Homosexuality: A Survey

[Kor]

And also: why are you ignoring my statement about the Old Testament being simply outdated for today’s morals and the New Testament being the model for at least some of today’s Christians?

I kinda find it hard to believe that the new testament isn't outdated as well.

[Suutashi]

Uh, Jd, this has really gotten out of hand and needs to be taken elsewhere. I come here to this thread because I've enjoyed reading this debate. But this debate has become completely derailed from the point of discussion by this kind of talk. Please take this argument about personal attacks to a separate forum thread, PMs or Email.

[Edit by Jd-: You're right, the latest discussion was nonsense. Deleted it (along with my own posts concerning it) and will see that it's discussed elsewhere.]

[miakakiri]

My take on homosexuality: It is none of my business who you want to kiss, or don't want to kiss, or how many people you want to kiss at the same time, unless and until you decide to try and kiss me, and then it is ONLY my business for as long as I am the object of your attention.

This may or may not have been posted previously (I decided I didn't have the time to read through 50 pages of debate that I KNEW would be less than polite from time to time) but I believe this article fits the topic: http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christ ... e-gay.html

[sonoci]

http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christ ... e-gay.html

Oh my gosh

That was so

I don't even know

Excuse me while I cry and go post this somewhere else

[Jd-]

[quote="Dwalin"]
Here it is what I don’t agree with. If God “doesn’t existâ€

[mangaluva]

http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christ ... e-gay.html

Oh my gosh

That was so

I don't even know

Excuse me while I cry and go post this somewhere else

*Reads*

*Sobs*

*Hugs everyone on the entire forum*

[Dwalin]

http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christ ... e-gay.html

I have read the article. It's very touching. I agree that if all people were more tolerant and loving towards those who are different, the world would be a better place. Have never denied it, even though I expressed myself badly sometimes in the discussion.

[kyuuketsuki]

Can you substantiate with evidence, please? I understand that your friend might have had a tough time of it because he was raised by a single parent, as some kids do, but this is not down to a missing gender role in the household. It's because they love the parent they don't live with and miss them. It's because they hate the parent they do live with and don't want to live with them. It's because they hate the new boy/girlfriends of the parent they live with. It's because their single parent isn't earning enough. There are a myriad of reasons, but I've never myself met a child of a single parent who said "Actually, the reason that having a single parent sucks is because I don't have two traditional gender roles in the household". One of them did used to say that she really missed having a father, but what she meant was that she really missed her father, whom she loved and missed because he treated her much better than her mother does.

You know your friend's circumstances much better than we do, but please understand that you're generalizing without evidence.

In fact, my friend never knew his father before he was 16 years old. He just missed having a father and a mother like other people. It’s not like he missed a particular person. He couldn’t because for 16 years he never met this person.
If a person raised by a single parent never knew his/her other parent, he/she can’t possibly miss a particular person. He/she misses the father figure or mother figure which other children have.
I am not saying this is always the case though. I cannot substantiate with other evidence than the cases I have first-hand knowledge of.

This is what is known as "anecdotal evidence." Basically as true as that may be, it cannot be held to represent a population. If I were planning to debate you, I would only need ask "How does that speak for the many more millions of cases in the United States who have nontraditional upbringing? Whether it be homosexual parents, orphanages, foster care, single parents, separated parents with visitation rights, adoptive parents, or relatives doing the upbringing? By your logic, all those children would be in some way negatively affected, but this is clearly not the case."

Again, search google for sociological studies on homosexual and heterosexual parents. There have been many and continue to be many studies on the subject. It is something that is being sought after because as the acceptance rate of homosexuality grows people want to know if it will affect the next generation in some way.

In short... DO YOUR RESEARCH! You have the greatest resource known to man at your disposal... the internet.

Now on to the other matter at hand... Atrocities in the name of God you say? I have only one thing to say about that... The Crusades, especially the FOURTH Crusade. Ever wonder why the Fourth Crusade is usually left out in history books? Actually before I answer that, HOW can a religion that in its base laws say "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" constitute a war. Just because it is in the name of the invisible man in the sky whom you believe to be your creator and all mighty being does not change the fact that YOU ARE KILLING AND THUS BREAKING ONE OF HIS MAIN LAWS SET FORTH! That is HYPOCRITICAL.

