I'm dying to hear your sources for "praying the gay away" being illegal and (apparently) wearing a shirt being sinful
Edit: That's only for a garment made specifically out of linen and wool which I doubt his shirt consists of
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Chicken with a side of falsehood
- Thread starter The Knights of Wario Land
- Start date
- Status
I'm dying to hear your sources for "praying the gay away" being illegal and (apparently) wearing a shirt being sinful
Edit: That's only for a garment made specifically out of linen and wool which I doubt his shirt consists of
I believe he's referring to Leviticus 19:19:
"You must obey all my decrees. "Do not mate two different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread."
That's two different kinds of thread, not just mixed wool and linen. Additionally, to my understanding, Leviticus is also one of the sections that condemns homosexuality.
I for one, support the rights of gay chickens and will not stand Chick-Fil-A's slaughter of them. I also extend this support to people too.
That aside, I do think that this incident brought to light the idea of being at least conciseness consumer regardless if a company is good/bad. I wouldn't be surprised though if this whole incident was manufactured by someone (i.e. outside chick-fil-a) in some capacity. A redditor? KFC?!
That aside, I do think that this incident brought to light the idea of being at least conciseness consumer regardless if a company is good/bad. I wouldn't be surprised though if this whole incident was manufactured by someone (i.e. outside chick-fil-a) in some capacity. A redditor? KFC?!
I am very sorry but i lied when i said it was illegal. It is illegal for gay therapy to happen on teens in California now.
edit: BTW, can you please refute the central point and not 1 piece of supporting evidence. I really don't like playing around with logical fallacies.
Depends on what version you use. The KJV (which I believe is most commonly used by evangelical Christians) refers to wool and linen specifically and doesn't say anything about two different threads in general... or at least it does according to this. But yeah, even if you don't count that shit, there's plenty more ridiculous rules and regulations to choose from. Shaving your sideburns? SINFUL! Better ask for forgiveness asap.
Can you please make an educated comment instead of just trying to bash someone? And I can't say that I recognize the fallacy in pointing out that you have no idea what you're talking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
You refuted one point in my argument. You provided no other evidence or refutations so I will assume that is all you had to say about that argument. One piece of evidence being fallacious does not mean that the entire argument is fallacious.
And yes, I do know what i am talking about. Is it also safe to assume that you don't eat kosher/halal? Is it also safe to assume you get your hair cut? By the laws of leviticus you too are a sinner and should be denied rights from a secular institution (government) because of a religious book!
edit: lol <3 phantasia
This has nothing to do with me. All you're doing is trying to attack people and it's hardly a straw man to point out that the only support you had for attacking mattj was that you are butthurt and then you spouted some bullshit lies that you thought sounded cool at the time or something
Edit: Thanks for the post Billymills, I was mainly referencing the response to mattj as "attacks"
Oh, I took a look at this to grab that quote, and a majority of them refer to mixed fabrics indiscriminately. Not that it matters much, you're right: There are plenty of 'abominations' on par with homosexuality throughout the Bible, and the fact that some anti-gay Christians just skim over that is baffling to me. I can understand the thought that it's a biological defect (to some degree), but it's ridiculous to pick and choose in your holy book.
So the issue here isn't that homophobic christians are too conservative, but rather not enough? Would it be better for them to adhere to every biblical tradition including ones that have even less of a place in modern society? Yes, the condemning of homosexuality is a relatively conservative notion but most of the ones no longer upheld are far more so
Itchni you made a lot of unsupported claims. You need to be able to either provide sources or provide an argument. There was no problem with Zacchaeus attacking your weak evidence.
Phantasia there was no strawman present.
Zacchaeus no one was attempting to bash you. Do not pretend to be getting attacked. On the other hand, you are throwing out a lot of attacks.
Phantasia there was no strawman present.
Zacchaeus no one was attempting to bash you. Do not pretend to be getting attacked. On the other hand, you are throwing out a lot of attacks.
