spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I’ve read through the posts for this thread throughout the evening. There have been some very intense points of view. It’s intriguing how people’s opinions can be either interpreted or, indeed, misinterpreted. I’ve read many posts on different topics too, so that I can get a feel for the type of character behind them. The cut and thrust of the sharp witted pitting their knowledge and debating skill against the lesser talented, but nevertheless, valued opinions of the not so talented. Call me old fashioned, I know, I know, but one fact seems to leap out from the screen as I read it. A particular aspect of all the to and fro of debate seems to point to the unmistakeable fact that you seem to wish to aspire to the definition of the word silly... If I offended you I apologise, I hate being misquoted, on an entirely different subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That would be an impressive quote if it proved anything like what was claimed I had said. If I had called the driver a murderer it would have been a great post. Since I didn't, it's not proof of anything more than I remember my posts better than you do. The marvels of modern science. Hypertext links can replace memory. If you click on the link in Plekhanov's post it will take you to your own post, in which you do indeed call the van driver a murderer. "There was the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The marvels of modern science. Hypertext links can replace memory. If you click on the link in Plekhanov's post it will take you to your own post, in which you do indeed call the van driver a murderer. "There was the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him." It was claimed that I called drivers murderers. Was the driver convicted of murder, or just Careless Driving, as was claimed? You need a good memory if you want to try, and fail, to misrepresent what I've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steiner Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That's the very first time that charge has been laid. this country is becoming more like Stalins russia evey year,they are entitled to their point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It was claimed that I called drivers murderers. Was the driver convicted of murder, or just Careless Driving, as was claimed? You need a good memory if you want to try, and fail, to misrepresent what I've said. "There was the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him." Your words. You wrote them. if you say 'the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him' are you not calling the van driver a murderer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 this country is becoming more like Stalins russia evey year,they are entitled to their point of view. Oh, I don't know about that. "In Stalinist Russia, the workers take the lead!" In Britain, they take the copper, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 "There was the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him." Your words. You wrote them. if you say 'the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him' are you not calling the van driver a murderer? Was he convicted of careless driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Was he convicted of careless driving? Oh dear we are wriggling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 4 references and none of them mention a penalty... each reference to the Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah story where the topic under discussion is two Angels visiting Sodom to decide whether to destroy it or not. Condemnation of the behaviour of lusting after Angels homosexually is not really a strong basis to extend the analogy any further. Especially not when there are no other mentions and Islamic history is littered with homosexuality. But I never claimed that the Koran mentioned any penalty did I? I simply rebutted your pretence that "The Quran doesn't mention homosexuality in your passage". Now to take aim at where you've attempted to move the goalposts to, namely your current pretence that the passages solely to "lusting after Angels homosexually". What are your grounds for this new claim? The Koran refers to Angels a fair bit, the term "angel" appears in the translations we are discussing but not in the passage you are now pretending refers to "lusting after Angels homosexually", the term that appears there is "men" not "angels" but "men". So why if as you claim the passage is about "lusting after Angels homosexually" does it not say: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on angels in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81 2 rules out of the 600 rules of varying degrees of nuttiness, like the one about killing your child if it curses the parent.... Even those passages are debatable. There is good reason to believe from the Hebrew word used and context the correct translation is a reference to ritual sex. It is also a Ritual Manual for priests in a particular time and place, so the instructions could be specifically related to their behaviour, they certainly aren't very relevant to today. The major Christian groups don't see Leviticus as binding today anyway. But I never claimed the bible was a good or sensible book full of sane rules did I? I simply claimed that it "explicitly condemns homosexuality". Sure many Xian groups ignore much of Leviticus just as they ignore the rich man camel needle thing but that doesn't magically change the fact that the bible "explicitly condemns homosexuality". Rowan Williams says this about Rom.1:26-27 C. Ann Shepherd sees it slightly differently: "When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals." As for Corinthian's the translation you have used doesn't even mention homosexuals. In translations where it does appear the point to make is that Paul used the word arsenokoitai.... who's meaning is lost to us... it could mean anything. It is unlikely to mean homosexual because there is a common greek word he could of used but he didn't. Two cherry picked quotes from liberal theologians who try to explain away the bibles condemnation of homosexuality do not change what it actually written in the bible. If I had a mind to I could plagiarise quotes from a conservative version of religioustolerance.org, you wouldn't accept that as proof of anything why then do you expect anyone to be so impressed that you've googled a site collected together a few liberal takes upon Rom 1? Now it is of course nice that the humanity of some theologians triumphs over the bible's bigotry just as it did with Xians who opposed slavery in the past. But the double think such humane Xians are forced into doesn't actually change what's written in the bible on my shelf or any of the millions of other bibles out there. Just as your double think doesn't magically stop Surah 7:80-81 from referring to homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 this country is becoming more like Stalins russia evey year,they are entitled to their point of view. Going a little OTT on the hyperbole there perhaps, 'like Stalins russia' indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.