But lets get to the Fourth Crusade, and why it was especially atrocious. I'm sure you all have heard of the Great Schism, which separated the Church into two parts, Roman Catholic (which is situated in Rome) and Eastern Orthodox (which is situated in what was once Constantinople). Now they didn't always get along, but they lived with each other and allowed to live and let live respecting, for the most part, the other's beliefs, because at the core they were both still Catholic following the same God. Now! For those unaware there were ELEVEN Crusades in all, not including the Northern Crusades. However, something HORRIBLE happened in the Fourth, that I feel is inexcusable. The Church was hard on money, so they basically found MERCENARIES and said, "if you do this, you can take whatever riches you want from the holy land as payment." Okay, fine, not exactly the right thing to do, but hey, the WAR (which again breaks Church doctrine in the first place) "needed" to be fought. So the mercenaries set off for the Holy Land and passed through the very rich and vibrant Constantinople. Upon seeing the riches and being greedy as they were, they decided to ATTACK and SACK Constantinople. They destroyed the city and took its riches. They never even MADE IT to the Holy Land. All for God, right? Okay, so the Church screwed up... The Pope obviously sent a formal apology to Constantinople and offered to help rebuild, right? That is the Catholic thing to do... Not only did the Church NOT do that, but they never even sent any apology until POPE JOHN PAUL II APOLOGIZED NEARLY 700 YEARS AFTER THE FACT TO ISTANBUL!

Actually there was one other really annoying Crusade that made me hate Catholicism... The CHILDREN'S CRUSADE. Oh dear me... So the Church figured out that Muslims wouldn't attack women or children, so what did they do? THEY SENT AN ARMY MOSTLY COMPRISED OF YOUNG BOYS TO FIGHT THE MUSLIMS IN THE HOLY LAND. That is screwed up on so many levels, ALL FOR GOD?

Screw what the Bible says, JUST LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF WAR! The main reasons for war and bloodshed in history have been 1) Land, 2) Power, 3) Money and trade, and 4) RELIGION and nationalism (Crusades and Jihad is all I need to say to prove that point).

I could care less what the Old and New Testament say... They contradict enough within each testament, let alone between old and new. And again, the Church edited the New Testament to SUIT their needs. John wrote about Jesus's life LONG after Jesus had died. And none of the 4 books even mention his adolescence, or any love interest (remember, you married when you were young and had kids young at that time. There is no way that Jesus made it to his crucifixion without being married and having a kid).

[Cheesus]

I cant really read these walls of text but my statement is that people are really to nit picky about the bible.

Spoiler:

13 “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

14 “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. 15 For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. 

[c-square]

I have no major qualms with your clarified position and do agree that "personal attacks" can undermine the opportunity for one to discuss any issue, but there are some qualifications to that that will be expanded upon below.

Firstly, I do not doubt that "personal attacks" as you have defined them have recurred in some of the more recent pages, but I do not believe that has stopped people from expressing their view points in full and from discussing the issue at hand. There has been plenty of that amidst what you have defined as "personal attacks" and as a result, I do not agree with the assertion that there is currently less equal opportunity to discuss the issue even in the midst of those "personal attacks" because I feel that there is plenty of well-reasoned, well-intentioned posts being made that include what you consider to be "personal attacks".

I agree that amidst the personal attacks, there were posts that were well-reasoned and well-intentioned.  There certainly were people who expressed their full view point.  However, just because some were able to continue expressing their views unhindered does not mean all were.  Is your argument that no-one was intimidated into not voicing their full opinion?  Do you believe that every single person here felt free to express their ideas without fear of personal attacks?  I assert that if even one person in a discussion is intimidated into not speaking his/her full mind out of fear of being attacked personally, the discussion is compromised.  And I assert that there was at least one person who felt that way.

However, you can't ignore incendiary remarks from people like Dwalin who, once they have returned to what you consider the ideal form of conversation, adds a line like this to a post:

Anyway, I am grateful you are being polite in answering me, unlike some users before.

Why not?  There is nothing that forces one to respond or not respond to anything.  One can, and it is often beneficial to, ignore incendiary remarks, simply as a way of not giving them importance.

By your definition of what constitutes a personal attack, I am sure I can be considered someone that has launched a "personal attack" here. However, by what I consider a personal attack, I do not feel that is the case at all. All of those "personal attacks" that you cited I will continue to defend. I stand by not just those but everything I have said in this topic and do not make any apologies for any of it.  Numerous posts have contained "personally attacks" on me in this topic by your own definition of what constitutes one, and I have not yet complained even once. I am not everyone and I understand that different people take different statements in different ways, but as I said before: There are people that feel it is a "personal attack" on them just because you disagree with them and assert, for example, "I feel there is no God." Unless your intent is to emotionally harm someone, I do not feel it is a targeted, calculated "personal attack" and as a result, I have not launched what I consider a personal attack on anyone in this thread and continue to maintain that.

