h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Fair play to Caleb; he admits he doesn't know the answer. I hope the pastor knows what I'm getting at.

Incest... I agree with the point that it's biologically undesirable.

I also think that throwing incest into the mix is a pretty poor diversionary tactic.

And where's Josh when you need him?

He's off telling me I'm hellbound in another thread.

Seconding the point. Do you consider them both equally reprehensible, Caleb?

I quit this thread because I found it was turning into a shouting match. There's so much semantic noise it here, I can't hear myself think. You all have been reduced to childish name-calling. I have no problem with intelligent discussions of these issues, but dubbing the underdog "bin Caleb" does nothing for your arguement. And saying he is a closet homosexual is out of line. If he is, you all must be closet homophobes. I respect the opinions of all present, but let's try to be civil here.

yes cane (who also killed his brother, able) did have children with his sister and so did all people for several generations. then one day God steped up and said that they should never make love to anyone of their own family within four generations, meaning that your fith cousin is safely realatable. and it was also decleared an abomination in the same scriptures as homosexuality.


caleb

ps. i've changed the name of this thread to what it really is

It isn't a war of words. We just think you are funny.

C'mon, "Bin Caleb" was a good one...

Ste

Josh,
You quit the thread because people weren't civil. Really? And here's me thinking you quit because you couldn't answer my point about inconsistent methods of interpreting scripture.

Silly me. I should have known you'd answer it in your own good time.

** holds breath in anticipation **

And just for reference, the points Josh has yet to answer are in post 57 on this thread, and repeated elsewhere.

I've tried to have a constructive debate here, but have had to put up with flannel, wilful misunderstanding and even being ignored for a while. And for Josh to then turn round and say that I'M being uncivil !!

Answer the questions, Josh, or Caleb. Ask your pastors if you need to. Consult your elders, pray, study; but answer the damn questions!

And if you can't, then kindly stop poisoning the web with your bigotry.

Soz Josh, but it gets a tad frustrating when we're all sitting here with nowt to do all day. So forgive us if it turns to idle frippery.

Forgive me, Geoff, I thought I had responded to all your questions. I know this must be aggrivating, but can you tell me exactly what I've not responded to?

On incest-
Mandragora makes a good point. Incest can produce children, who can have really bad disabilities. I've seen it with my own eyes and it's ugly. Even if they don't have disabilities, can you imagine the emotional harm of having parents who are brother and sister? But there's another thing you're overlooking here. What about homosexual incest? If you are saying that incest was outlawed simply because it has the ability to produce children, then is homosexual incest okay?

Besides, if a woman gets pregnant through incest, the state can simply force her to have an abortion. She and her uncle can have sex all they want with no worries about being considered lawbreakers, or parents of a diseased child. Just as homosexuals have thriving relationships, so can those who participate in incest, or even pedophilia without harming other people.

Incest was outlawed because it is sick and wrong. That's all there is to it.

We are getting off topic due to caleb16's diversionary comment about incest. The subject is still homosexuality right? Good.

So Josh, are you saying that you think homosexuality is wrong for the same reasons that incest is wrong?: "...because it is sick and wrong. That's all there is to it."

What was the point you were trying to make with your "satire", I must have missed it, sorry.

Anyway, all this paralelling of homesexuality with incest is insulting and very, very offensive. Do you people have no shame? I cannot see why you can't see the difference. I suspect you can, but are just making a point. Homosexuality is dramatically different from incest, the comparison has no legs to stand on. Apart from the fact that *you* are disgusted by both, which is what it comes down to really.



Ste

Stw isnt that the point with these god squad or "moral minority" types, the only real argument they have about most things they want banned etc is that they dont like it and its disgusting. They then make a massive mental leap and assume that because they dont like everyone else must also not like it.

Its just moral fascism !!

Hurrah etc.
To me, chintz and salad cream are sick and wrong. Some people find mixed-race relationships sick and wrong. All of these arguments should not be listened to.
Josh- and I DID make this point- incest is psychologically damaging for those involved, since there are tremendous hurdles to be overcome when shagging your siblings.
There's no such damage involved in homosexuality that isn't the fault of cretins.

Hmm.
'Satire' seemed also to bring in the diversionary tactic of abortion. My good man, NO ONE uses abortion as a form of contraception like that. It's not like getting a splinter out. If they attempted such a thing they'd probably be referred for counselling... honestly, here you're not even allowed to take the morning-after 3 times @ the hospital without some very searching questions.
Satire has to be founded on knowledge. You're better off without it.
I must have missed your reference to paedophilia* the first time. Paedophiles do not have thriving relationships because, you insulting cretin, the situation is non-consensual. Child abuse is no way comparable to a consenting-adult relationship of any kind, not even incest. If this was unintentional please take more care not to come across as an ignorant unfeeling b*****d. If you put it in to be clever... well, there's a good definition.

*hmm, American spelling... what are foot-fetishists to do?

Post 57, Josh. Like I said just a few posts ago, post 57. Oh Good God, I'm past caring. I'm not going to bang my head against the wall with you brainless, head-in-the-sand, la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you, blind bigots any longer. If Jesus really was omniscient, then it's no wonder he wept when he realised what s**t was going to be spouted in his name.

