Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Southern Man said:
Some would suggest, not necessarily me, that you are queer based on your support of the queer agenda.
Click to expand...

And their suggestion would be in error; but what's more telling is you attempting to continue to spin this to an agenda you obviously feel more comfortable with.
This is compounded by the little bit of you only quoting and responding to the parts of the posts that you use for your agenda of spinning.
 
Damocles said:
Because he believed that the R party had a big enough tent to handle big "L" libertarians like himself.

BTW - Your logic is circular. He ran as The Candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988, not just in a Primary. He understands the limitation of his party, therefore attempts to join forces with smaller "l" libertarians to shape the R party into something a little more palatable.
Click to expand...

He ran as the L after losing the R nomination. Perhaps if he wasn't such an l he may have done better.
 
Southern Man said:
Your logic escapes me. Actually, my position has not changed. Society shouldn't lie to children and tell them that queer is normal moral natural and healthy.
Click to expand...

It's no surprise that logic escapes you.
You're statement could then be seen that once society changes and it is shown that homosexuality is normal and healthy, that you will of course change your opinion and what you teach your children.
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

Nobody here said it wasn't one of the 'sins' in the Bible, just that Jesus didn't specifically cover that one. There are many 'sins' that he didn't cover.
Click to expand...

He did not need to cover it specifically since his audience knew specifically that homosexuality is a sexually immoral behaviour in accordance to their beliefs and that in his, Christ's, discussion to them about sexual immorality, that it would have been a given.
 
Southern Man said:
Japheth and Shem did what any respectful person would do to a rape victim: not look at them naked and cover them up.
Click to expand...

So, "uncovering nakedness" (not the words used to describe Ham's acts) means sexual intercourse but "covering nakedness", just means to literally cover the naked? You are clearly guilty of subjectively interpreting (twisting and spinning) this story to fit your own biases.
 
RStringfield said:
So, "uncovering nakedness" (not the words used to describe Ham's acts) means sexual intercourse but "covering nakedness", just means to literally cover the naked? You are clearly guilty of subjectively interpreting (twisting and spinning) this story to fit your own biases.
Click to expand...

There are two views among believers regarding Ham's sin; one, as SM says, Ham committed a homosexual act. Vs 24 clearly implies something happened. The more widely held view is that what "happened" was a rejection of Noah's authority; that Ham saw the weakness of Noah and thus dismissed his father's authority. He obviously went out to tell his brothers about the disgusting condition he had found his father in. Since this was considered a sin, it must mean that he was laughing about it as he told Shem and Japheth. The word used in his telling " 'amar " literally means "told with delight."

The passage teaches that his brothers were more righteous than Ham. They refused to see their father in this fallen condition, so they walked backwards as they covered Noah up.
 
Ice Dancer said:
There are two views among believers regarding Ham's sin; one, as SM says, Ham committed a homosexual act. Vs 24 clearly implies something happened. The more widely held view is that what "happened" was a rejection of Noah's authority; that Ham saw the weakness of Noah and thus dismissed his father's authority. He obviously went out to tell his brothers about the disgusting condition he had found his father in. Since this was considered a sin, it must mean that he was laughing about it as he told Shem and Japheth. The word used in his telling " 'amar " literally means "told with delight."

The passage teaches that his brothers were more righteous than Ham. They refused to see their father in this fallen condition, so they walked backwards as they covered Noah up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the latter is the way I read the story. SM is trying to be figurative in one use of the phrase but then claim the literal when the phrase is used again in the same passage. That is he claims that they were using "seeing nakedness" as a euphemism for sexual relations but then sees "covering nakedness" as literal.

Further, I am not so sure that if this indicates incest it does not indicate maternal incest.

Leviticus 18:6
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
 
The truth is, the purpose of the story is to justify the later conquering of Canaan. There are many of these stories of the fathers of tribes later conquered by the Israelites. For instance, (and possibly supporting the maternal incest in the Ham/Canaan story) the Moabites and Ammonites are supposedly the descendants of the children born from Lot and his daughters.
 