To make sure I understand then, nothing of what you have posted in this thread is what you would consider a personal attack.  Though you acknowledge that others may see certain statements as being attacks, they are not attacks in your mind because a personal attack requires intent.  Is that correct?

If so, the problem I see with it is that it gives full lease for anyone to launch an attack and then simply claim that they didn't intend it to be so.  No one can be held accountable for launching an attack and then lying about the intent, as it is simply your word versus theirs.  Also, if someone accidentally harms someone, there is no need for them to apologize for it because they didn't intend to do it.  If person A says to person B "You're a stupid idiot", I don't think it's reasonable for them to then say "There's nothing to apologize for since I didn't intend it to be an attack, but simply a statement of fact."

I do not feel that that prediction or any other I put forth constitutes a personal attack because not only did it turn out to be true, it was not meant to be one and still does not read as one.

I have to question the statement that that prediction or any other you put forth turned out to be true.  Some predictions you made that I quoted are:

- If the existence of God were disproved, he would not stop believing in it.
- He would never be willing to admit that he would be as content with God existing as with God not existing.
- He knows that gay people having the same rights as straight people is not the same as gays "having their freedom"

As far as I can find, Dwalin has not confirmed all or even any of these predictions. 

I understand they were not meant as attacks, and I've argued above against the idea of intent being the sole criteria for defining an attack.

As for the statements not reading as attacks, are you suggesting that voicing someone with the following:

"B-B-But... t-they're all mad at meeeeeee...".

can in no rational way be read as condescending?

If you say you do not like white people and you make it very clear you will not vote for a white person in an election and I predict you will not vote for a white person and you don't, that is not a personal attack because you have very, very clearly demonstrated that you will not vote for a white person.

This example is the same as the hot stove example.  When you make a prediction that speaks to someone's actions, it's not an attack.  No argument here.  It's when you speak to someone's character that is when it becomes an attack.

Dwalin very clearly demonstrated that he would not follow with the logic I put forth and I do not feel it is an attack to demonstrate what he believes in a discussion about what he believes. I never had to assume in that example "what the person knows", "what the person believes", or "what the person would or would not be willing to do" because Dwalin had made all of that long clear in the course of the discussion. The fact that I turned out to be correct in my prediction is ample support of this.

As I mentioned above, I've found no evidence that the predictions have been agreed upon as correct by Dwalin.

No libel was performed here and I would be able to counter that charge very handily in a court of law (at least by American law--I am not familiar with libel precepts in any other country apart from Britain).

I agree.  The reason I mentioned libel was not to say that it occurred here, but to present supporting evidence that predictions that sully someone's character are considered attacks in the eyes of the law.

I first would like to say that I was surprised at your statement that "There's no debating any of that".  In a debate, as in the scientific method, the whole point is to permit debate and questioning of everything.  No point should be beyond scrutiny, so it shocked me to hear you declare that there was something that had to be simply taken as truth.

That statement was referring to the facts of the post, in that there is no debating whether or not a fact is a fact when it is very clearly a fact. For reference, let's go back to what I originally said:



All of the facts listed there are beyond question of fact-or-not as far as I'm concerned. If something is a fact, there is no occasion to debate whether or not it is a fact in a discussion in which it is not even the focal point of the discussion (though I will demonstrate why they are facts below, for the sake of argument). The questions are there to facilitate those facts and give them context and, as a result, I do not see how any of them can be debated as being untruthful. You may say that the questions accompanying the facts are not facts and that is because they were never meant to be and are not presented as such, thus I feel if your argument was based on that point it is being done in poor form. In other words: What is up for debate in that example is whether or not something is true. Allow me to show you why the below are true, for example:

— Whose fault is it that God encourages people to kill others at every turn in the Bible? When that order is followed, whose fault is it for listening to him? They are threatened with eternal damnation for not following his word, and in the Bible, he clearly outlines in the Old Testament that many people need to die so that his will may be achieved (including homosexuals and nonbelievers). FACT: The God of the Bible in the Bible orders that many people need to die so that his will may be achieved (including homosexuals and nonbelievers). This is a fact as it is illustrated quite prominently in the book and is not up for debate as to whether it is there or not. If you believe it is, I will gladly showcase why your assumption that it is not fact is wrong.

