Liar, Liar, Now You're Fired - Page 37

EnchantedSLN · #**541** 01-19-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Because really its unnatural it goes against basic and common law

Bunk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

and basically, being tired of this whole arguing crap, I asked a professor today her opinion on all of this and she said:

"You know if animals have gotten in right all these years, why can't we? If a dog knows what to hump, why can't we? Id like to think we are smarter than a dog."

If I listened to everything some of my whackjob professors have said...

By the way, have you ever put two un-neutered male dogs in a room together? Perhaps your professor would like to reconsider her argument

.

Besides, if you want to go that route the existence of "non-breeding" individuals in various species of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior in nature is well documented. Take bonobos (sometimes called pygmy chimpanzees), for example, with whom we share 98% of our DNA. Homosexuality, especially female, is extremely prevalent.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**542** 01-19-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux

My male cats hump. They just don't procreate when they do. Doesn't mean they don't do it. The fact that the heterosexuals are the ones who procreate does not infer that those who don't procreate are sinning. We simply trace our ancestory back through heterosexuals, it does not mean homosexuality did not exist in all eras and nor does it mean that it is a sin, simply that we survive through heterosexuals. I don't think the survival or the species is anything to rave about and even if it is, there's plenty of heterosexuals to do the procreating, there's no shortage.

I never said that it didn't go back for eons. Of course it does! But why is it alwlays looked down upon in society in EVERY ancient way of life. Because it was "not normal", well where'd they get that insane notion of "what normal" is...maybe from God and how they were taught of God's natural law from the beginnings of time.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**543** 01-19-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadliestPoison

Sure, I'll give you that. But that definition of it is purely archaic. I don't know anyone today who will say, "So I knew someone last night." Or, "Hey, wanna know?" Sure, someone might say, "I got to know her real well last night *winkwinknudgenudge*", but who's skeevy enough to do it that way? I mean, come on now. Eyugh. Of course, I'm not discrediting the original text if that's what it meant originally (and I don't doubt it did, since I looked up the etymology, definitions, etc). I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.

If I were to read one of the old translations, where it wasn't "So we can have sex with them" but rather "so that we may know them," without knowing about the etymology, I'd think that they just wanted to get to know each other. To me, that hardly implies that they would start knocking boots. And therein lies the problem of knowledge. How one acts on the text presented in the Bible, based on how they interpret/understand it, can change due to outside influences — cultural, linguistic, or otherwise — and largely in part due to how the text is translated. If I have come to know the term "know" simply as how it is used today — when speaking of abtaining new information, you know something; when meeting someone (in a purely non-sexual way), you know them — then that is how I will interpret the text I am presented with.

For instance, a while ago (we're talking mid-90s), the thing to do for us young'ns was to go around saying everything was "sick." If it was "cool," it was "sick." Just like if, today, it is "cool," it is "tight." Thus, cultural influences have affected the connotations of the word "cool" and furthermore have affected the terms "sick" and "tight." Yeah, it's just slang. Yeah, it's not very credible. Yeah, it'll be forgotten (such as with the archaic definition of "know," which I certainly didn't know about until a few minutes ago). But I think it's a valid point to make when discussing this.

Thus, we have the problems of knowledge (thanks, Theory of Knowledge!

) that arise from this barrier. Thus, we have the arguments that have arisen in this thread.

Well of course no one says that any more. Which is why more modern english translations of the bible are made. It doesn't change with the original hebrew of the word implied.

DrummerDeanna · #**544** 01-19-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I never said that it didn't go back for eons. Of course it does! But why is it alwlays looked down upon in society in EVERY ancient way of life. Because it was "not normal", well where'd they get that insane notion of "what normal" is...maybe from God and how they were taught of God's natural law from the beginnings of time.

Your teachers or someone need to be re-educated

Homosexualty has not always been looked down upon - it's just recently that Americans are all up in arms about it....greek times - homosexuality NOT looked down upon...

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**545** 01-19-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

And um - dogs who hump legs and things? Don't think they're "getting it right"... as your brililant college professor said

Thats just beause their dogs and "horny" but they DO know when the oppisite sex dog is around, and they know how to breed, it never fails.

DrummerDeanna · #**546** 01-19-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well of course no one says that any more. Which is why more modern english translations of the bible are made. It doesn't change with the original hebrew of the word implied.

The thing is? It does

It very much changes the original meaning and sometimes intent of certain Bible texts

It's true - and the Bible has been HIGHLY Edited over the years...many books have multiple authors....'es truth man!

