Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Theodoric edited the text, 18 minutes later, to make it sound like he was ONLY talking about reading the ANC statement on Ukraine.But the entire substance (and exact wording) of the challenge, I laid out, was that Theodoric quote every single line in the ANC statement, then respond to it.He responded, saying he would if he had a way to open the ANC page.A refusal, on his part, will constitute blatantly obvious trollish behavior.If Theodoric refuses to honor his word, then I ask that every post, of his, should have big bold red letters, warning that he is a troll. Right above his text.

There is a need for some rules.The fine-line will be complicated.What are the perimeters of the subject matter, allowed?A JESUS MYTHER thread is, in its extremely limited form, only about whether Jesus existed as a man, or not.But, it must be admitted that is is within the realm of the broader Historical Jesus debate. The discussion will, at times, need to broaden out a bit, and then it is understandable if the discussion necessarily covers certain details about Jesus' disputed life. I suppose so.I don't know if these issues are particularly relevant to a JESUS MYTHER debate, but it might be instructional for me offer some issues that often (or at times) debated in a historical Jesus investigation:Did Jesus ever consider himself a messiah or not?Was Jesus apocalyptic?Was Joseph his biological father or was Pantera ( or another)?Did Jesus have views closer to the Essenes or Parisees? (Questions about other sects come up, also)How often did Jesus leave the Galilee region.What was Jesus' ancestral line?ISSUES RARELY PART OF THE HISTORIAN'S DISCUSSION:The later Christian religionMiraculous storiesSupernatural featsCONCLUSION:The latter three aren't looked at by a historical examination, so far as I know . The discussion of miracles, the supernatural, etc. should be banned from the Jesus Myth thread.

A survey of beliefs among the academic community - in areas such as science, historical studies, degrees, etc. is fine.References to academic studies are fine.Polls and/or studies of views of scientists and scientific studies are fine.If a scientific or historical consensus is an important part of the debate, then the supernatural views and religious beliefs can become part of the topic.