Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 523 of 707 (803535)
04-01-2017 8:08 PM


New Thread Topic
I seem to have angered a MOD in a thread I started. I thought it was a stand alone topic in its own right. I wanted to see the issue discussed. I felt that the topic might enlighten us Westerners if we could have a discussion about straight history absent (what otherwise would have been continued) all the typical digressions into people's theological and/or personal opinions. A historian looks at what happened and not as much what one's opinion is. I felt a contained focussed demonstration by EVCers might have enabled facts to be laid bare. I did. I wanted to watch it with open eyes. But I would have stayed out of it. I do think it possible for gay marriage to be part of the fabric of early recorded Western Civilization and not counter cultural but I don't know for sure but it was a worthy topic IMO.

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 12:57 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 525 of 707 (803549)
04-02-2017 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by PaulK
04-02-2017 12:57 AM


I noted MOD disapproval of me but that wasn't my point of the above post.
My point is that Faith (and her ilk )do seem to genuinely think that gay marriage chronologically post dates Christianity and that the issue is little more than a major swipe against the faith. I noticed that there is an ignorance of history that needs to be addressed before any real breakthrough can happen which chills the Faith's of the world out. She seems to think that Paul and Jesus never could have heard of such a thing as gay marriage so we couldn't expect them to condemn what they never had to consider. That might explain why Faith didn't give 1/1000 of a second's thought to Paul not challenging the legality of so-called sinful activity (soft or effiminate men means what? ) and that it can happen to be lawful despite the in context quote in I Corinthians 6.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 12:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 2:32 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 527 of 707 (803553)
04-02-2017 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by PaulK
04-02-2017 2:32 AM


Re: I noted MOD disapproval of me but that wasn't my point of the above post.
I was (if you insist ) "complaining " about how the 800 post thread is missing the largest point of all: Faith thinks homosexual marriage is just some new issue to attack Christianity and the western civilization. Not to take away the other discussions but to insist on a focused discussion that takes the issue of historical ignorance into account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 2:32 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 2:50 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 529 of 707 (803567)
04-02-2017 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by PaulK
04-02-2017 2:50 AM


Re: I noted MOD disapproval of me but that wasn't my point of the above post.
I am now thinking my suggestion was a bad one. I researched and found that the Ancient Greek unions are not legally considered marriages so there will be a definition argument that will go nowhere. The Roman precedents will be quibbled over too. I don't see any solution at this impase. I concede the point and am ashamed that I seem to have posted so much in this thread HERE. I was responding to you PaulK and lost track of what I was doing here. I didn't mean to take debate here but it does look like it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 2:50 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 531 of 707 (804461)
04-09-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Faith
04-09-2017 9:01 PM


Re: me
I will stop talking to you so this can be dropped.

Also, it seems I DID say you told a "slick lie" in one post so I am sorry. (in my defense you kept ridiculing me as "making stuff up" when I was insisting that you disregard post-Easter commands as "ceremonial" and you really made it a point to hammer me as a liar when I kept asking you to explain yourself. THEN you used the very "ceremonial" argument once I pestered you enough to finally get your to engage the Acts 15 post-Easter issue )

Once you engaged the issue, instead of ignoring it, I really should not have described your earlier denials of using the "ceremonial" dismissal as a "slick lie". I guess I was just annoyed at being personally attacked as a liar when you were making me look dishonest for even suggesting you use "ceremonial" arguments for post-Easter commands.

Now I have to deal with my own past words that contradict what I want to claim (that being my claim of innocence in the personal attack area ).

Sorry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Faith, posted 04-09-2017 9:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 532 of 707 (804470)
04-10-2017 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by Faith
04-09-2017 9:01 PM


Also I just noticed that the Alabama issue touched a few Mod's nerves
I am not trying to debate but just want to clarify so this isn't left hanging.

See posts 78, 116, 117, and especially 252 where Acts 5:19-29 was referenced as a parallel to these business owners situation. ( the discussion involved the possibility of a business owner running so afoul of the law that not only fines but prison punishments for refusing services were brought up as a consequence )

My reference to the Alabama motto Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere had to do with comments like that.

I wasn't saying race was the issue (in these cake cases )but I don't feel that the parallels were out of line as you have a case of a very conservative Christian culture feeling like THEIR rights were the ones violated and not those who were barred services.

I understand that the business owners want rights to suit their concerns.

However.

I don't see why I was seen as performing a procedure out of order jjust for raising the issue. (Faith seems really irritated by my request for her to respond to the parallel ) (that was when 3 mods jumped in )

If we don't discuss parallels then we aren't giving the general public a proper and full perspective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Faith, posted 04-09-2017 9:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-10-2017 9:20 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019