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**547** 01-19-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadliestPoison

But how it's interpreted does. Which has been my main point. That I have stated over and over again.

again, no it doesn't because the root of the hebrew word (am I giong to have to look it up for you) means the act of sexually connected with anther person.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**548** 01-19-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

The thing is? It does

It very much changes the original meaning and sometimes intent of certain Bible texts

It's true - and the Bible has been HIGHLY Edited over the years...many books have multiple authors....'es truth man!

Well of course they do, you think Im an idiot? You people are wierd.

They are called EDITORS not authors, they oversee modern day translations of the bible to make sure they follow close to the original languages.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**549** 01-19-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Your teachers or someone need to be re-educated

Homosexualty has not always been looked down upon - it's just recently that Americans are all up in arms about it....greek times - homosexuality NOT looked down upon...

Because they didn't come from the society of peoples who believed in One God, Yahweh, giver of life. They strayed away from God's people. And sin takes over when that happens. But in essence in every society with belief in God homosexuality has ALWAYS been looked down upon, ALWAYS as far back as biblical times (which we have proven).

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**550** 01-19-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux

If you look around the boards you can see that the person you are talking to is someone I clearly do not have a good record with. At this point I don't care. What you have said is disgusting. How dare you insult her in the area that we can assume is the most important thing in her life. To say this is to insult her as a mother and I don't know her but I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'll give her **** about Stevie Nicks but giving **** about her mothering and then laughing about it is disgusting.

She has insulted the children of the world by claiming to stand up for them but supporting the murder of children.

Im discusting?

DrummerDeanna · #**551** 01-19-2005, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well of course they do, you think Im an idiot? You people are wierd.

They are called EDITORS not authors, they oversee modern day translations of the bible to make sure they follow close to the original languages.

Wow - you believe that?

You've been very misguided...there ARE mulitple authors as well as multiple editors...and yes, your fast making the track to idiot in my mind

You just seem to not know your stuff historically and what your spouting about it is mostly false...

DrummerDeanna · #**552** 01-19-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Because they didn't come from the society of peoples who believed in One God, Yahweh, giver of life. They strayed away from God's people. And sin takes over when that happens. But in essence in every society with belief in God homosexuality has ALWAYS been looked down upon, ALWAYS as far back as biblical times (which we have proven).

Um times go back FURTHER than biblical times - and NO it has NOT always been looked down upon...ugh - this is pointless you're clueless...

DrummerDeanna · #**553** 01-19-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadliestPoison

Eh.

People at my school make obvious that they're involved with each other. They do this via macking in the hallways, often blocking parts of them and pissing everyone off.

I don't think that's normal (or at least not in a public place such as a school). I don't know what God says about it, but to me, in my own opinion, that's not normal. It's out of the norm for the environment. School is where you go to learn. You don't go to school to be all up on your boyfriend/girlfriend for 3 minutes in a hallway. Thus, it's out of the norm.

Also, current trends in the region can determine what is called "normal" and what isn't.

It is possible to even say that homosexuality is out of the norm to some people, but I'm not going to discuss that since that's what this thread is seemingly all about. Granted, I haven't read through all of it. Granted, I don't really want to. The topic of religion is fascinating to me, but if someone starts arguing, count me out. Which is of course why I have replied a few times.

Yeah - I don't know why I keep arguing

I just can't help myself - but really it's pointless...and I know that - especially when up against ignorance..it just doesn't work....

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**554** 01-19-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Wow - you believe that?

You've been very misguided...there ARE mulitple authors as well as multiple editors...and yes, your fast making the track to idiot in my mind

You just seem to not know your stuff historically and what your spouting about it is mostly false...

If you are referring to the fact that many different authors WROTE the bible then yes of course so, only a handful of authors such as Moses wrote more than one book.

But that was not even what we were talking about before hand (which shows your skills in paying attention), we were discussing current bible translations, not the authors who wrote them. STAY FOCUSED!

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**555** 01-19-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Yeah - I don't know why I keep arguing

I just can't help myself - but really it's pointless...and I know that - especially when up against ignorance..it just doesn't work....

I know I ask myself the same thing, but when dealing with the ignorance that you and some of the others on this forum have unleashed it’s a wonder you people can survive in the free thinking modern world, sheltering yourselves from "other views"

Wow to think that a conservative poster would have conservative views, I don't get it do you?