Washington man unicycling to collect gay marriage stories

[dogbowl]

Originally posted by Unitick
You may not like my post and you can take your vengeance on the messenger if you like. But remember, I have not chastised, discriminated against or spoken ill of anyone. I merely tried to gently declare what is stated in the bible and explain “religions” problem with the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

I'm not religious in any way, and so by default I can not agree with Unitik.

But at least he presented his arguments in a straightforward way, without personal nastiness toward anyone here on the forum. And he backed up his arguments and viewpoints with biblical quotes. To an athiest like me, the Bible is like a book of poetry, and often it is a beautiful read--but I don't believe in God, so it remains for me "just" a book of poetry, open to intrepretation, some of it lovely, some of it ugly, all of it profound because of it's impact on humanity.

To a believer, the Bible is the last and final word--and if one interprets the passages to their best ability, they will take it to mean an absolute truth. At least Unitik has made the effort to explain to us in a straightforward way the reasons why he has a viewpoint about certain issues.

Like I said, I don't agree with him--but I do appreciate his attempt to communicate his viewpoint in a friendly, "non-shouting" manner, and it is interesting to read those bible quotes. (I was raised in a catholic family--I'm one of those athiests who likes bible quotes!)

[zod]

Originally posted by hecklar
Is the Bible written and editted by God? I'm hoping that nobody thinks this is even remotely the case.

Looks like you know little of what the devout Christian is supposed to have faith in. The Bible is the Word of God, if you take issue with that as a Christian then you are in a struggle with your faith.

Now I'm not gonna get into some big debate over gay rights, marriage, etc. as that is not my place and I am trying harder to avoid such topics and to leave all final judgements up to God.

[Mikefule]

It's only a suggestion, but I think this thread has gone a long way off unicycling and is going onto dangerous territory, and I'd prefer to see it closed. On the whole the discussion has been reasonably good tempered, articulate and interesting. However, I sense an imminent downward spiral. Those who have strong views for or against religion always end up rehearsing the same arguments, and it nearly always gets unpleasant in the end. This forum is one of the friendliest places I now, and a fantastic resource, so let's not risk spoiling that.

Mike

[BillyTheMountain]

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

"Teach peace. Teach love.

Thou shalt not worship a God who does otherwise."

BillyTheMountain

[johnfoss]

Congratulations to everyone of every viewpoint. This has been one of the most well-mannered discussions I've seen on such a topic. I wonder if Lars Clausen can do this for larger groups?

For the religious folks, I'll offer a variation on the abortion rights argument: Don't like homosexuality? Don't do it. As Americans (those of us who live here), we either believe in freedom of religion or, as Zod offered, are in a struggle with our constitution. Assuming we follow the freedom of religion doctrine, it is hoped we will respect the beliefs of others.

When it comes to legislation, of course, that's when live people have to make the choices...

[mscalisi]

Originally posted by johnfoss
I'm keeping track. I still can't think of any examples of me being hurt, damaged, or inconvenienced by someone else's gayness.

You obviously never been left for another woman!
:-)

[mscalisi]

OMG! That is so funny. I'm sitting in my cube at work trying not to bust up.

Originally posted by uni_zorro
I forgot that the word GAY had anything to do with homosexuality. So many times I'd be riding down the street and there is always someone who shouts out "That is so gay!" that after a while, I just assumed that the word Gay had to do with riding a unicycle.

[digigal1]

I've been away for a week - can I post just one more thing, pleeeaase?

If the bible is the word of God, then why, in the very first book of the bible, are there 2 conflicting stories of creation?

So homosexuality is still a sin. So why isn't slavery still acceptable?

I could go on. We've all read that email, haven't we?

[leo]

Originally posted by digigal1
If the bible is the word of God, then why, in the very first book of the bible, are there 2 conflicting stories of creation?

There was not extended report on the exact process of creation. And time has been a inconsistent thing in the bible. So who told you the two stories are conflicting?

Originally posted by digigal1
So homosexuality is still a sin. So why isn't slavery still acceptable?

I see no relation at all in both topics. Unless your talking about SM between gays.

Originally posted by digigal1
I could go on. We've all read that email, haven't we?

Nope. Are you e-mailing with God, or with someone who's dictating her/his interpretation of the bible to you? Anyway, can you ask what that one verse spoken by David (a man of God's kind) was about: "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26).

...read more



 

[digigal1]

If you would actually READ the bible, you'd see it yourself. OK, I'll help out and tell you.

The story that begins "God said, let there be light." That happened on the first day; He created day and night. Second day, Heaven. Third day, earth and vegetation and seas. Fourth day, Sun and Moon. Fifth day, creatures of the sea and sky. Fifth day, creatures of the earth. Sixth day, God created humankind in his image, "male and female he created them." Seventh day, He rested.

Second story, right after the first: "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up...the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life...And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of hte garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil... Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them...but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. so the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took on of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh, and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman."

Oh, by the way, please skim this if you have an interest in homosexual-condemning passages of the bible:

http://www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf

[sevenasterisks]

Originally posted by digigal1
If you would actually READ the bible, you'd see it yourself. OK, I'll help out and tell you.

The story that begins "God said, let there be light." That happened on the first day; He created day and night. Second day, Heaven. Third day, earth and vegetation and seas. Fourth day, Sun and Moon. Fifth day, creatures of the sea and sky. Fifth day, creatures of the earth. Sixth day, God created humankind in his image, "male and female he created them." Seventh day, He rested.

Second story, right after the first: "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up...the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life...And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of hte garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil... Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them...but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. so the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took on of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh, and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman."