Counterargument: The Bible is simply a book, written by humans.  Fault should go at the feet of those that wrote the book (or those that translated it if there is a mistranslation).  Blaming a fictional character is nonsensical.  If Mickey Mouse told kids they needed to stab their parents in their beds while they slept, people would blame Disney, not Mickey Mouse.

— Is it bad to follow the Bible? People felt justified in carrying out a holy doctrine they believed in--were they wrong to feel justified in doing so? This isn't about whether you believe in the Old Testament or not. FACT: This is not about whether he or anyone else reading this "believes in" the Old Testament. That is a fact--a simple one at that--and remains one. For more context, please see Dwalin's original argument that I was correcting with that statement. I was not debating at that point whatsoever: I was merely correcting his erroneous interpretation of something.

Counterargument: Old Testament vs. New Testament is relevant here.  If you truly follow Jesus' teachings, then you follow his words.  Jesus never once said anything against homosexuals.  In fact, all of Jesus' teachings point towards acceptance of and full rights for gay people.  Jesus' teachings are supposed to replace the teachings of the Old Testament, so whether you eschew the Old Testament in favour of Jesus' teachings is definitely important in this conversation.

— There is irrefutable evidence that God's name has been used to carry out countless atrocities in carrying out his will according to the Bible exactly as it was prescribed there. FACT: The word of God of the Bible in the Bible details quite clearly how to deal with those that stray from his word, and real life people have really carried out real life atrocities with those words to justify their actions. The amount is countless because we truly can never get a full figure on just how many people have died as a result of religious fundamentalism, other than to say it is so great that nailing down the full figure is not a practical task.

Counterargument: Yes, real life people have carried out real life atrocities after reading the words of the Bible.  But what is prescribed in the Bible is up to interpretation, and these people are following their interpretation of the words, not the actual lessons themselves.

— No one needed to interpret anything for that--it wasn't "free will" that made people kill millions to satisfy God's endless thirst for blood. FACT: Dwalin originally said that it was man's "free will" that had man kill millions in God's name. This is not true. Men who killed other men in God's name as a result of what they believed God had said to them in the book where he is purported to have spoken to them did so because of a belief in God, not as a result of "free will". Dwalin's point was simply misguided, and my statement here is not up for debate because there is no debate that men who killed other men in God's name did so for God, not for "free will".

Counterargument: Agreed, people killed because of a belief in God.  But these people chose that belief.  They heard what they heard and read what they read and then chose to believe what they believed.  Free will allowed them to choose another belief, but they chose not to.  Therefore, free will in choosing that belief and taking action thereof is the cause of the killing.

As for assuming that Darwin would not be able to come up with a sufficient retort, I think there's some miscommunication.  I was not arguing for, but against the presumption that Darwin would not be able to come up with a sufficient retort, i.e. "you'll try anyway and naturally dig yourself deeper into a hole you're not going to escape".  Stating that Darwin would not be able to come up with a sufficient retort is an attack on his capabilities, and has nothing to do with homosexuality, religion, or law.  I agree that it was a challenge, but unfortunately it was not the type of challenge that I think belongs in a rational, respectful discussion.  Challenges such as, 'there is a flaw in your reasoning', 'I disagree with you on these points', 'you missed something' are all respectful challenges.  An attack on someone's capabilities that challenges them to defend them does not belong.

This is fair enough for the most part and there does appear to be some degree of miscommunication. However, all of my challenges on Dwalin were based on what he, himself, had demonstrated based on his own knowledge and views earlier. I would be repeating myself here by going any deeper into that aspect yet again, so please refer back to the section of this post beginning with "Foremost on this point" for more information.

My point was that it was a challenge attacking his capabilities, not addressing his knowledge or views.  Just because one believes someone has demonstrated that they're an idiot does not make the challenge "You're an idiot" any less of an attack.

Of course, it is good to know that you do not feel the challenge is not appropriate, but that does not make it inappropriate in any sense other than you believing that to be the case, and that is fine. You are entitled to your own opinion and viewpoint as to the rules of which you like to see debates carried out.

The double-negative is slightly confusing here.  Did you intend only one?

I've searched Thesaurus.com, Merriam-Webster's thesaurus and the Oxford English Thesaurus and none of them have 'Gleefully' as a synonym to 'Readily'.  I understand now you didn't mean to imply that joy was taken in the act, however I do believe it was a poor choice of wording.  In this case, I believe interpreting 'Gleefully' as meaning acting full of glee was a valid assumption.

