Not again true. My numbers go to support "To promote the health of the population" if we go by my numbers and the resulting AIDS info, I am absolutly correct.
And again, you draw an inaccurate conclusion from the numbers. AIDS is not an issue of homosexuality. It is an issue of unsafe sex and IV drug use. Your perception is inaccurately sterotypical. SSM poses no health risks and the state has no reason to not sanction it.
You did not look at the relatively high numbers with homosexual vs heterosexual did you? Then you just flat out say I am wrong?
You made an anectotal statement. I made an anectodal statement. Yours has the same value as mine. You say your right. I say I'm right. We've now cancelled each other out.
And yet the logical numbers who have no wrong or right say I am stating my position accurately and you are not.
There are other "logical numbers" that say the opposite.
Do I have to name BDboop? Criticalthought? Redress? I mean please man, be real.
Good. CT I agree with. BDB and Redress attacking Christians? Not at all.
I don't remember you ever posting it, I could be wrong. I have on the other hand seen you mention it MANY times. So I figure you are not willing to exchange the same courtesy, no problem.
I have about 6 bookmarked posts that I present in SSM threads every few months when these issues come up. I mention them a bit because lots of folks who frequent these threads have seen them. When requested, if someone hasn't seen them, I ALWAYS post them.
Yet what I observe is dismissed out of hand? We have a word for this.
My observation is shared by quite a few folks around here. Your observation is not. Further, my observation is easily testable by reading my posts. Yours is not. The burden of proof is on you since your observation cannot be investigated by folks here.
You quoted what AN interpretation is as you yourself said "Probably" and then post nothing about any evidence for "prostitution," none.
I certainly did.
No I did not because homosexual sex was still outlawed and it said nothing about it being prostitution.
Anal sex was prohibited BECAUSE it related to Pagan rituals of the time. This is a specific restriction.
As an example of an accurate translation AND it backing up the NT which it does.
Your translation was incorrect and faulty as I proved. A faulty translation cannot back up the NT.
The NT was always part of my argument???? You took one part out of one post and then got it wrong and still could not prove homosexual sex is not a sin.
I proved that homosexuality was not a sin. I proved that under certain conditions, because of situations
of the time certain sex acts (anal sex) where considered rituallistically unclean. I understand that this prevents you from using Leviticus as a religious reason to see homosexuality as wrong... unless you continue to believe an incorrect translation. And from what I saw, the NT was not part of your argument.
#1 I was not showen wrong.
Yes, you were.
#2 It was part of a larger discussion that you did not take part in.
If it happened in this thread, I was here.
#3 The translation I put forward is accurate and you have yet to show were it "probably" says they only meant "prostitution."
Your translation is inaccurate. I already pointed out how the word "abomination" is NOT what was meant. I demonstrated, based on the section of the Bible Leviticus 18:22 was in and the issues of the time, what was meant... along with Hebrew traditions, the use of wording, and accurate translations. At this point, you only have the NT to fall back on. If you want to use that, more power to you. Your religion, your beliefs. Using Leviticus would be failure, however, unless you choose to use a translation that does not reflect what was written.
Well lets see since you seem to all of a sudden have forgotten English...
"If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on."
If: 1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to.
OK so we are setting that the condition is of someone calling themselves a Christian. They should know the holy book of said religion.
You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton on the stand.
Seems like you have forgotten the meanings of pronouns. I will highlight the important words:
"If
you call
yourself a Christian,
you should know the holy book
your religion is based on."
You posted towards ME. Who else does "you" refer to?
It has everything to do with it as I pointed out in the statements in red you ignored. When you jump into the middle of a conversation it is amazing how much you miss.
If you are talking about the "background noise" issue, that's why I'm asking for clarification. If you are talking about something else, I've been in the converstation from the beginning.
You have got to be kidding me. Please point out where in the Bible it EVER used the term "wife" for anything other than a female? :lamo
If those who translated the bible can mess up on a word like abomination, they could have messed up on other words.
You have not taken anything away from me. Anal sex is a sin.
In the context of the time regarding Pagan rituals with male prostitutes.
Anal sex is a large part of homosexuality.
Very poor logic. Anal sex is a behavior. Homosexuality is an orientation. Not all homosexuals practice anal sex. Some heterosexual practice anal sex. Your point on this is invalid.
So please explain what you have taken away again? Or in context did you end up backing up my point? :mrgreen:
I have now removed Leviticus from it being used as a relgious weapon against homosexuality. Now, you can continue to use your inaccurate translation, but if you do, you must ask yourself why you are using something that is inaccurate.
They are completely the same. You are trying to say because they said only anal sex, somehow this does not apply. Wow.
I'll explain it again. Anal sex is a behavior. Homosexuality is an orientation. Not all homosexuals practice anal sex. Some heterosexual practice anal sex. This is why your position on this is invalid.
So you still got nothing. I got it.
Nope. You want to hold onto the NT, fine. The OT can no longer work for you unless you want to hold onto an inaccurate translation.
Ahh, yes.
Oh I get it. If your "observations" are not "global" it's OK. If mine are it's not.
No problem.
it's what I did.
Faith is an individual issue. Your belief in how faith and logic work and the examples you used is YOURS.
Leviticus does not change. I have shown this with your help. I don't need to do anything else.
Your denial is impressive. Of course I showed the accurate translation/interpretation of Leviticus. You do not want to accept it because of the cognative dissonance it causes. I understand that you have believed that homosexuality is a sin based on those two passages for a long time and giving that up, even in the face of accurate translations is not something that you want to do. Doesn't change the fact that you are holding onto a belief based on an inaccurate translation/interpretation. You can certainly do that, if you wish.