Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13 - Page 5

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 06:43

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Confronted with your own ignorance on the matter,

Enough of your arrogance!

You are the one who lacks the wit to do anything other that make quote from some book,
and then pitifully claim this quote as if it is your own answer and argument.

Unimpressive.

Pathetic.

You, sir, I deem a moral coward, and too egotist to accept defeat.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
...you immediately turn to derision, and change the subject.
Good day, sir.

By calling me ignorant, it was you who insulted first.

Such a hypocrite.

The Mad Monk · February 12, 2004, 06:47

Hmmm...nope, sorry, not worth the trouble.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 06:47

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Would you care to say that a third time? Some of our slower posters may not have gotten it the first two times.

Slower posters?

Full of insults is this mad monk...

Answer this:

So why does a removed European, living in the modern American continent,
follow precepts of some outdated book written by primitive men in a pre-classical society?

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 06:52

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Hmmm...nope, sorry, not worth the trouble.

Well, this reaction is not surprising.

I have seen it many times before.

When confused or confronted with questions they find awkward,
religionists readily turn to insults, abuse and mindless bible quoting.

Sound familiar, Monk?

You have vindicated the sad stereotype of the arrogant, and narrow-minded religionist perfectly.

Enjoy your closed mind.

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
You, sir, I deem a moral coward, and too egotist to accept defeat.

I'm curious if you've considered the fact that he might not consider your questions only worth the attention he's given them.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm curious if you've considered the fact that he might not consider your questions only worth the attention he's given them.

He's still avoiding the issue.

All I am doing is trying to make people re-evaluate tired dogmatic ideas,
something certain individuals are rather loathe to do, it appears.

Sorry, but I wish him to retract that insult about me being 'ignorant'.
Because cut and pasting some old quote is not equal to being wise, and that is my whole point.

If he does so, I will retract my charge that he is arrogant and narrow-minded.

PS
And I am sure Mad Monk has a set of hands to type his own replies, DD.

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
All I am doing is trying to make people re-evaluate tired dogmatic ideas,

By posting stupid questions?

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 11:17

Seriously though. If you want people to respond to you, it might help your cause if you were more respectful of the people your aiming for. It's a two way street.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
By posting stupid questions?

In what way are they stupid?

Just because your narrow view disagrees?

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Seriously though. If you want people to respond to you, it might help your cause if you were more respectful of the people your aiming for. It's a two way street.

How many times have I posted, calling any poster here an 'idiot' or a 'moron'...etc????

Never.

Because I make it my policy not to be insulting.

But I see plenty of the pious religionists here using such abuse.

Funny that...

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
Because I make it my policy not to be insulting.

I call BS. I could post quotes from this very thread to illustrate this point but it would be redundant.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call BS. I could post quotes from this very thread to illustrate this point but it would be redundant.

Call whatever you wish, but my posting style is only insulting if you are thin skinned.

When have I ever called someone an abusive name?

I'm waiting.

Post a quote...or back off, please.

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 11:36

I never said anything about "abusive names." I said being more respectful of the people you want to respond to your questions will get you a better response. If you insist on taking a narrow view of that, I can not help you.

Spiffor · February 12, 2004, 11:38

You post gross generalizations, such as "all religionists are (insult)", "all communists are (insult)". For those of us that are targeted in the generalization, it is offensive. In the capitalism vs. communism thread, I had to force myself to remain patient. I expect may polytobbies not to force themselves this way.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 11:42

Case 1:

I have spoken to one civil religionist, the rest hardly warrant respect.
Am I to wade through their egotistical abuse and then be respectful?

Case 2:

I have spoken to one civil communist, that being Spiffor.
I must admit your 'comrades' are sorely lacking in the manners dept.

And on those counts, I refuse to back down.
If I get insulted, I return fire in the same manner.

I never call names, and still have to put up with immaturity and witless comments.

So, what else do you expect?

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 11:44

Less whining about people rising to the bait you put before them if you refuse to change.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 11:48

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Less whining about people rising to the bait you put before them if you refuse to change.

You initiated the current situation with your own little whinefest.
Short term posting memory loss, I think...

If you have nothing of substance to add, DD; let's let the posters here get back to hating gays.

Spiffor · February 12, 2004, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
I never call names, and still have to put up with immaturity and witless comments.

You called all communists (and therefore me as well) "angry teens", "immature", you said we were defending Stalinism, etc.
Moreover, you refused for a long time to go read the posts I pointed you to, and you continued insulting us based on your misconceptions, that you certainly didn't want to change.
Besides, you were the one who started hurling insults, when we didn't know you. Obviously, when an unknown poster starts insulting us as a group, we are unlikely to welcome him with open arms. Again, to be "civil" as you put it, I had to force myself.
You certainly didn't make such efort to be civil with the holders of the ideas you disagreed with.