As someone that has taken as many English courses as anyone could fathom, I am going to tell you that the word was used appropriately to convey the intended meaning. You may believe it to be a poor choice of wording, but I believe that to be the result of poor research on your part and will explain why in the coming paragraphs.



As such, I contend that the word "gleefully" can very, very easily be used to mean "readily" and have absolutely no qualms defending its use further.

I am fine granting that gleefully can be used as a synonym to readily.

Your original argument stated:

speculating so far as to say that I could have potentially been attempting to define what he was feeling at the time of his response with the word "gleefully" is just, quite frankly, misguided.

Or, in other words, the interpretation of the word 'Gleefully' as 'Acting Full of Glee' is misguided.  I disagree.  The usage of 'Gleefully' as the adverb form of Gleeful is at least as common if not significantly more common than its use as the synonym of 'Readily'.  In that light, 'Acting Full of Glee' is a completely appropriate and not unexpected interpretation of your statement.

[Jd-]

I agree that amidst the personal attacks, there were posts that were well-reasoned and well-intentioned.  There certainly were people who expressed their full view point.  However, just because some were able to continue expressing their views unhindered does not mean all were.  Is your argument that no-one was intimidated into not voicing their full opinion?  Do you believe that every single person here felt free to express their ideas without fear of personal attacks?  I assert that if even one person in a discussion is intimidated into not speaking his/her full mind out of fear of being attacked personally, the discussion is compromised.  And I assert that there was at least one person who felt that way.

I think you have introduced a very unfair and pointless standard in saying "if even one person in a discussion is intimidated into not speaking his/her full mind out of fear of being attacked personally" because people do not have to feel intimidated for a valid reason. It is possible that personal attacks led to some people not feeling comfortable expressing their viewpoint, but I would wager that many more were "intimidated" into not posting their true thoughts as a result of there being a very clear majority on this issue that, with or without personal attacks, were clearly ready to debate them on those views. However, with your point, what if there are people who only got involved in this topic as a result of feeling someone else was being intimidated? Like you, perhaps? (I am joking, never fear) But more seriously, if there were people who only got involved in the issue because they felt their side was being persecuted by the clear majority here, you have to take into account that those people only posted their own views where they otherwise would not as a result of the "personal attacks". That is something to consider.

That said, I honestly do not feel that anyone felt hindered in expressing their base viewpoint (as in, joining the topic) any more than they already did on the idea of the subject being discussed out of fear of being attacked. If they did so, they did so very irrationally. Seeing one person "personally attacked" for posting their viewpoint (never mind them not taking notice of why this person was personally attacked, which was the posting of very offensive and destructive rhetoric) and then not participating as a result despite there being plenty of very calm discourse throughout the discussion and then deciding not to participate in a debate they would have otherwise participated in is simply not good reason to not do something. Even amongst the "personal attacks" on Dwalin, there are plenty of thoughtful, sincere sentiments raised all around, so if they felt "intimidated" by one person being targeted with what you consider "personal attacks" (which I do not consider them to be, let it be known) and did not participate as a result, I believe that to be collateral damage and do not believe they would have, truthfully, participated anyway. The reason for this is that it is not rational to assume you will be "personally attacked" for simply stating your position when that wasn't what happened in the first place, and if they made that judgment, they did so quite irrationally and I contend that. Only when someone raises quite an offensive reason for their views did the idea of the "personal attack" as you have defined it come into play and if they intended to raise such a viewpoint with no qualification of the statement, I cannot say I miss their participation very much.

Why not?  There is nothing that forces one to respond or not respond to anything.  One can, and it is often beneficial to, ignore incendiary remarks, simply as a way of not giving them importance.

Your only major participation in this topic is as a result of replying to responses you consider incendiary. If it is often beneficial to ignore them, what makes your participation any different from anyone else that chooses to challenge or post their opinion on similarly incendiary remarks? I do not think you are excused from this because you are doing what many people are doing: stating your opinion on what you perceive to be wrong. Just some food for thought.

To make sure I understand then, nothing of what you have posted in this thread is what you would consider a personal attack.  Though you acknowledge that others may see certain statements as being attacks, they are not attacks in your mind because a personal attack requires intent.  Is that correct?

If so, the problem I see with it is that it gives full lease for anyone to launch an attack and then simply claim that they didn't intend it to be so.  No one can be held accountable for launching an attack and then lying about the intent, as it is simply your word versus theirs.  Also, if someone accidentally harms someone, there is no need for them to apologize for it because they didn't intend to do it.  If person A says to person B "You're a stupid idiot", I don't think it's reasonable for them to then say "There's nothing to apologize for since I didn't intend it to be an attack, but simply a statement of fact."

