Just watchin...
This is the Soapbox... and as long as people try to keep debating the issue, instead of slinging mud... I try to keep out of the way.
Granted.... it's a finer line some days....
Dale
Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums mobile app
Modern Life In Appalachia
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
Just watchin...
This is the Soapbox... and as long as people try to keep debating the issue, instead of slinging mud... I try to keep out of the way.
Granted.... it's a finer line some days....
Dale
Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums mobile app
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You can say it - unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you can argue it on a sound, rational basis, using logic ... otherwise you probably would have ...
Good to know ... not that anyone implied otherwise ...
Right ...
Most folks do eventually ... even if they have be dragged to it, kicking and screaming all the way ...
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Apparently, neither can you. You've made unsupported and probably unproveable statements that may or may not be true and don't necessarily support your hypothesis or rule out mine.
Scripture & logic are a fine combination. But logic is a human construct, and scripture never fails.
Scripture tells us homosexual perversion is a sin, therefore it is.
It was stated directly.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Apparently, you misunderstand what laying out an argument using logic actually consists of. Or what is involved in using logic to refute another's argument.
You've announced that I'm "incorrect all the way around" - all without bothering to really elaborate or make a case for HOW that is so (otherwise known as the "we say so" phenomena) ...
Now, see if you can address any - or each - individual point in what I have said, and tell us all - using logic - HOW that is so (that I am "incorrect all the way around" ...)
My statement as to what the consensus definition is, as far as what the nature and definition of homosexuality is at it's most basic and fundamental level, is easily provable ... just pick up any good dictionary and look up the definition:
Homosexuality | Define Homosexuality at Dictionary.com
Beyond that, it is further verifiable - just by looking at the preponderance of medical/psychological/psychiatric literature.
I think you will also find that there is a broad consensus that the use of force in order to dominate and subjugate in regards to sexual assault and rape is a widely observed phenomena.
Further, it is easily provable that both rape and sexual assault involve sex ... ahh ... I think that's why it's called sexual assault ...
Rape | Define Rape at Dictionary.com
Sexual assault | Define Sexual assault at Dictionary.com
Sadly, no ...
Until one interprets scripture in such a way that it disagrees with logic and observable phenomena.
Logic exists as a natural phenomena ... the only thing human about it, is the observation and use of it.
2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 ≠ 5 ... whether someone observes or uses it ... or not.
Accordingly, someone who is a believer might say, that logic is not so much human, as it is the Supreme Being's handiwork.
Is largely irrelevant to the question at hand.
However, one might say that one thing is certain and easily observable: Human understanding of scripture does fail ... and some might even say quite often ...
I would assume that that is not a premise that even you would dispute.
Nothing in what I said necessary precludes that - and what I said doesn't even address it. It doesn't need to.
The disagreement was over what constitutes homosexuality. I say that, at its most basic and fundamental level, it is a desire, an inclination, a preference ...
You say it is strictly an act.
I'm perfectly willingly to acknowledge that the act is a manifestation of it - but I can't allow that the act is the entirety of it - because to do so would fly directly in the face of what is observable, and would involve the denial of observed phenomena.
It seems you are ignoring, and are apparently unwilling to acknowledge, the basic cause of the later effect or consequence:
desire, inclination, preference (cause) ----> act (effect)
You're misreading the statement: a simple statement of a principle - which mentions no particular individual - does not imply that it applies to any individual particularly, other than the ones it defines or mentions generally.
Last edited:
But what if one believes scripture is nothing more than a good fable...one puts very little credence to it...to claim " scripture NEVER fails" is a tall order..
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
And a belief in nothing fails even more.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
And to assume that someone who doesn't believe in a certain, particular religious creed must then therefore "believe in nothing" is logically flawed and not supportable.
One thing does not necessarily follow from the other.
Last edited:
I have a extremely hard time believing in a lot of the story's they want you to believe... I believe in being a good honest person...treat others as you would like to be treated...be a good citizen...Dont need much more than that..
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Attachments
I don't believe I told anyone to believe in anything in particular. All I said was that believing in nothing most often works worse than believing in something.
I HAVE to give FAR more than 10% to crap I don't believe in, and it is done by FORCE! At least I can CHOOSE to give to a religion if I want to do so. I am FORCED to pay for secular style charity, which I am morally opposed to, and will be arrested, or worse, if I do not. No religion that I know of, at least in the United States, uses THAT kind of force. ONLY the secular does.
Attachments
There force is FEAR....do as we say ..or go to a very warm fictional place..with a red guy with horns ...
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
∆∆ Point made ∆∆
And the US government uses jails and guns. Believing in a religion, at least in the United States, is still optional, not paying secular charity is a crime, that they will enforce, by any means they see fit to use, even death.
You got that right, Layout.[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UOY5OzdXU18[/video]
One who cannot admit that their beliefs are exactly that, and not "truth" as it's generally accepted, cannot be supposed to recognize truth if it walked up & introduced itself.
I know [of] one young man who was a homosexual, although he never engaged in any sexual acts with other young men - he just wanted to, even if he wasn't quite sure what they might be, exactly. So much, that the knowledge tormented him, and he lived his life in fear of betraying his desire to just touch the face of the young man he wanted to be with - just hold his hand, as people do when they fall in love, right? His fantasies weren't about sex at all, but about calling him, hearing his voice - typical teenage crush fantasies we've all had. Except his crush wasn't gay, and the fear that he'd react with horror and heap [more] shame upon the poor guy who didn't choose to feel the way he did, kept him from expressing it, except in his private journal. The one his Mom found after he hanged himself, because he couldn't stand any more torment - he was just 16 years old. Terrified that he'd inadvertently give himself away somehow.
He couldn't live with the knowledge that he was powerless to control his thoughts, or the words of people just like you.
How many people have suffered and died because of those words? I only know of this one for sure, but that's one too many, IMO.
Really, Turtle? Aside from the fact that the shooter was not mentally healthy, there is one huge difference: gay teens who fear society's [not just the object of their affections, or even their peers, but a much larger segment of the population] scorn, don't kill others when they decide life isn't worth living any more.
The shooter wanted a whole lot of people to suffer for his pain, which is something I've never heard of any gay person projecting.
The shooter wanted a whole lot of people to suffer for his pain, which is something I've never heard of any gay person projecting.