The argument is not that some homophobic Christians aren't conservative enough, but rather that it's hypocritical to cite the Bible as their reasoning for being anti-gay whilst ignoring other supposed abominations in their holy book. Many act as if there is nothing they can do to accept homosexuals, because it is (according to them) the will of God that they don't have sex/marry/whatever, and yet are perfectly content to break countless other prohibitions because it's convenient for them.
yo kids leviticus isn't the book used to justify christians' belief that the act of homosexuality is a sin.
christians =/= jews, christians' 'rules' and 'laws' are in the new testament, not the old. the new testament also says the act of homosexuality is a sin.
i mean we still obey the ten commandments but the lengthy list of don't eat pork, don't mix fabrics in your clothes, etc. was nullified by jesus' sacrifice. saying GRRR CHRISTIANS DON'T OBEY ALL THE LAWS IN LEVITICUS AND JUST PICK AND CHOOSE THE ONES THEY DON'T LIKE simply is not an accurate statement because most of our guidelines are in the new testament.
christians =/= jews, christians' 'rules' and 'laws' are in the new testament, not the old. the new testament also says the act of homosexuality is a sin.
i mean we still obey the ten commandments but the lengthy list of don't eat pork, don't mix fabrics in your clothes, etc. was nullified by jesus' sacrifice. saying GRRR CHRISTIANS DON'T OBEY ALL THE LAWS IN LEVITICUS AND JUST PICK AND CHOOSE THE ONES THEY DON'T LIKE simply is not an accurate statement because most of our guidelines are in the new testament.
Ok here is supporting evidence for every single claim I made today:
Pray the gay away is damaging : http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/harm1
Hate group: is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. Advocating the denial of human rights to a group of people sure does sound like hatred and hostility.
pray the gay away being illegal- I was wrong. I admitted to it. got confused with something else. sorry.
bible stuff: other people have provided links to the passages.
Pray the gay away is damaging : http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/harm1
Hate group: is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. Advocating the denial of human rights to a group of people sure does sound like hatred and hostility.
pray the gay away being illegal- I was wrong. I admitted to it. got confused with something else. sorry.
bible stuff: other people have provided links to the passages.
no it would be better to abandon them all because they're all bullshit, hth
I like Studio Killers.
Anyway, I'm aware that the vast majority of Christians typically stick to the New Testament instead of the old, which is why you'll notice that I used the prefix some when referring to anti-gay Christians. If you don't mind, however, can you tell me which section in the New Testament you're referring to? I'm willing to bet that it's this one:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."
Effeminate? What about those who are effeminate simply because they are female? Or, as the verse is likely referring to effeminate men, what about males with naturally high estrogen levels and relatively high voices with a passion for dancing? Regardless of his implied sexuality, if we assume that he's simply an effeminate straight man, will he not inherit the kingdom of God either?
Is the good Christian woman who has a regrettable fling while her husband is deployed overseas now condemned to hell? The alcoholic father who suppresses his pain in his liquor? The man in the slums who steals from strangers to feed his family?
While not quite as absurd as those who cite Leviticus for their beliefs, this is still picking and choosing.
Edit: I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to push an anti-Christianity mindset or bashing the religion; they have every right in the world to adhere to whatever beliefs they like. I'm simply voicing my opinion on the subject.
romans 1:26-27
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
^ homosexuality, clearly stated that the act of it is a sin.
The verse you quoted is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, however, you seem to have picked a bizarre translation of it. From the NIV:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
I honestly have never heard effeminate in that verse before, please cite your translation?
Male prostitute should be self-explanatory for the sin there.
If the "good Christian" sins, they repent of their sins and because Jesus' love covers all sins if you accept him into your life and repent/ask for forgiveness, then of course they don't. If you don't repent of your sins then yeh son u sad.
Not picking and choosing - willfully choosing to live your life sinfully without regret is bad no matter what the sin.
edit: k i searched for the version of the verse with effeminate and found a site saying it refers to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship instead of the sissy/womanly modern variant, if there is a mildly popular translation with that word in it, i am FAIRLY CERTAIN it is not remotely close to talking about guys who like to dance......
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
^ homosexuality, clearly stated that the act of it is a sin.
The verse you quoted is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, however, you seem to have picked a bizarre translation of it. From the NIV:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
I honestly have never heard effeminate in that verse before, please cite your translation?
Male prostitute should be self-explanatory for the sin there.
If the "good Christian" sins, they repent of their sins and because Jesus' love covers all sins if you accept him into your life and repent/ask for forgiveness, then of course they don't. If you don't repent of your sins then yeh son u sad.
Not picking and choosing - willfully choosing to live your life sinfully without regret is bad no matter what the sin.
edit: k i searched for the version of the verse with effeminate and found a site saying it refers to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship instead of the sissy/womanly modern variant, if there is a mildly popular translation with that word in it, i am FAIRLY CERTAIN it is not remotely close to talking about guys who like to dance......