Ice Dancer said:
He did not need to cover it specifically since his audience knew specifically that homosexuality is a sexually immoral behaviour in accordance to their beliefs and that in his, Christ's, discussion to them about sexual immorality, that it would have been a given.
Click to expand...

In one of many unpublished books of the Bible, Jesus is directly asked by one of the disciples, if homosexuality is a sin, and Jesus sayeth unto him.... "Duh?"
 
RStringfield said:
So, "uncovering nakedness" (not the words used to describe Ham's acts) means sexual intercourse but "covering nakedness", just means to literally cover the naked? You are clearly guilty of subjectively interpreting (twisting and spinning) this story to fit your own biases.
Click to expand...
Try using some common sense instead of trying to say that something means "reverse rape".
 
RStringfield said:
Yeah, and the latter is the way I read the story. SM is trying to be figurative in one use of the phrase but then claim the literal when the phrase is used again in the same passage. That is he claims that they were using "seeing nakedness" as a euphemism for sexual relations but then sees "covering nakedness" as literal.

Further, I am not so sure that if this indicates incest it does not indicate maternal incest.

Leviticus 18:6
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
Click to expand...

What the view of those who think it was a homosexual act say is that by walking backwards that the other two were not partakers like Ham.
 
Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever we get into these myopic debates over single passages, it is wise to remember this passage in Revelations. Parsing out a single verse of the Bible to make your argument for or against anything, is contradictory to the purpose and intent of the Bible itself, and not actually permissible, according to these verses. The Bible is supposed to be taken in whole and interpreted as such, not parsed and marginalized to make a point. All too often, both believers and non-believers do this.
 
Ice Dancer said:
What the view of those who think it was a homosexual act say is that by walking backwards that the other two were not partakers like Ham.
Click to expand...

It seems a long way to go. I mean they explain it carefully about them putting a garment on their shoulders, walking backwards so as not to see and placing the garment over their father. A euphemism is usually used for brevity and to skip over details.

Again, Leviticus seems to indicate that "uncovering the nakedness of your father" means incest with your mother. I am not saying that is what was intended, but it better explains why Canaan was cursed.

Again, the whole story and everything about Noah is complete myth. Arguing over what really happened is stupid sense it didn't really happen. The purpose of the story is to justify the conquest of Canaan.
 
Dixie said:
Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever we get into these myopic debates over single passages, it is wise to remember this passage in Revelations. Parsing out a single verse of the Bible to make your argument for or against anything, is contradictory to the purpose and intent of the Bible itself, and not actually permissible, according to these verses. The Bible is supposed to be taken in whole and interpreted as such, not parsed and marginalized to make a point. All too often, both believers and non-believers do this.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I was not parsing. I was addressing what Christ said both in context of his audience and his culture.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I agree, but I was not parsing. I was addressing what Christ said both in context of his audience and his culture.
Click to expand...

You're right, you aren't doing that, but Stringy and the others continue to do it. I just thought I would point out the error, since no one seems to be aware of this. Trying to parse out a certain verse to make your case for something, is a common tactic used by non-believers, and while you can often make a compelling case to do so, it's irrelevant because The Bible has to be interpreted in whole, not part. It's like trying to find the meaning of a Dylan song by examining the first chord.
 
Dixie said:
You're right, you aren't doing that, but Stringy and the others continue to do it. I just thought I would point out the error, since no one seems to be aware of this. Trying to parse out a certain verse to make your case for something, is a common tactic used by non-believers, and while you can often make a compelling case to do so, it's irrelevant because The Bible has to be interpreted in whole, not part. It's like trying to find the meaning of a Dylan song by examining the first chord.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am well schooled in the cherry-picking habbits of those who claim the Bible is just a bunch of myths and fairytales and then try to tell those who have actually studied it what things mean :) Damo never did answer my question~~~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top