I do believe for something to qualify as a "personal attack" there has to be the intent to emotionally or otherwise harm someone on a personal level, and I do not feel I have done that in any line you have cited as being a "personal attack". People can see anything as an attack, as I demonstrated to you before. In fact, what you're about to say in the second paragraph can be taken as a "personal attack" on me.

The problem I see with your problem is that it suggests and requires dishonesty, which, personally, I find to be quite a cyncial and reality-detached approach. Your statement here can be taken, by me, as a personal attack. One, especially me, could take it to mean that you are suggesting that I am dishonest and am either lying about personal attacks to get out of them or would lie about personal attacks to get out of them. I don't believe that to be true, but it is evident why someone else in this position may think so and, if I wanted, could very easily interpret that to be gravely insulting.

All that considered: I think it is very important to err on the side of caution when accusing someone of anything, especially of launching mean-spirited "personal attacks".

I have to question the statement that that prediction or any other you put forth turned out to be true.  Some predictions you made that I quoted are:

- If the existence of God were disproved, he would not stop believing in it.
- He would never be willing to admit that he would be as content with God existing as with God not existing.
- He knows that gay people having the same rights as straight people is not the same as gays "having their freedom"

As far as I can find, Dwalin has not confirmed all or even any of these predictions.

I understand they were not meant as attacks, and I've argued above against the idea of intent being the sole criteria for defining an attack.

As for the statements not reading as attacks, are you suggesting that voicing someone with the following "B-B-But... t-they're all mad at meeeeeee..." can in no rational way be read as condescending?

I do not want to press Dwalin further on the issue as he as attempted to make peace and your bringing it up here will certainly impede that. All I will say is that Dwalin selectively responded to those discussions in a way that is very evident he did not agree with them (which, as I said, I knew he wouldn't do because he had already made his views and beliefs clear, which is something he can't be faulted for) and provided answers that made it very clear and confirmed what he believed. If Dwalin would like to debate that again, I will be more than willing do so with him, but I do not feel it is my place to do so with you because he has made an active effort to put this behind him.

As for the latter remark being condescending, I do not see that as a personal attack and I do not think Dwalin does either given that he had said almost exactly that just prior to my post. I, personally, felt he overreacted and expressed myself in such a way to reflect that, but I will not be going into it further out of respect to him wishing to end that dispute. If you must press it, do so, but I will not continue on that subject here unless it is at Dwalin's request.

This example is the same as the hot stove example.  When you make a prediction that speaks to someone's actions, it's not an attack.  No argument here.  It's when you speak to someone's character that is when it becomes an attack.

I am speaking very clearly of someone's actions, so I do thank you for agreeing with me that my example was the same as yours, because now either yours was invalid as well or they are both correct. As such, my second example, which was entirely applicable to my prediction with Dwalin there, is validated: Dwalin's previous actions dictated that he would not agree with the statement I put forth, and I made a prediction on that. I, again, feel you are trying to speak for everyone on what is and isn't an attack, and I'm not sure that is very productive or even responsible.

As I mentioned above, I've found no evidence that the predictions have been agreed upon as correct by Dwalin.

And as I said above, I will not be going into it further unless Dwalin wishes for that to be the case. If Dwalin would like to open the floodgates on this issue, it is his call, but again: Out of respect for his wishing to end the dispute, I will not be pressing it further as I feel my point was proven and do not feel compelled to add any further comment on the matter.

I agree.  The reason I mentioned libel was not to say that it occurred here, but to present supporting evidence that predictions that sully someone's character are considered attacks in the eyes of the law.

That is good, and if this were applied to real life terms (as in, if I had said that about Dwalin in real life), I feel confident in being able to defend the use of the predictions as well and being able to come away from the case with it being dismissed.

Counterargument: The Bible is simply a book, written by humans.  Fault should go at the feet of those that wrote the book (or those that translated it if there is a mistranslation).  Blaming a fictional character is nonsensical.  If Mickey Mouse told kids they needed to stab their parents in their beds while they slept, people would blame Disney, not Mickey Mouse.

Counterargument: Old Testament vs. New Testament is relevant here.  If you truly follow Jesus' teachings, then you follow his words.  Jesus never once said anything against homosexuals.  In fact, all of Jesus' teachings point towards acceptance of and full rights for gay people.  Jesus' teachings are supposed to replace the teachings of the Old Testament, so whether you eschew the Old Testament in favour of Jesus' teachings is definitely important in this conversation.

