|
Post by geode on Feb 25, 2017 19:17:00 GMT
Because I said nothing about science or scientific evidence. I didn't read what you wrote. But the sentence in question is not what you claim. For one thing it is not even a statement, but a question.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Feb 25, 2017 19:57:10 GMT
Because I said nothing about science or scientific evidence. I didn't read what you wrote. But the sentence in question is not what you claim. For one thing it is not even a statement, but a question. Well you better go back and read what I wrote then. Because she brought science up when I wasn't discussing it. Her response was a non sequitur.
a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said <We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.>
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Feb 25, 2017 21:26:07 GMT
So, Christians deny scientific evidence? I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and we were taught evolution and the Big bang. The bible is full of allegories. They would understand "God said" before "billions and billions of years ago". Some still don't understand though. Some do, some don't. I get tired of the over-simplistic generalizations people make. Even after people have made a choice to label themselves and place themselves in a particular group they are still individual people.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 25, 2017 23:32:15 GMT
I didn't read what you wrote. But the sentence in question is not what you claim. For one thing it is not even a statement, but a question. Well you better go back and read what I wrote then. Because she brought science up when I wasn't discussing it. Her response was a non sequitur.
a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said <We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.>
You were discussing homosexuality and religion, and she posed a question that was related to the conversation at hand. "Sexual orientation is no more a choice than race or gender. That is the science of it." So she was the first one to invoke science in the discussion? That does not make it a non sequitur as it is often part of conversations like this and logical follows from the previous content of the conversation. To follow your logic if you had said "I like red sweaters" and she replied "I like blue sweaters because they match my eyes" you would call this a non sequitur because you hadn't mentioned eyes.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Feb 25, 2017 23:49:18 GMT
Well you better go back and read what I wrote then. Because she brought science up when I wasn't discussing it. Her response was a non sequitur.
a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said <We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.>
You were discussing homosexuality and religion, and she posed a question that was related to the conversation at hand. "Sexual orientation is no more a choice than race or gender. That is the science of it." So she was the first one to invoke science in the discussion? That does not make it a non sequitur as it is often part of conversations like this and logical follows from the previous content of the conversation. To follow your logic if you had said "I like red sweaters" and she replied "I like blue sweaters because they match my eyes" you would call this a non sequitur because you hadn't mentioned eyes. No science had nothing to do with it because I was talking about the bible not science. Her response was a non sequitur.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 26, 2017 0:03:56 GMT
You were discussing homosexuality and religion, and she posed a question that was related to the conversation at hand. "Sexual orientation is no more a choice than race or gender. That is the science of it." So she was the first one to invoke science in the discussion? That does not make it a non sequitur as it is often part of conversations like this and logical follows from the previous content of the conversation. To follow your logic if you had said "I like red sweaters" and she replied "I like blue sweaters because they match my eyes" you would call this a non sequitur because you hadn't mentioned eyes. No science had nothing to do with it because I was talking about the bible not science. Her response was a non sequitur.
I explained why her using the word "science" was not a non sequitur since it logically was associated with the subject at hand. It matters not that you didn't bring it up. A conversation by definition really involves more than one person. A conversation is not limited the way you claim as to not be logical if it broadens. If you start a conversation about hot dogs and I mention putting mustard on them, my doing so is not to be using a non sequitur.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Feb 26, 2017 0:10:38 GMT
No science had nothing to do with it because I was talking about the bible not science. Her response was a non sequitur.
I explained why her using the word "science" was not a non sequitur since it logically was associated with the subject at hand. It matters not that you didn't bring it up. A conversation by definition really involves more than one person. A conversation is not limited the way you claim as to not be logical if it broadens. If you start a conversation about hot dogs and I mention putting mustard on them, my doing so is not to be using a non sequitur. And I explained it was a non sequitur because it did not logically follow what I said.
If you start a conversation about hot dogs and I mention putting mustard on them, my doing so is not to be using a non sequitur.
I love strawman arguments.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 1:52:33 GMT
My version? Lolwut? Every version. (Unlike PD, I don't have my own private version, and every version in use in every church says that Jesus healed the centurion's servant, not his bum boy. There you go again dear, telling people what version is in their church. Give it a rest. You have no idea what bibles churches have. Why wouldn't I? I regularly go to two churches, and in the Protestant one, people each use their own. I venture to suggest that I have a far better idea what Bibles are in use than you do. From what you said on the other board, you go to church once a year at Christmas, and to the church hall to network for hubby's business at Mother's Union meetings once a month. No Bible involved in either.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 1:57:06 GMT
Oh you love people? Yet all you display is hatred.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 1:59:03 GMT
The bible was written by ignorant nomads who thought the world was flat over 2,000 years ago, and was written by many people over a long period in time, then translated, voted on (the Counsel of Nicea), edited accordingly, retranslated, re-edited (and I think the proofreader was asleep on many readings). It has contradicted itself and been spun so many times that who knows what the original meaning is.
False.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 2:00:55 GMT
That's nice but Christians follow the word of God. I was obviously speaking to people who believe the bible is the word of God and are Christian.
If someone claims to be Christian and doesn't follow what the bible teaches about homosexuality then they aren't following God's word/don't believe in God's word and are not a practicing Christian. This is pretty basic stuff.
So, Christians deny scientific evidence? There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is innate. There never has been, there never will be.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 2:04:49 GMT
It's PD. On IMDB v 1.0 he used to take proud ownership of the pais idea. Jesus cared for all and I doubt would refuse to heal somebody just because they might be gay. The focus here is about faith, faith in the ability of Jesus to heal. No, what matters is how it's interpreted! Londonbird and others want (and in some cases need emotionally) for pais to mean boyfriend. Of course Jesus wouldn't refuse to heal gay people, but the claim is that he made a point of healing the boyfriends and so endorsing homosexuality. If he had, then that would have been one of the charges against him.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 26, 2017 2:38:37 GMT
Oh you love people? Yet all you display is hatred. Ahwina, disagreeing or being educated still isn't aggressive or hateful.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 26, 2017 2:58:43 GMT
Is gay people getting married something that bothers you? Nah. 1) None of my business, 2) Makes them happy and harms no one else. I put it firmly in the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" section. That said, I grew up in the Bible belt, I get that a portion of our populace believes an all-powerful being told them that gay is bad and wrong and all that - best thing I can say for them is "don't marry the same sex". Free country and all that. I have quite a few married gay friends - I can't imagine denying them access to that institution. This approach baffles me: So much oddness here: 1) The act of gays getting married spreads disease? If not then why would the act of getting married be related to any harm done by spreading disease? 2) Does this just mean MALE homosexuality is harmful? Very little vector out of female homosexual acts. 3) If "spreads disease" is a metric for harming society by one's nature... heterosexuals wiped out entire swaths of various populations with little more than syphilis... does this mean they're more harmful? Does the fact that we can now cure syphilis mean heterosexuals are less harmful to society by nature? If so, does our current status of holding AIDs complications at bay with meds mean homosexuals are less harmful? Does this mean the "harmful" nature of homosexuals is no longer a factor once AIDS is cured entirely? Weird foundation to rest on, there.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 26, 2017 3:22:45 GMT
Please don't tell me what I have or haven't read. As I have said repeatedly but will state again for the lower intelligence, I had no dealings with PD. I am aware what Pias means thank you and am aware it can mean child but let's think how the centurion story would change in that case!? Just because it hasn't been used in your version of the bible does not make it any less so. You really need to learn there is a big wide world outside your street and your way isn't necessarily the only way My version? Lolwut? Every version. (Unlike PD, I don't have my own private version, and every version in use in every church says that Jesus healed the centurion's servant, not his bum boy. Maybe they're talking in terms of the "queen(r) james version".
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 3:27:43 GMT
My version? Lolwut? Every version. (Unlike PD, I don't have my own private version, and every version in use in every church says that Jesus healed the centurion's servant, not his bum boy. Maybe they're talking in terms of the "queen(r) james version". That reminds me of how much they love the KJV as the out-dated language allows them to claim confusion and to confuse others!
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 26, 2017 3:29:57 GMT
No, you do. The Bible never had anyone ordinarily appoint women to any position of power over men. Quite the opposite in fact. feminists et al.[waste over the earth] would have us all believe otherwise in their effort to destroy man, however. No strange reason at all; you give yourself away. Maybe she can see right through your BS. Your words right back at you a thousand fold. I didn't bring religion to this thread until you haters of Christianity tried to bring it up against someone like me. I turn the other cheek right after I strike you back. Just continue disputing the bible. You heratic. And I give myself away? Okidoki. Hiilarious. To bad for you that i'm not a feminist, as I am all for equality for everyone, not just females. What is the word for that you big "word knower"? You want me to be Jesus? And a thousand times the Jesus you would be? That won't be especially hard as I actually love people, I don't just pretend to do that. I suggest strongly "English language reading comprehension for grade 2" as a possible good start. Cheers.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 26, 2017 3:34:29 GMT
What can we learn from this thread? Yes, the bible is against homosexuality. Respect the homosexual but denounce homosexual acts. Just as God says. God says to repent of your sins not embrace them. Amen. I think there's plenty other 'little' things we can learn here just by observation itself, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 3:38:15 GMT
There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is innate. There never has been, there never will be. Only the research that you disregard.... Jesus will cast you straight into hell for condemning his own homosexuality. No, there is none for me to "disregard". If you disagree, some links will help your case but I am not holding my breath... FYI, Jesus was not a homosexual - I wondered when that piece of blasphemous shite was going to pop up. You have a serious mental illness.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 26, 2017 3:40:44 GMT
So, Christians deny scientific evidence? I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and we were taught evolution and the Big bang. The bible is full of allegories. They would understand "God said" before "billions and billions of years ago". Some still don't understand though. I know of a guy who went to a same movie theater for 2 years.
|
|