Re: "I will leave your flesh on the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass"

suds mcduff wrote:
David L. Burkhead wrote:
suds mcduff wrote:
David L. Burkhead wrote:
"suds mcduff" <sudsmcduff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QPGSj.46634$%15.30627@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rabid Weasel wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2008 17:03:02 -0400, suds mcduff wrote:

Herbert Cannon wrote:
"suds mcduff" <sudsmcduff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yI0Sj.1400$28.743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Herbert Cannon wrote:
---And all the "kill the fags" laws as well?
Well not in Iran for sure.
---Or here...
Or you implying we have the same attitude as Iran about it?
---Some Xtians indeed point to the old testament, which requires
homosexuals, cross dressers, ect to be killed.
Care to make a WAG at what percentage that "some" is?

Ahem.
----So, you're saying that the majority of practicing
fundamentalist xtians don't believe homosexuality is an
abomination, as referred
to in the OT? What is the penalty for homosexuality in the OT?
You're saying that the Southern Baptists think homosexuality is
peachy keen?

Ahem....
No, actually, he asks you to come up with a number about requiring
them to be killed.
----Does the Bible declare homosexuality an abomination and a
capitol offence? Isn't Biblical inerrancy in it's entirety a pillar
of xtian fundamentalism?

Did you stop beating your wife?

---Not the same type question.

Actually, yes it is.

you're afraid of the answer, so you
slogh
off this nonsense for your usenet admirers...

Now, since I'm not a Christian, why would I possibly be afraid of the
answer?

You've already been given the "answer." You reject it because it doesn't
fit your agenda.

The OT _also_ required the death penalty for adultery but the NT is
explicit in contradiction. "He who is without sin among you...."
---Well, golly gee, then it follows that homosexuality must not be
an abomination after all if we may cast the OT aside...that's the
crux of
the biscuit...
who decides which Divinely Inspired laws to follow, and which we
may ignore?
May we cast aside the entire OT?
Just the arcane dietary laws?

You cannot possibly be this obtuse unless you are being
deliberately so.

---Explain, if it's so simple....if jesus declared the OT to be
invalid,
why do xtians still refer to it as "gospel" in some cases, but not in
others?

This is what I mean by deliberate obtuseness. You have been told
repeatedly that it is _not_ a simple all or nothing proposition but that

"I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law."

For example, in at least some flavors of Christian belief, the blood
sacrifice of animals is no longer required since, per the belief, the
sacrifices were in anticipation of Christ's ultimate sacrifice. Once
Christ's sacrifice was done, the others were no longer required.

"Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away
your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

Here we have Christ saying that God recognizes that peoples, societies,
and their situations are not all the same and sometimes the law needs to be
modulated to accomodate that. But implicit here is that the accomodations
are specific rather than general. It doesn't say "throw out everything that
has been done and start over with a completely new law."

"He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Note, he doesn't say that adultery isn't sinful. He's basically
suggesting that one should leave the punishment to God.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery,
But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Well, it's a good thing that he went with the "leave punishment (and
forgiveness, presumeably) to God" concept because this one which not only
retains the "old law" but expands it quite a bit and since the punishment
for adultery was also death, any people who used that standard for adultery
and practiced the old law regarding it would soon be extinct.

One can consider something sinful without also believing that the
putative sinner should be killed.
---Well, a Divinely Inspired text tells me that homosexuality is an
abomination and a capitol offense, and I believe the Bible is
inerrant...literally every word true and an inspiration... it's a
natural evolution to "kill the fags", ain't it?

Only if you ignore 2000 years of Christian thought and
philosophy.

---Do not fundamentalist xtians believe the bible inerrant?

Actually, you don't even need the 2000 years of Christian thought and
philosophy. Going from "homosexuality is an abomination" (which the OT uses
pretty much to mean "serious sin") to "kill the fags" runs right smack into
the roadblock of "he who is without sin among you."

All you get from "inerrancy" is "that was the law," but "inerrancy" also
says "the law can change based on the people and their situation" ("Moses,
because of the hardness of your hearts....").

So, no, it does not follow that "inerrancy" means that the old law, and
old punishments, must always be followed.

But, you see, that requires consideration beyond just parroting a
little sound bite.
---Which sound bite did I parrot, there, Dingus? I'm sure to a
genius
of
your magnitude, these are simple concepts, but which soundbites are
you yammering about?

They are _not_ "simple concepts" except in your own mind.

---Which "soundbite" did I parrot, there, genius?



These are complex issues to a simple guy like me, but to a genius of
*your* magnitude, well, they obviously are not complex at all.

Argument ad hominem and Straw Man.

Why don't you admit that you just don't have the answer?
Monumental ego may have something to do with it....

Actually it has more to do with you ignoring the answers you've already
been given. The thing is, the things you are ignoring are the "stepping
stones" toward that answer you claim you want.



That's the
problem--you don't want an answer, all you are doing is taking
potshots without any interest in the answers.

---And, you haven't given any....

I've given you oddles. If you ever decide to try to understand what
you've already been given, we can then move to the next step.

The "sound bites," quite frankly, are the short, simple
expressions that you've pretty much demonstrated are the limit of
your "understanding."

---And, your ego is so inflated that you can't possibly admit the
errancy posited without disappointing your conservative supporters....

I've tried several times to clarify the issue for you. That you don't
bother to listen is not my problem.

If
something cannot be reduced to a five or ten second "sound bite" it
is completely beyond you.

---No, we don't have to write long, boring, Burkehead-like tomes to
get
a point across....

Of course you don't because you are incapable of thinking about things
with any more complexity than a saturday morning cartoon. Your "points" are
no more than "C - A - T spells 'dog.'"

--
--
David L. Burkhead -- Cold Servings, a webcomic
mailto:dburkhead@xxxxxxx -- http://www.coldservings.com
http://www.cafepress.com/oshaforcriminal <- OSHA for Criminals

"So far away we wait for the day
"For the light source so wasted and gone
"We feel the pain of a lifetime lost in a thousand days
"Through the fire and the flames we carry on"
Dragonforce, Through the fire and the flames


.

Loading