Counterargument: Yes, real life people have carried out real life atrocities after reading the words of the Bible.  But what is prescribed in the Bible is up to interpretation, and these people are following their interpretation of the words, not the actual lessons themselves.

Counterargument: Agreed, people killed because of a belief in God.  But these people chose that belief.  They heard what they heard and read what they read and then chose to believe what they believed.  Free will allowed them to choose another belief, but they chose not to.  Therefore, free will in choosing that belief and taking action thereof is the cause of the killing.

Your counterarguments are not only forced, they are irrelevant given that Dwalin himself just agreed with all but the last one a few posts ago. Given that he was the one originally addressed with those arguments and he, himself, agrees with all but the last one, I think your debating of them appears to be "argue because you can".

But, most importantly: In crafting your "counterarguments", you have ignored (possibly unintentionally) that that post was written as a response to belief and therefore was written with the belief perspective in mind, and no secret is made of that whatsoever. This is especially relevant with the first one here and just seems like an oversight on your part, in that you have either forgotten what the original discussion was about or have chosen to ignore it. You can argue in favor or disfavor of absolutely anything. I can come up with a 10,000 word diatribe on why Nazism and the systematic slaughter of Jews was good, but it doesn't mean I'm right. I don't feel there is much reason to individually debate any of these points other than to note the following on which you are mistaken, though I won't be saying anything further on any of them as I am not interested in endless, pointless arguments:

1) There is nothing false about this statement: "[People] are threatened with eternal damnation for not following his word, and in the Bible, he clearly outlines in the Old Testament that many people need to die so that his will may be achieved (including homosexuals and nonbelievers)." Even in my denoting of why this is a fact, I specifically said: "FACT: The God of the Bible in the Bible orders that many people need to die so that his will may be achieved (including homosexuals and nonbelievers)." There is nothing false about that statement because the God of the Bible in the Bible says exactly that. Given that my discussion there was following on the belief in God, I was not attempting to say that a fictional character was responsible there. Even if we do go with your logic, which I again remind you was not even relevant: Comparing it to Mickey Mouse is just completely (and perhaps intentionally?) avoiding the point because not only was this example obviously written assuming God was real, Mickey Mouse is acknowledged to be fictional by his own creators and his followers. God is written to be real, whether he was made up or not is beyond the question because his followers do not believe that he is made up. As such, I feel that the Mickey Mouse example is really just clutching at every possible straw to avoid actually countering the argument at hand. I suggest re-familiarizing yourself with the issue and passages at hand before considering another response on this point again.

2) You completely misunderstood the second point. You did not in any way take into account the original context and I believe have forgotten what I was originally responding to. The reason it does not matter what you or Dwalin believes is because it is not about what you or he believe unless you have committed atrocities in the name of God. The people I am referring to did so because of their belief in a book they took to be divine, and a portion of them did so before there even was a New Testament. I'm not sure how to point out any more than that this is about one's personal conviction, and whether or not you feel that conviction is well-founded really doesn't matter. That's why I'm afraid to say that you just simply completely missed the point at hand in order to form a counterargument that may look good on paper, but is counter-aruging a point that no one actually made other than yourself. If you really can't figure this one out by now, there's really just no reason to discuss it further because I fear it's a point that's been entirely lost.

3) You know that's not a real counterargument because the fact was, "There is irrefutable evidence that God's name has been used to carry out countless atrocities in carrying out his will according to the Bible exactly as it was prescribed there" and you even agreed right off the bat that, "Yes, real life people have carried out real life atrocities after reading the words of the Bible." As such, anything else is really just a bonus, because if God in the Bible apparently says something and does so quite clearly, to believers, he has said it. There is no need to interpret statements such as in Leviticus where God states, according to the Bible: "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." That's why I think your argument here is really, really stretching to say the least and seems more like an excuse for the Bible to never be accountable for anything rather than an objective, sound defense. As I said before: It has nothing to do with what you personally believe or even if you actually believe God is real or not.

