopeless situation like your father.

LOL!

blow the skin: Mr. President, if you do not need me, I'll close down Period of time.

Also LOL.

This kind of project would be a lot of fun and has the potential to be nearly as funny as Frink's ridiculous edits.

Good, we're on the same page now.

G-2a

Oops, I guess I mixed up my generals. Well, if you think we should start over, I'm OK with that, though I think I've sorted everything out now. My move remains the same if you want to continue from here.

FrankT said:

How much is this going for again???

 Way more than it's worth.

darth_ender said:

I think I misunderstood your intent.  When you said you'd take your second option, I thought you must have meant that you didn't want to take back your move, but instead hoped to counter mine.  Now I think you must have meant that such was your second choice of move.  

Yes, sorry I wasn't very clear.

If that is correct, I played the game through as you intend, and now I play S-5d

 To clarify, do you mean continuing from where I am without any backtracking, or continuing from my replacement move? Also, I'm guessing you meant G-5d, as that's what would make the most sense with what I'm seeing. If you meant G-5d, continuing from where I was (which makes your move turn 7), then my move is S-4b.

Alright. I just don't want our strong disagreements in this thread and many religion threads carrying over elsewhere, but I think it's fair for you to show your disagreement in the appropriate places.

timdiggerm said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_16

 I pick out the important dates so you don't have to read the whole thing. See, I'm not totally useless!

Wikipedia said:

January 16 is the 16th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. There are 349 days remaining until the end of the year (350 in leap years).

Hey, there's a Ric Olie on Wikipedia too!