To be fair, I think religions are supersticions that have outlived their usefulness centuries ago. I believe religion should be left to the museums, and be done with it.
Heck, I even called Ben Kenobi (our resident intolerant fundie) an asshule, and I stay by my words. But I attacked him as an individual, after having read many of his posts which were an utter no-no to me.
The other religionsists (who are fortunately much better than Ben) were not offended.

But if you treated every religionist like you did on every communist, there is no wonder you're unpopular among them. Basically, you're a stranger to the OT, and start a thread to flame religion and the people who believe in it.

Even in message boards, there's something that's called "being polite". It helps having healthy discussions, and it helps get you to be listened. Without that, you're doom to be catalogued as a troll, no matter how interesting your actual message is.

Jaguar · February 12, 2004, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling

Quote:

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that you be not judged.

I am happily blind to your dogma, friend.

And I care not for your cut and pasted quotes of borrowed wisdom.

You do realize that Matthew 7:1 is a direct quote from Jesus Christ, don't you?

BTW, not cut and pasted, I just know it.

What bothers me about you is that, for example, I could say that the Democratic presidential race is like the tortoise and the hare fable. But if that story were in the bible, you'd call it cut-and-pasted religious dogma, etc.

Jaguar · February 12, 2004, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
So there is only an English Bible? No French, Spanish or Italian translation?

I meant that the English Bible was translated once, directly, from the original languages, not through several different languages.

I'm prepared to admit that not all comes from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, given that most documents had fallen apart by the time that an English version was written.

I don't think translation has changed the meaning of the text very much. But it's a compiled set of books from over a millenium of writing, by different authors, copied over and over, revised by people in power, etc.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 14:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior You do realize that Matthew 7:1 is a direct quote from Jesus Christ, don't you?

I'm happy to say I have no idea, and no inclination to know either.

Why should it mean anything to me?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior BTW, not cut and pasted, I just know it.

Well done, you memorised your lines.

And that proves what?....

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior What bothers me about you is that, for example, I could say that the Democratic presidential race is like the tortoise and the hare fable. But if that story were in the bible, you'd call it cut-and-pasted religious dogma, etc.

That is a bizarre comparison.

I hold no stock whatsoever in the bible.
To me it is nothing more than an old book, long since outdated.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 14:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
You called all communists (and therefore me as well) "angry teens", "immature", you said we were defending Stalinism, etc.
Moreover, you refused for a long time to go read the posts I pointed you to, and you continued insulting us based on your misconceptions, that you certainly didn't want to change.

That all started when I made comments about the dictator of Cuba.

I was pounced on by middle-class kids who prefered his regime to the West.

When I did not play ball and agree, I got called an imperialist and capitalist.

Two titles that hardly bother me, but it was the hostile immaturity that annoyed more.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Besides, you were the one who started hurling insults, when we didn't know you. Obviously, when an unknown poster starts insulting us as a group, we are unlikely to welcome him with open arms. Again, to be "civil" as you put it, I had to force myself.
You certainly didn't make such efort to be civil with the holders of the ideas you disagreed with.

Lies, Mr Spiffor.

I hurled no insults.
I was merely direct and to the point in my prose.

For that I will not apologise.

An insult in my book is calling a poster a pinhead or a cretin.

We have to get that straight.

I do not make insults.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
To be fair, I think religions are supersticions that have outlived their usefulness centuries ago. I believe religion should be left to the museums, and be done with it.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Heck, I even called Ben Kenobi (our resident intolerant fundie) an asshule, and I stay by my words. But I attacked him as an individual, after having read many of his posts which were an utter no-no to me.
The other religionsists (who are fortunately much better than Ben) were not offended.

And should they be?

The religionists are the ones who make all the hostile moves and arrogant judgements.

They think the job of world arbitration is theirs.

I am merely giving them what the hand out on a daily basis.

Considering what religionists have done through history, is what I am doing such a crime?

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
But if you treated every religionist like you did on every communist, there is no wonder you're unpopular among them. Basically, you're a stranger to the OT, and start a thread to flame religion and the people who believe in it.

I care little for elitism.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Even in message boards, there's something that's called "being polite". It helps having healthy discussions, and it helps get you to be listened. Without that, you're doom to be catalogued as a troll, no matter how interesting your actual message is.

When people are polite to me, I'll answer in kind.

I can't be much fairer than that.

Now, let's allow people to get back to the topic - I've made my point.

