[Gibble]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

GOD hates divorce. That should answer your question. The State made NO-FAULT divorce-----that only made for a rise in the divorce rate. Give a child enough rope and he will go the limit.

Just out of curiousity, since I"m not a biblical scholar .. where does it say God hates divorce? I'm just curious?

And the way I see it. I'd rather live happily divorced, then be forced to be unhappy with a woman I no longer love, merely because the church says I can't divorce.

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

GOD hates divorce. That should answer your question.

Well, it doesn't really, for two reasons:

FIRST: that's an answere which is a piece of "data"; not information, or a conclusion drawn FROM that data. (EDIT: and as Gibble points out, it is "data" which you have only asserted, and NOT supported!)

SECOND: that answere doesn't even frame itself in the same form as the question, so it could mean almost ANYTHING, and is not a SPECIFIC answer to a SPECIFIC question!?

So no, this doesn't really answer anything? I appreciate the response, but it does not have any meaning in the context.

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

The State made NO-FAULT divorce-----that only made for a rise in the divorce rate. Give a child enough rope and he will go the limit.

non-sequiter.

So do you have a more "complete" answer perhaps?

Or do you just "not care" if no one understands you!? (why?)

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by RAM-PAGE

I believe that all homosexual males should marry homosexual women, if you really care to know. Then they can discuss sex at length on computer forums and not have to concern themselves about anything else.

And never mind the human rights of heterosexual married couples.

Who cares about them?

...buh-bye! (AGAIN!)

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Being a thief just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being a nasty person just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being a whore monger just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being a liar just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being a murderer just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being a prostitute just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being an idolater just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being stingy just is. You are, or you aren't.
Being a creep just is. You are, or you aren't.

I care and it does effect everyone in some way.

And if someone is stealing bread, because they are hungry!? What then?
Does your "Bible" say anything about that one?

WHOM defines this subjective "nasty person"? You? Me? Gibble? What's the standard on that one?

Same for "stingy"!? And "creep"?

And I presume you mean that it "does AFFECT" everyone in some way? (as in to "influence a previous result", and not as in to "cause a direct result")

So what "it" and how does it "affect" everyone, in what "way" specifically?

Assertions with no backup mean nothing!? They are NOT compelling.

WHY offer them as argument?

If they do nothing but "take up space" then WHY offer them? To WHAT purpose or goal?

...I seriously do NOT understand? (but I am inclided to draw a few conclusions which conflict with your assertions of sincerity of your commentary?... kind of a problem there; kind of a miss-match. I mean, WHAT rational conclusions would YOU draw if the situation were reversed? I mean really? What?)

J

[BrianHed]

Originally Posted by iltos

i was being facetious, having understood from your post that acknowledging the success of gay people has as its downside the "desensitization" (is that spelled right?) of "the issue"....which i take to mean, for you, accepting the equal rights of homosexuals in our society.

and so i asked....how does it benefit the population by making everybody sensitive to it?

as you can tell, i think the whole "issue" is one of fear and intolerance, which has little to do with a healthy society.

I meant exposure to all gay related things not just successful instances. The more the gay lifestyle is normalized the less opposition there will be. Mass communicated apathy is what I think of it.

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by BrianHed

I meant exposure to all gay related things not just successful instances. The more the gay lifestyle is normalized the less opposition there will be. Mass communicated apathy is what I think of it.

I am wondering? Are you saying that you believe there is some kind of "latent" homosexual community which will "come out" if it is stigmatized less somehow? Or that more heterosexual people will "convert" if they feel less "social pressure" about it?

Would you say we have "mass apathy" over inter-racial marriages now? (yet?) Would you say that it would be bad if we did?

I don't think people become "gay" or choose to BE "gay", just for kicks! Or as a fashion statement? Or any other such casual reason? Whom would want to choose such a difficult life, and to be deliberately ostracized, disenfranchised, marginalized, and DEMONIZED!? Where is the "self-interest" of such an action?

Just because society currently makes it more uncomfortable to be "openly gay", makes more people less open about it, but it does not make "LESS gay people".

Do you think that maybe if in fact there was MORE apathy about homosexuality, perhaps that poor boy up north wouldn't have been savagely BEATEN TO DEATH!?...

I guess I don't understand your comments? Or specifically what you are driving at?

Thanks,
J

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

And if someone is stealing bread, because they are hungry!? What then?
Does your "Bible" say anything about that one?

WHOM defines this subjective "nasty person"? You? Me? Gibble? What's the standard on that one?

Same for "stingy"!? And "creep"?

And I presume you mean that it "does AFFECT" everyone in some way? (as in to "influence a previous result", and not as in to "cause a direct result")

So what "it" and how does it "affect" everyone, in what "way" specifically?

Assertions with no backup mean nothing!? They are NOT compelling.

WHY offer them as argument?

If they do nothing but "take up space" then WHY offer them? To WHAT purpose or goal?

