TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htmIt says that it is that whole law, yet you keep referring to the requirement for obedience to things not included in this [whole] law. What is it that you think the word [whole] means?I think that the way you interpret the word whole is wrong. It means the law is extermely important, not that it's the only law. Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Isn't that act of unkindness denigrating their feelings and depth of their love?I don't think so. The depth of love between a human and an animal is contrained by the animals lower limits.
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Although I may possibly be incorrect, it would seem to me that beastiality would be a form of mental illness.The difficulty is that what is and isn't a mental illness is a relative subject, no matter what the APA says =p. Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I think that the way you interpret the word whole is wrong. It means the law is extermely important, not that it's the only law.Yet that is not what the word [whole] means. Other translations use the word [entire] law. If you ate a whole pie would this mean that you ate a very important pie?
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Yet that is not the case, there is no inconsistency. There are some kinds of things such that for these things first-hand direct experience is the ultimate measure of truth. Sexual identity is one of these things. Here is the inconsistency. First you quote science in support of your position. Then when shown that your scientific evidence is debatable you reject science in favor of first-hand direct experience. I provide you with my first-hand direct experience in relation to a specific situation (food taste) that you posited, yet you reject this first-hand experience. Your rejection and lack of validation for my personal experience was hurtful, if not hateful, insensitive and unkind.Actually, come to think of it, you are right there is no inconsistency. You consistently reject anything that doesnt agree with your position. Wasnt it you who said, "You do want the truth dont you?" 1
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I guess he didn't think that he had to say [stop filling it when its full].If we read it literally, precisely, even mathematically, then the world isn't full til there is no room whatsoever to move even your head without hitting another human being. 1
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Here is the inconsistency. First you quote science in support of your position. Then when shown that your scientific evidence is debatable you reject science in favor of first-hand direct experience. I provide you with my first-hand direct experience in relation to a specific situation (food taste) that you posited, yet you reject this first-hand experience. Your rejection and lack of validation for my personal experience was hurtful, if not hateful, insensitive and unkind.Actually, come to think of it, you are right there is no inconsistency. You consistently reject anything that doesnt agree with your position. Wasnt it you who said, "You do want the truth dont you?"You ugly man, you. =) 2
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I don't think so. The depth of love between a human and an animal is contrained by the animals lower limits.Yet the depth of a human isn't...
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Pete, I just want to get this straight, I just ate my neighbor for dinner? 2
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Pete, I just want to get this straight, I just ate my neighbor for dinner?Talk about a modest proposal. What a wonderful treatise on love combatting overpopulation. 3
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 If we read it literally, precisely, even mathematically, then the world isn't full til there is no room whatsoever to move even your head without hitting another human being.That is not true. The Earth is full when its resources can no longer sufficiently support its inhabitants.
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 That is not true. The Earth is full when its resources can no longer sufficiently support its inhabitants.But that is not the literal, precise, mathematical meaning of the word. 2
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Yet the depth of a human isn't...Although it may be a personal prejudice, bestiality just seems sick to me. Edited December 7, 2012 by peteolcott
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 But that is not the literal, precise, mathematical meaning of the word.Actually in this case it is.
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Although it may be a personal prejudice, bestiality just seems sick to me.Pete, you are being hypocritical and unkind if that is your measure. 2
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Actually in this case it is.Please demonstrate it.
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Pete, you are being hypocritical and unkind if that is your measure.I admitted to the possibility of that when I first said it, and every time that I repeated it.
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I admitted to the possibility of that when I first said it, and every time that I repeated it.Yet you attack others for having a similar measure?
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Please demonstrate it.It is the meaning of the term overpopulation, thus self-evident truth.
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Although it may be a personal prejudice, bestiality just seems sick to me.Some people consider homosexuality to be sick, just a prejudice they have. You are not opening your mind enough to the scripture if you do not accept bestiality. You must trust in its precise mathematical meaning. You must be open to the possibility of me marrying my dog for time and eternity. 1
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Yet you attack others for having a similar measure?Others do not have a similar measure, in that others do not each and every time begin their statement with, [i may be wrong].
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Yet that is not what the word [whole] means.Ah, but does it?Other translations use the word [entire] law.So what? The Bible is full of many other parts of the law. And so, I think the answer is pretty obvious.If you ate a whole pie would this mean that you ate a very important pie?Luckily, words can have different meanings in different contexts (for example, the word love).
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Others do not have a similar measure, in that others do not each and every time begin their statement with, [i may be wrong].You don't begin your statements each and every time with "I may be wrong."
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 It is the meaning of the term overpopulation, thus self-evident truth.The word overpopulation is not the word full.
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Others do not have a similar measure, in that others do not each and every time begin their statement with, [i may be wrong].I thought that you were sure in the interpretation of this scripture? I thought you were the enlightened one? For 21 years you have had spiritual confirmation that it is all that matters, that it is the end all and be all in the law. How could you not understand the 1 scripture that really matters? Your credibility is shot. Edited December 7, 2012 by pogi
Recommended Posts