MrFun · February 12, 2004, 14:39

Ok, first let's remind ourselves what the Leviticus really is. It's basically a set of laws concerning priests (not priest in Christian terms since this is OT) and their ceremonies.

The Leviticus is divided up into four sections:
first section - standardization of sacrifice rituals
second section - priestly consecration ceremony
third section - the "Holiness Code" that includes moral/ethical laws
fourth section - appendix with vows and dedications

And here is the passage that homophobics like to use -- homophobics pick and choose what passages they find to be relevant to their own interests. They ignore the rest of Leviticus that says you can't wear clothing that has mixture of different fabrics, and so forth, but that's another thread altogether. Back to this quote that has been abused and misused by homophobics:

Lev. 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Given that the Leviticus, as the way I described it above, is concerned mostly with priests (not in Christian term), and their ceremonies and rituals, I have to say that this particular quote applies to the priesthood, and not to the lay followers of their religion.

I interpret this passage as stating that priests are not to lie with other men. Does this interpretation make sense though?

Elok · February 12, 2004, 15:43

Okay, Curt, first of all, "ignorant" does not mean "unwise," it means quite literally "uninformed/unaware of certain crucial facts." Within context, you could be called ignorant if you were in fact unaware of Matthew 7:1 or its meaning, as he was suggesting.

Second of all, Christianity is based on certain religious traditions, the bible being one of them. If you're going to ask for religious discourse without scriptural basis, you might as well be asking us to tell you where Poland is without referring to a map or atlas in any way. And I should point out right now that you can't prove the veracity of the prophets' experiences without a time machine. We don't "know" they weren't deluded or lying, as such.

Third, almost ALL ideas are built on the concepts developed by a prior generation, so insulting the bible on grounds of age-especially given that it purports to address timeless questions about the human condition-is not prudent. Pythagorean theorem's pretty old, if it comes to that. Pythagoras knew nothing about photosynthesis, or supply-side economics, but it doesn't matter because the subject he addresses is not affected by technological advances in the intervening years. The literalism of the Creation story, etc. aside (and those are fairly minor concerns), Christianity is a way of life. Has human nature changed significantly over the past two thousand years?

Finally, there's something wrong with justifying your aggression towards us by claiming we started it, whether that claim is true or not. Suppose we are being childish--though I don't see any evidence that we are. Would it kill you to be the bigger man here? I know that "turn the other cheek" stuff is so two thousand years ago, but could you try?

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 15:47

@Elok:

Drop it.

That case is closed, dude.

Elok · February 12, 2004, 15:54

Closed...by your standards. I don't see why you have the right to open a can of worms and shut it again when you no longer feel like discussing it. Every time one of us does that, you accuse us of "evading the issue" or some such, and hold it up as a sign of triumph. It hardly seems fair for you to pronounce the trouble you (at least partially) started over and done with, without any kind of resolution.

MrFun · February 12, 2004, 15:58

I wasted five minutes making my post, damn it!

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Elok
Closed...by your standards. I don't see why you have the right to open a can of worms and shut it again when you no longer feel like discussing it. Every time one of us does that, you accuse us of "evading the issue" or some such, and hold it up as a sign of triumph. It hardly seems fair for you to pronounce the trouble you (at least partially) started over and done with, without any kind of resolution.

I got no discussion from anyone.

All I got was a quote from an old book, accompanied by egostistical smugness.

I asked some questions, and didn't get any sort of answer, apart from evasion and lame abuse.

My point that most religious people don't want to answer certain questions was soundly proven.

Instead they regurgitate dogma.

My point is done and dusted.

Now if you want to continue, it must be in another thread.

You know the rules about thread-jacking.

Ben Kenobi · February 12, 2004, 16:04

Quote:

Ben Kenobi (our resident intolerant fundie) an asshule, and I stay by my words.

Quote:

But I attacked him as an individual, after having read many of his posts which were an utter no-no to me.

So because you disagree with me that gives you the right to insult me? Interesting then that you take curtsibling to the task for doing precisely the same.

Quote:

The other religionsists (who are fortunately much better than Ben) were not offended.

Implies that I hold a grudge against you. I most certainly do not, and I have not and will not respond in kind.

I may disagree, but in some sense I understand where you come from having been a mocker in the past. Can you say the same?

Elok · February 12, 2004, 16:07

But you started the bloody threadjack with your "three questions" way back when! And as I said, the "quote from the old book" was an answer by our standards.

Sorry, MrFun, but I can't start a thread exlusively to settle a beef, and PMs are too easy to ignore. This crap has to end. I might as well point out that you too are a "religionist" referencing an old book, and this isn't really a threadjack, as he's attacking the validity of the subject of the thread, Leviticus being part of said old book.