Oh, and if using the phrase "Good God" offends you.... good. It's the least you deserve, you cretins. Take your poison and shove it.

Post 56, not 57. I'm still bloody annoyed, though.

I am interested in the comments about the bible. I have a very simplistic understanding, but here goes... Judaism follows the old testament, Christianity follows the new testament. Because Jesus died for your sins, it rewrote the book.

Therefore it is the old testament which says 'eye for an eye', the new testament which preaches forgiveness.

So which testament do you follow?

By the way I write as someone indoctrinated as a christian, but now live very happily as a Pagan Druid.

I have trouble with many self-labelled Christians because they seem to approach the whole issue the wrong way round.

What should happen is that you read the scriptures, make informed decisions as to what is and is not applicable today, what interpretation to make etc. then form a morality based around that. What many strong-minded would-be moralists do is have their own set of opinions, then seek out the passages in the religious text that match their preconceptions and discard the rest.

Then they say their opinions are correct because the Bible says so.

If someone did it the correct way round, then I'd have more respect for them. Many people who call themselves Christians are just seeking justification for their own views and find it in certain passages of the Bible.

I don't seat my morality in any religious text because I consider them to be flawed. I've formed my morality myself from observation, personal experience and compassion. What's more, I will justify any aspect of it to anyone who asks. At no stage do I shrug my shoulders and say 'Well, it said so in this book, see?'.

you want to know what my morals are!!!!!!!! fine here they are

- never steel: if you want one then buy one
- never lie: its just dishonest
- never commit adultry: marrage is based on love, if you cheet on your spouse then you don't love them and have no business being married in the fitst place
- never kill: there is no reason to take the life of someone you don't like, if this law is broken the punishment is death < see next moral>
- do unto others as you should have them do unto you: be good to people and they shall be good to you, kill someone and be killed
- never hit a woman: this goes back to my cowboy upbringing, yell scream all you want but if you touch her in a violent manner you are a dead man
- don't make fun of the disabled: this is just mean, pure and simple
- never curse in front of your mother: this is disrespectful to the woman who spent her life raising you
- atend church every sunday and pray every night: pay homage to the man who created you and sent you into this world
- don't hate: this is a general statement, don't hate anyone for anything
- always tip your hat to a lady: this is respectful and flatters a woman ,sometimes, to the point of insane love
- don't ave sex with animals: again this just speaks for itself
- don't have sex with someone in your family: this disrespects your family and your good name
- don't have sex with another person of the same sex: the reason for this is based in the parts where i live, you will be shunned in your community and by your peers.
- don't fight for no reason: the only reason for violence is to defend your woman, your family, those who can't defend themselves, and to prevent a mugging or a robery.



>if you notice i didn't use the bible as an excuse for any of my morals<


please tell me what is the difference between homosexuiality and homoisexual incest (besides one being with your own family)

post 57

"If the Leviticus rules no longer count, why are they in the Canon of Scripture for Christians?"

If everyone lived Leviticus to the letter, this would be a perfect world. Leviticus demostrates exactly what we can't do. We are incapable of following these rules, but we've been forgiven and therefore we are not bound by them. But the rules are still there as a matter of accuracy. The law of Moses may not bind us, but it still exists so that we can see what exactly it is that we're not bound by.

Imagine if the Bible did not contain it. It would read something like "You are bound by the law of Moses, even though you have no idea what the law of Moses is. Make sense?

"If the Leviticus rules can be set aside because of Peter's instructions, where is the definition of "sexual immorality"?"

Paul repeatedly describes it as adultery and homosexuality.

"Are Paul's exhortations for women to be silent and keep their heads covered still valid? If not, on what grounds has this been set aside, and why can't those grounds apply equally to homosexuality?"

Paul's comments should be taken as advice, not law in this case. He repeatedly differentiates between what he feels is best and what God commands. These comments are not commands. Paul is simply saying that he thinks this is the best way to run a church. He's not putting any actual demands on women.

"I have already mentioned the times in the Church's history when it has been very, very wrong with the best intentions."

Aye, it has. Trust the Bible, not the church. There are plenty of things said in church even today that are not biblical.

Once again, I apologize for not responding earlier.

And Ste, bin Caleb was not a "good one". How do you know that one of Caleb's relatives was not killed on September 11? Do you think comparing a Jew to Hitler is a good one? You evidently have very little patriotism and I think that has colored your judgement. If you had a shred of decency, you would not compare your fellow countryman (no matter how much you disagree with him) to your common enemy.

"If everyone lived Leviticus to the letter, this would be a perfect world" I'm talking about this in the "homophobia" thread in askh2g2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F19585?thread=178442&latest=1), but what the hell: Lev 20 13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." So in a perfect world gay men would be put to death? I can't really believe that Josh, you'll have to explain yourself. I'm not American Josh. He is not one of my countrymen. Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist is he not? So are you and Caleb. That's the origin of the joke, It really is that obvious. (And I'm not going to go around not saying stuff because there is a slight teeeny weeny chance that someone he knew died in a terrorist bombing). A lack of patriotism colours my judgement? Oh man, that is great. Ste