4) "Free will" did not cause anyone to kill anyone. "Free will" leads to their choice of religion, but that free will does not tell them to kill anyone. As such, when someone is killed in the name of God simply by following his divine decree as stated in the Bible, God--who allows the holy book to persist with words such as "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death"--is responsible, if he does exist, for stating something in such absolutes, which I believe is the point you have ignored. Such violent orders on God's part are what has led to the bloodshed in God's name--not the fact that people have "free will". If someone is led to do something they would not otherwise do after seeing God say, "kill anyone who does this" in the Bible, it is God--if you indeed believe God is real--that is responsible for encouraging that behavior. As a result, I feel your counterargument here is really just not a good one. Keep in mind again that this is all as a result of following that God is real--if he isn't, refer to my posts on God being an idea and how ideas have, throughout history, led to much bloodshed.

My point was that it was a challenge attacking his capabilities, not addressing his knowledge or views.  Just because one believes someone has demonstrated that they're an idiot does not make the challenge "You're an idiot" any less of an attack.

Your "idiot" example really doesn't work, because "being an idiot" is something that is subjective and doesn't even have any sort of universal guidelines to meet. Someone clearly expressing or demonstrating a viewpoint, on the other hand, is very much so different, and I cannot see how presenting a challenge based entirely on someone's viewpoint suddenly creates an attack. It was not about his capabilities whatsoever.

The double-negative is slightly confusing here.  Did you intend only one?

It is stated as intended. Apologies if it is confusing, but it reads as I intended it.

I am fine granting that gleefully can be used as a synonym to readily.

I have nothing else to add on the matter in that case.

---

Notice: This is my last post on this matter and I will not be responding to any further posts in this thread raising concerns about "personal attacks". I feel I have entertained this far more than necessary and doing so further will detract from what I consider to be a very serious issue, and that is discrimination against homosexuals, society's reluctance to accept them, and their natural-born rights.

I feel content that I have stated my views on the subject of "personal attacks" and do not feel I have anything else to offer on the subject other than to continue to retort views that I believe misconstrue the issue entirely to favor one side or the other, which is not worthy of my or your time. We can go back and forth about this for years to come here, but nothing will change the fact that this discussion has led this topic astray for far too long.

If anyone does have anything to discuss on this subject that they would like to share with me, I ask that you PM me instead of posting it here because I will not be responding to anything that would enable the further derailment of this thread.

[ConansSideWalk]

As the topic of evidence continues to be brought up so in response I say I have yet to see any real evidence from either side all I'm reading are summaries/interpretations of what may or may not be evidence with your biases mixed in. Use reliable sources also providing links, book title page numbers (since the bible is being used also verse number), as for historical facts mention what the event was (history can also be interpreted many ways which is what I've been seeing a lot of and some factors were left out as many do to to create flawed "irrefutable" evidence people do your research so you can see the holes, I'm just spectating and I just gave you a hint so you can make this an interesting read for me while refraining from attacking each others faults lol) You know the usual stuff and we will be judge. Remember not everyone is as well informed and are only going by your word and not those of the evidence. I'm not one to take things at face value when it comes to debating. As of this moment I can safely say this thread has become nothing more than derogatory remarks.

[c-square]

Notice: This is my last post on this matter and I will not be responding to any further posts in this thread raising concerns about "personal attacks". I feel I have entertained this far more than necessary and doing so further will detract from what I consider to be a very serious issue, and that is discrimination against homosexuals, society's reluctance to accept them, and their natural-born rights.

I understand and I'm content to leave it at this.  I'm glad to see the rhetoric here has calmed down and that people are once again discussing this topic in a more even-handed manner.  I hope everyone continues to focus the discussion on the ideas presented, and not on the people presenting the ideas.  In this way, we can have a fair, balanced and enlightened conversation about an important issue, and avoid personal arguments and flame wars that serve just to take away from the issue.

Oh, and should things get out of hand again, I'll be back, and I'll be sure to call people on it.  Be prepared!! 

[Dwalin]

You know, reflecting on the topic after all this time, after having followed some recent discussions on the same topic elsewhere, I wonder why do some people reject the idea of really DEBATING about homosexuality and religion in a POLITE way instead of just biting at each other’s throats and never accepting the possibility they may be wrong themselves? I ALWAYS consider such a possibility about myself when I am talking to somebody. The ideal of equality for homosexuals doesn’t seem wrong to me at all, but the absurd arrogance of some people who pretend to promote it surely does.

Whatever you choose to do about this post, to delete it, to ignore it, to laugh at it, to ban me for it or even to answer it isn’t important. I am sure Jd will follow his arrogance anyway.

[PT]

Was this actually necessary, Dwalin? Seriously? Could you be more of a hypocrite anyway? You're asking people to debate things politely, and then making personal attacks against Jd-? Really? Get over yourself and let this topic die the way it should have.