...I seriously do NOT understand? (but I am inclided to draw a few conclusions which conflict with your assertions of sincerity of your commentary?... kind of a problem there; kind of a miss-match. I mean, WHAT rational conclusions would YOU draw if the situation were reversed? I mean really? What?)

J

I suppose you think Ebenezer Scrooge was a wonderful person prior to his epiphany....

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

I suppose you think Ebenezer Scrooge was a wonderful person prior to his epiphany....

fyi, LittleNipper...that was a STORY...

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Just out of curiousity, since I"m not a biblical scholar .. where does it say God hates divorce? I'm just curious?

And the way I see it. I'd rather live happily divorced, then be forced to be unhappy with a woman I no longer love, merely because the church says I can't divorce.

Hbr 13:4 Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

That is all I could find so far

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

I suppose you think Ebenezer Scrooge was a wonderful person prior to his epiphany....

I have NO IDEA how that response in any way addresses the question? But I thank you for it all the same.

I would however suggest that at leat Scrooge HAD an "epiphany", and at least he was humbled enough to ADMIT the errors of his ways (pride, intolerance, insensitivity, arogance, hard-heartedness, greed, insincerity,...).

Now, do you have perhaps a more genuine response to my inquiry?

WHAT does the Gospel say about a bread thief?

WHY offer "assertions" as "arguments"?

HOW are such unsupported assertions "compelling"?

WHY ENGAGE in such styles of rhetoric; to what end or purpose (if not to be compelling with reason)?

J

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Hbr 13:4 Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

That is all I could find so far

I guess it depends which version of the bible you choose...and which book you choose to read...

Originally Posted by Mathew 5:31

"It was also said,'Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,' WEB

It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: ASV

Again, it was said, Whoever puts away his wife has to give her a statement in writing for this purpose: BBE

It has been said too, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a letter of divorce. DBY

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: KJV

It hath been said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: WBS

"It was also said, 'If any man puts away his wife, let him give her a written notice of divorce.' WEY

And it was said, That whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce; YLT

[jmosmith]

Nipper?

You have been earnestly and politely engaged for a few weeks by Iltos, a few others, even myself for the past few weeks; giving you the chance to demonstrate the sincerity you have claimed. I have personally offered you the benefit of the doubt. And I am greatly concerned by apparent lack of earnest response to this on your part? I am wondering why? I am wondering how I reconcile those actions to your claims of sincerity? I am wondering how YOU reconcile them; which is exactly why I've directly asked those questions. (I mean really, is there a POV here that I just don't understand? Why would you NOT avail yourself of the opportunity to explain it for myself and others to see? Why would you seemingly NOT CARE to be understood?)

If your "Christianity" is based upon "works" (in part) as you have asserted, then I am having a very hard time reconciling the works I've seen here, to your claims of sincerity, and especially your apparent avoidance of such questions.

Consider the question in this way, "Why should I listen to you, when I see such a conflict between your words, and your actions? Or is it possible I have misunderstood what I see as a conflict, and in fact there is not one?"

You Noted that this is a "Debate", and the achievement of "understanding" is a fundamental part/goal of a debate. That's all I'm trying to do here.

J

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

I suppose you think Ebenezer Scrooge was a wonderful person prior to his epiphany....

...and why the implied character assasination? is that an "earnestly sincere" response to a fair question?

Is it a "respected tactic" of a response in "debate"?

Is there really any doubt in your mind that this response addressed nothing at all?

Why do you do this? For what possible purpose or goal? I simply do not see how this serves your own self-interests?

If it does in some way, then please show me how, because I just don't see it?

J

EDIT: Understaning a new or alternative point of view is one of my favorite things about debate; so if you have either to offer, I'd be interesting in understandig it? (I'm not jerking you chain either.)

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by Gibble

I guess it depends which version of the bible you choose...and which book you choose to read...

Very True... You will also notice that these Scriptures From Matt and Mark come from Deuteronomy. So does God believe in Divorce. The command for the LETTER of Divorce was only given if Adultery was committed. Jesus explained this further in Matt and Mark

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

I have NO IDEA how that response in any way addresses the question? But I thank you for it all the same.

I would however suggest that at leat Scrooge HAD an "epiphany", and at least he was humbled enough to ADMIT the errors of his ways (pride, intolerance, insensitivity, arogance, hard-heartedness, greed, insincerity,...).

Now, do you have perhaps a more genuine response to my inquiry?

WHAT does the Gospel say about a bread thief?

WHY offer "assertions" as "arguments"?

HOW are such unsupported assertions "compelling"?

WHY ENGAGE in such styles of rhetoric; to what end or purpose (if not to be compelling with reason)?

J

Hey J

I know this is For LN but according to the Gospel Stealing is a Crime! According to the Law of Man Stealing is a Crime. One that is Hungry should ask for Food not steal it! Is that not true?

Yours Truly

Tim