Um, well, I am not wanting to sound like one of those annoying people who doesn't listen to reason, but that looks very much out of context. why include so much around what you are talking about but have ... right at a critical part to what you are saying. Also I just read that section in two different versions, and in a word by word hebrew/english translation, and didn't get any kind of a different meaning between the two stories.

What version is that from anyway?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:25:44 -0500, "digigal1" wrote:

>Fifth day,
>creatures of the sea and sky. Fifth day, creatures of the earth.

Are there two fifth days, or where the creatures of the earth created
as an afterthought on the same fifth day? (In which case: thanks be
the Lord for his afterthought.)

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
--
I ride like a princess. - john_childs

[TonyMelton]

Originally posted by Seager

Either way, as has been said before, I don't think religion should have anything to do with state marriage anyway. There should be NO STATE MARRIAGE. Only state civil unions. If you want a religious marriage, go for it, and if your church wants to ban gay religious marriage, no problem. Just religious marriage should have no rights under law, and you should have to get a State Civil Union instead of or in addition to your religious marriage to recieve legal rights.

I couldn't agree more! This has already happened to some extent in New Zealand - the Civil Unions Bill was passed earlier this year, recognising gay and de facto relationships and affording them some of the rights of married couples.

Religious rhetoric (explemified by Unitick's post) has no place in the issue of gay marriage and is really nothing but an irrelevant distraction (IMO) to an essentially political debate. Same goes for semantics, Hecklar.

[hecklar]

<personal rant>
Hahaha.

First of all, i'll get back to the one criticism that i got. (The other one regarding my defense of Tyler uses the 'scarecrow fallacy' (?), and isn't saying anything.)

Looks like you know little of what the devout Christian is supposed to have faith in. The Bible is the Word of God, if you take issue with that as a Christian then you are in a struggle with your faith.

Um, no. I'm sure that all devout Christians understand that the Bible is the Word of the Church and assume that it necessarily coincides with the Word of God. Perhaps the Church is just regurgitating exactly what God told them, but i don't think that God took a break from all his devine work to pen out a novel and UPS it to the Church for them. The theory is this:
God --> Church --> Bible
Are you seriously telling me that any devout Christians think that the Church isn't part of the equation? I'm getting a little worried here, but i'll assume that i've somehow misunderstood your criticism of my earlier comments.

But, since the Bible is "The Word of God", like i've been told, it's funny how God has become a better scientist over the last 2005 years.

"First day: He created day and night.
Fourth day: He created the Sun and Moon."
I don't know, so i have to ask: Does the Bible seriously say this?

Does this mean that He created the *hours* between 6am and 6pm and between 6pm and 6am on the first day, and then He created the Sun on the fourth day and put the Earth in the proper orbit and rotation so that the hours between 6am and 6pm would be bright. Oh, did He do the time-zone thing too? Oh yeah, that passage was authored back when they thought that the Earth was flat, so all of this orbitting and rotating doesn't make sense. Maybe God was a poor astrologist back then too, and He just grew to understand His own creation as we did. That makes sense, right? Ooops. Except He's omniscient. Well maybe He wasn't omniscient then, but is a quick learner, so He's omniscient now. That makes sense now, right?

Oh, and what about all of the other Suns and Moons, was their creation by God just editted out of the Bible to save ink?

Like it has been implied, i "know little" on the topic, so i need a good teacher to help me. Please help.

Same goes for semantics, Hecklar.

Which semantics? My defense of Tyler? Well when a child is criticized for having better semantics than adults, i think it is warranted. If you are referring to the logic of my other comments, well maybe the entire comment is an irrelevent distration, but the semantics are an integral part of the argument, thus relevant. I do apologize for the rant, and i tried to hold off, but that creationism thing i just couldn't hold off from. Sorry.
</personal rant>

[johnfoss]

Originally posted by hecklar
Does this mean that He created the *hours* between 6am and 6pm and between 6pm and 6am on the first day, and then He created the Sun on the fourth day and put the Earth in the proper orbit and rotation so that the hours between 6am and 6pm would be bright.

Hey, if you're going to believe the story of creation, you have to either buy it or not. This means the Earth was created, and set into orbit around a relatively small star, a ways out from the center of one of an unknown (very large) number of galaxies. And all these galaxies are moving away from a central point, which is maybe where this creation took place, but the timing would be off by millions (billions?) of years.

Anyway, the Earth was created in layers, with broken and cracked spots, tilted sections, and evidence of millions of years of erosion and tumult. Fossils of non-existent species were created, and embedded in the layers at various levels to suggest they lived before this creation took place.

Millions of species, sub-species, and variations of mammals, reptiles, birds, plants, crustaceans, invertibrates, bugs, bacteria, and all sorts of microscopic creatures were created. Some became extinct since the creation, and others apparently never lived, but were created in fossilized examples. Presumably all this historical "evidence" is there to confuse us, or to teach us theories of geology and biology that are just there to fool us (but why?).

Man was created, along with a host of other critters of similar shapes, as well as fossilized versions of in-between shapes. What are all those other versions about? Were they prototypes, or just more stuff to confuse guys like Charles Darwin?

Or maybe, just maybe, some of the details in the creation story are inaccurate.

The Bible was written by men. The bigger question is what were their sources? Was their information firsthand, Secondhand, or passed down through several generations? Or all of the above? These writings were done a very long time ago, in various languages that very few of us can read or speak.

Not only does language change over time, culture changes as well. Once I read Dante's Inferno, which was written in the 13th century. The original was written in verse, and in Italian. It rhymed. The version I was reading was an attempt to translate it to English as accurately as possible, so it didn't rhyme. Also it had to have an explanation after almost every paragraph, to explain what the heck Dante was talking about. For example, references to a political figure who was controversial at the time, or a joke about the state of the sewer system in Dante's time. Reading it straight, in any language, this many years later would leave *anybody* confused.