Diogenes the Cynic

Mata, if you have a relevant comment on the debate being monitered in this gallery or a civil argument to make on the issue in general, please feel free. But this is NOT a forum to simply spew bile at people who disagree with you. Please adjust your tone.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Illandur

Sometimes I really think these people are purposefully trying to satirize their position.

NZSkep

Does anybody else feel slightly disturbe that bible john equates bestiality with homosexuality in his debate argument? when a man fucks a Ram it's bad, but a Ewe is fine?

Evilicious

Does Bible John believe he sees with the eyes of the Lord? That sounds a bit like heresy. Or something.

I think Lea DeLaria said it best: "What do you mean, you 'don't believe in homosexuality?' It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary."

Homosexuality EXISTS. I'd like to see Bible John prove that it doesn't. :rolling:

Playing the Martyr right off the bat. :thumbs:

It's a sin to use improper grammar.

Relevance to a formal debate?

If he could care less, that means he cares a little bit. Right?

Is it relevant what your opponent thinks of you?

When exactly did evangelicals follow all the laws in the Law of Moses?

Scatological references! :thumbs:

Don't most serious scholars say that it's best to go to the source documents in the original languages, instead of relying on translations? If the Bible's so important, why not take the time to learn those languages?

If they were homosexuals, why would it make any sense whatsoever to offer his DAUGHTERS?:huh:

Rape isn't the same thing as homosexuality and that's quite easy to check in any dictionary.

From the preferred NASB translation: "Ezekiel 16:49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50 "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it."

If homosexuality (love how he always capitalizes it, BTW) was the most severe, then why does it not appear in Ezekiel? Hmmm...."arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but did not help the poor and needy." Doesn't that sound like the Republican Party Platform?

Bible John watches Gay Porn! :thumbs:

Kind of like Mardi Gras?

Sure, if you SEARCH for bestiality you can find it, but I've NEVER had a problem with bestiality suddenly popping up in my browser! I think there might be something Bible John's not telling us.

I think someone needs to consult a dictionary:

Homosexual: (someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex)

Bestiality: (sexual activity between a person and an animal)

Is he just confused?

I'm not the one who has bestiality magically jump onto my computer screen. It's SO not an issue for me.

Because the theocrats would kill them? Not exactly a GOOD argument for Christianity. Quite the opposite, in fact. Christian Theocracy=More Dead People. Thanks, but no thanks.

Wasn't he just talking about stoning us to death? Is there some sort of cognitive disconnect here?

Is that equally true for the sin of gluttony? I love you, I just hate your sinful fat ass! I don't think that would go over too well at those Church potluck dinners.

More with the "put to death" stuff. Somehow, I'm just NOT feeling the love. I dunno. Maybe it's just me.

And the earth is flat and Galileo was wrong. Christianity has always been such a friend to science, hasn't it?

I do like how he switches back and forth between Bible translations to get the most apparently condemning version.

Nice Squirrel

What's up with the weird digressions? And this has exactly what to do with the Bible?

Sounds like a movie made to exploit fears about homosexuality and/or for repressed and closeted homoerotic viewing.

Kerouac fortold this! He is a new prophet...except we are now pretty sure he had male lovers too!

And as pointed out beastiality is not homosexulaity!

Illandur

Quite disheartening. I was really looking forward to this debate only to see that it will probably end up being akin to Gastrich apologetics. Someone needs to find a real, honest-to-Hoyle, biblical scholar with actual knowledge of the older scripts.

David Vestal

That's Bible John for you. Sad to say, this isn't going to be a fun slaughter like watching Gastrich be taken to town. Jason at least gave the mildest pretense of logic. Bible John actually doesn't understand the difference between preaching and logic, so we're just going to get preached at for five rounds.

Nice Squirrel

That is really sad. I was looking forward to a good debate on original texts.

Bogie

Not with John Wolf.

The only good that could come from this "debate" is John finally realizing that there's more required of a self-proclaimed "Bible teacher" than a mediocre GPA in an undergrad program from a bible college.

Illandur

Curriculum vitae aside (which, honestly, few of us on the forums actually have in a directly related field), Mr. Wolf does not seem to have any idea what a formal debate is, and judging from his actual experience in biblical scriptures, he will not be able to properly argue the position he is supposed to be holding. I think he is realizing this coming to the end of the first round now. With no knowledge of translation studies, he will either keep up his current tactic (if you could call it a tactic at all) or submit himself to extensive research on the subject in order to properly attack Pervy's argument (which would be nice, but will probably never happen).