Since this thread is awful I was going to change the subject from "it don't support gay? I don't support it!" to, "what does it take for you to stop shopping at some place?"
It's a very vague question, but at what point would you stop ordering food from Chick fillet or whatever? Would it have to deal with animal abuse, poor living conditions, etc... or what does it take. I'm very curious about this and people.
I wouldn't spend money on a company that doesn't (openly) support my ideals. Though I'm sure my 5 for ten dollar Merona t-shirts are probably terrible in some way or another I don't really research everything that I buy. But things that I know are by themselves evil, such as Wal-Mart and even Target to an extent, who come into a town and force out local stores makes me never wish to step foot into them.
Which is the same as Whole Foods Market. It's a good store, with, what I hope, is organic food at a kind of reasonable price. However when Whole Foods moved into my town both my local supermarket (North Boulder Shopping) went out of business and so did another local organic food store.
While I understand that globalization is somewhat inevitable and that we cannot all rely on local food stores to supply our needs I wonder when the line is crossed. Because they're bigger does that mean they can undersell? But is underselling itself a poor thing? If I cannot get, let's say, avocados cheaply in the organic food store, then a King Soopers rolls in and sells avocados for a dollar less is that bad or playing to the market? These kind of situations confuse me as a whole.
This makes me even more concerned with Gas Stations. Lucky the cheapest gas in Boulder is a local gas company (Boulder Gas) but I've never really looked into what Conoco or Shell actually does with their profits. I would be lying to say that I never used one of those stations. While I'm sure I wouldn't agree with all of their choices, that's basically all we have with gas stations where I'm from. I'm not giving up my car due to a company giving all their money to Romney, but I wouldn't feel exactly comfortable with it.
It's a very vague question, but at what point would you stop ordering food from Chick fillet or whatever? Would it have to deal with animal abuse, poor living conditions, etc... or what does it take. I'm very curious about this and people.
I wouldn't spend money on a company that doesn't (openly) support my ideals. Though I'm sure my 5 for ten dollar Merona t-shirts are probably terrible in some way or another I don't really research everything that I buy. But things that I know are by themselves evil, such as Wal-Mart and even Target to an extent, who come into a town and force out local stores makes me never wish to step foot into them.
Which is the same as Whole Foods Market. It's a good store, with, what I hope, is organic food at a kind of reasonable price. However when Whole Foods moved into my town both my local supermarket (North Boulder Shopping) went out of business and so did another local organic food store.
While I understand that globalization is somewhat inevitable and that we cannot all rely on local food stores to supply our needs I wonder when the line is crossed. Because they're bigger does that mean they can undersell? But is underselling itself a poor thing? If I cannot get, let's say, avocados cheaply in the organic food store, then a King Soopers rolls in and sells avocados for a dollar less is that bad or playing to the market? These kind of situations confuse me as a whole.
This makes me even more concerned with Gas Stations. Lucky the cheapest gas in Boulder is a local gas company (Boulder Gas) but I've never really looked into what Conoco or Shell actually does with their profits. I would be lying to say that I never used one of those stations. While I'm sure I wouldn't agree with all of their choices, that's basically all we have with gas stations where I'm from. I'm not giving up my car due to a company giving all their money to Romney, but I wouldn't feel exactly comfortable with it.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
I feel that this passage is about inclusion. It is not a 'thou shalt not' passage. It expands to include everyone and discuss equality, and is unfortunately often cited in defense of inequality. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Additionally, "women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones" is ambiguous at best, and quite often interpreted as women beginning to take active roles in and enjoy sex. The next sentence is more difficult, but to me 'inflamed with passion and lust for one another' is less about committed, loving, same-sex relationships and more about the pinnacle of self-indulgence and mischief.
New American Standard Bible.
I've heard this before, so I'll give it to you, however I find it strange that if the Christian alcoholic man dies in a drunken brawl or the Christian thief who steals for his family is attacked by his victim, he's sent to hell. Not much I can refute here, though
Seeing as the thread's pretty much derailed and someone's trying to get it back on track, that'll be the last thing that I say. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this with you, Yeti.
When the food (Or whatever service to whatever establishment) becomes awful.
It is listing sins off though, the clear message there is that the acts the people are undertaking are negative, harmful, and wrong.
Never read it but again I assume it doesn't refer to men liking the color pink. That's.. bizarrely specific and doesn't fit other translations.
Well, now that's why you try to avoid sinning, because you never know when you'll die with something left undone, right? Regardless, if you punched your brother, didn't repent for it, and the rapture came 5 minutes later, you probably would be fine. If you're in the lifestyle and show no desire for forgiveness, to change, repent or remorse for it, and you die, well, where was your heart really? Not with Jesus I'd assume.
good discussion im off to bed. enjoy this thread kids.
(i'm ignoring the bible nonsense and responding to genny's post)
gasoline is a special case because buying and burning it for your own convenience is inherently pretty selfish -- everyone else has to deal with the side effects of pollution. if gasoline were priced at a rate that would allow us to repair the damage, i'm quite certain it wouldn't be economically viable for individuals to drive themselves around the way they do.
thus, i see driving as a form of 'stealing' from the public. bicycles and buses are the way to go.
now, i don't care much about little things like the opinions of a company's ceo. i'm only concerned with their actions. donating to hate groups is an action, so i would consider avoiding chick-fil-a (if there was one near me to avoid). however, there are far, far more serious offenses going on that i don't think any sane person could tolerate (such as murdering unionists to keep wages low) and any person who "doesn't care" is not a person with whom i want to associate.
as my ideals are quite specific and still somewhat schismatic, i can't feasibly avoid every corporation that doesn't support them. ideally, we would all grow our own food in our backyards, but i live in a college dorm, and if the choice is between fueling a bit of extra gay hate in the usa and supporting unrepentant worker exploitation and murder, i'm eating the chicken.
wal-mart's gig is that they own an enormous monopoly, which is universally considered A Bad Thing for the economy. wal-mart's suppliers pretty much have to do anything it says, because they will go out of business if wal-mart decides it doesn't feel like trading with them. because of that, wal-mart can demand that it pays impossibly low prices -- and that's where the worker abuse comes into play. and by paying these low prices for its goods, wal-mart can reliably undercut its competition, having the effect of turning well-paying local jobs into horrible jobs for desperate people in impoverished areas.
i think it's somewhat possible for corporations to 'redeem' themselves somewhat, too. while microsoft has committed crimes to compare with the worst of them, bill gates himself has donated massive amounts of money and started his own charity, (which i believe is the largest charity in the usa, by funds). steve jobs, on the other hand, apparently never knew the meaning of the word 'altruism', which is why i don't feel as bad when i buy a computer that happens to come pre-packaged with microsoft windows.
gasoline is a special case because buying and burning it for your own convenience is inherently pretty selfish -- everyone else has to deal with the side effects of pollution. if gasoline were priced at a rate that would allow us to repair the damage, i'm quite certain it wouldn't be economically viable for individuals to drive themselves around the way they do.
thus, i see driving as a form of 'stealing' from the public. bicycles and buses are the way to go.
now, i don't care much about little things like the opinions of a company's ceo. i'm only concerned with their actions. donating to hate groups is an action, so i would consider avoiding chick-fil-a (if there was one near me to avoid). however, there are far, far more serious offenses going on that i don't think any sane person could tolerate (such as murdering unionists to keep wages low) and any person who "doesn't care" is not a person with whom i want to associate.
as my ideals are quite specific and still somewhat schismatic, i can't feasibly avoid every corporation that doesn't support them. ideally, we would all grow our own food in our backyards, but i live in a college dorm, and if the choice is between fueling a bit of extra gay hate in the usa and supporting unrepentant worker exploitation and murder, i'm eating the chicken.
wal-mart's gig is that they own an enormous monopoly, which is universally considered A Bad Thing for the economy. wal-mart's suppliers pretty much have to do anything it says, because they will go out of business if wal-mart decides it doesn't feel like trading with them. because of that, wal-mart can demand that it pays impossibly low prices -- and that's where the worker abuse comes into play. and by paying these low prices for its goods, wal-mart can reliably undercut its competition, having the effect of turning well-paying local jobs into horrible jobs for desperate people in impoverished areas.
i think it's somewhat possible for corporations to 'redeem' themselves somewhat, too. while microsoft has committed crimes to compare with the worst of them, bill gates himself has donated massive amounts of money and started his own charity, (which i believe is the largest charity in the usa, by funds). steve jobs, on the other hand, apparently never knew the meaning of the word 'altruism', which is why i don't feel as bad when i buy a computer that happens to come pre-packaged with microsoft windows.
- Status