Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

kedge said:
In the words of Christians that i know of, and of which i agree, God of the Bible is the rightfull ruler over mankind.
Click to expand...

I declare a non serviam to your unproven god. I refuse to genuflect to him.


As Dawkins so eloquently put it :
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Why would I want to worship someone who I would also fear ? Isn't that the essence of abjection and sadomasochism ? No, I will not do it. Even it was proven he existed beyond any doubt, I still would declare my non serviam. I worship nothing and no one. Worship is for the weak, the obsequious, the fearful and the credulous, all properties I left behind when I grew up.
 
kedge said:
It's what the Bible teaches, i am not a Christian, i am pro-abrahamic God and pro-Bible, if that's the right way to put it?.
Click to expand...

It's what you think it teaches. By definition, if you follow the teachings of Christ, then you are a Christian...you may not belong to an established Church (you have never been forthcoming about your actual worship or whether you attend an actual church), but you are still a Christian of some description.
 
I value virtually nothing from the middle east but I've just got to say that this stupid atheist strategy of trying to catch people out who say they don't dig gays because of the old testament is retarded.

Whine whine "Well then you shouldn't eat shellfish or cut your sideburns". Please just shut-up with that same lame argument. Just freaking Google it (New Covenant or Supersessionism if you need your hands held) if you're actually interested, otherwise stop rolling out the same tedious crap again and again. Hikari, tbyeah, c'mon guys, have more class than to be the 80 millionth person to spout such toss.

At least Kedge is entertaining and fiercely consistent.
 
Frightful Boar said:
I value virtually nothing from the middle east but I've just got to say that this stupid atheist strategy of trying to catch people out who say they don't dig gays because of the old testament is retarded.

Whine whine "Well then you shouldn't eat shellfish or cut your sideburns". Please just shut-up with that same lame argument. Just freaking Google it (New Covenant or Supersessionism if you need your hands held) if you're actually interested, otherwise stop rolling out the same tedious crap again and again. Hikari, tbyeah, c'mon guys, have more class than to be the 80 millionth person to spout such toss.

At least Kedge is entertaining and fiercely consistent.
Click to expand...

What?

If they don't follow other Old Testament values, why do they follow that stance on homosexual relationships?

And "fiercely consistent"? What are you talking about?
 
Castiel said:
The actual passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the King James Version that Kedge has stated in previous debates he follows goes:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


However, the literal translation (according to Young) is:

have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

The NSRV which is one of the more accurate English translations words it thusly:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

The term being relayed as Homosexual is Sodomite, however the original context of the term Sodomite (as used by Paul) is that it refers to any sexual act that is not standard intercourse, it is not a substitution for homosexuality...this would include any immoral sexual act as defined at the time such as masturbation and oral sex and pederasty...whether it be with a man or woman doesn't matter, except obviously for the last. In fact in Greece there was no such thing as a Homosexual, there was no word for it and no definition for it, there was no reason because Pederasty was the essentially the only common form of male homosexuality that occurred, while adult homosexuality existed, it was rare and the Greeks of the time did not identify with the sexual orientation of the individual. So it is wrong to suggest that Paul was referring to adult homosexual acts as being immoral or forbidden in any of his Epistles, least of all Corinthians.

Another point that Kedge will ignore is that the passage is an instruction to the Church of Corinth who were reverting toward paganism and were seen (at that time) to be subverting the message of Christ to encompass the well known depravity and immorality that Corinth was renowned for and not a judgement on everyone, just the Christians in Corinth, he was (as Leviticus did) referring to what is known as Temple Prostitution, whereby sexual acts form the basis of worship, whether they are with men, women, or (in Leviticus) goats doesn't matter, the judgement is solely on the acts within the Church Worship itself, not the broader World. It is important to reiterate that in Paul's time the main form of male homosexuality was between Older Men and Young Boys (pederasty) as was the norm for such relationships in Greece to which Corinth was a gateway, this is seen as immoral today in our own culture and something that really irks me is that very simple misinterpretation has created an entire doctrine in many Churches. It isn't the Scripture that is at fault, but the people who, with their own bias, have interpreted the terminology to suit the agenda of the times.

I know that Kedge and any of the Catholics reading this will disagree with me, but that is my objective opinion based on my knowledge for what its worth.
Click to expand...

I thought Catholics had no problem with homosexuals in their existence, more in the fact that their sexual encounters were no conducive to procreation, hence homosexuality not being a sin in and of itself, but merely the actual act of homosexuality that is wrong?

edit: don't lodge catholics and kedge, together, that's a bit harsh on Catholics!
 
Last edited:
sports_brah said:
I thought Catholics had no problem with homosexuals in their existence, more in the fact that their sexual encounters were no conducive to procreation, hence homosexuality not being a sin in and of itself, but merely the actual act of homosexuality that is wrong?

edit: don't lodge catholics and kedge, together, that's a bit harsh on Catholics!
Click to expand...

They will not agree with my assessment on the Pauline Epistles and how they relate to the morality of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the act or how Catholics feel about it.

And I wasn't saying Kedge and Catholics were the same, only that each will disagree with me due to there respective doctrines.
 
tbyeah said:
Do love how kedge always fails to answer any questions, instead just diverting, changing the subject, quoting the Bible, etc...
Click to expand...

What do you expect ?. He's trying to defend a lie and deep down he knows it. He has no proof for anything he espouses. He seems to think the bible is proof but fails to understand the inherent fallacy in that line of argument. You can not prove god with the bible because the bible is just the claim and the claim can not be proof of the claim. This is begging the question, more commonly known as circular reasoning. If that logic prevailed then The Lord of the Rings would be proof of Hobbits and Harry potter, proof of wizards. I pity kedge and hope he overcomes his delusion.
 
Having children is one of the best things people do in their lives. By marrying someone of the same sex you can only adopt which isn't ideal. It's better to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex because you can still love them even if you do not find them as good looking and you can have kids.
 
Eurofighter said:
Having children is one of the best things people do in their lives. By marrying someone of the same sex you can only adopt which isn't ideal. It's better to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex because you can still love them even if you do not find them as good looking and you can have kids.
Click to expand...

So people should not be with who they truly love? :confused:

Last time I had a look there were a lot of children up for adoption; more adopters is a positive thing. Or is it preferable for children to be with Social Services?
 
tbyeah said:
So people should not be with who they truly love? :confused:

Last time I had a look there were a lot of children up for adoption; more adopters is a positive thing. Or is it preferable for children to be with Social Services?
Click to expand...

Social Services is never preferable. If a loving homosexual couple had wanted, or be able, to adopt me as a child then I would have been saved a whole world of pain and trouble.
 
tbyeah said:
What?

If they don't follow other Old Testament values, why do they follow that stance on homosexual relationships?

And "fiercely consistent"? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Because they want to follow that stance. It's part of their dogma. They don't have to. Not difficult dude!

Which word of the two did you not understand? Maybe a dictionary or something or asking someone who has a grasp of basic English?
 
tbyeah said:
So people should not be with who they truly love? :confused:

Last time I had a look there were a lot of children up for adoption; more adopters is a positive thing. Or is it preferable for children to be with Social Services?
Click to expand...

He did say they would love each other. He didn't say they shouldn't be with whom they truly love. You're confused because he wrote one thing and you read something completely different.
 
tbyeah said:
denying homosexuals rights.
Click to expand...
You are blind. Homosexual/Gay people have basic human rights under most normal circumstances like most other people do. they get married, they adopt children, they are successful in business, their are many celebrities that are homosexual/Gay so your point is moot, this cake business is just another childish demand that everyone should conform to the gay/homosexual worldview or behaviour or conduct, like spoilt little kids who stamp their feet demanding this and that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom