David, The Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 2.6 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2012, 11:29 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 11:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The Theist doesn't seem to grasp the concept of polysemous words and that the meaning of words is, among other factors, dependant on the context in which they are used in.

Fuckin' German sending Girly to the interwebz to look up an English word. Weeping

I fucking hate him, I really do. No ... At least he spelled dependent wrong, that's some consolation I guess. Big Grin

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 11:44 AM by Vosur.)
RE: David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 11:29 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 11:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The Theist doesn't seem to grasp the concept of polysemous words and that the meaning of words is, among other factors, dependant on the context in which they are used in.

Fuckin' German sending Girly to the interwebz to look up an English word. Weeping

I fucking hate him, I really do. No ... At least he spelled dependent wrong, that's some consolation I guess. Big Grin
Fair enough. Consider

Unfortunately, you captured the incorrect version with your quote. Serves me right, I guess.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
20-10-2012, 11:41 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 11:51 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: David, The Theist
First off I really don't understand why a large number of theists seem so focused on dissecting posts. I'm ok with why you dissected some of mine but not all of it and have seen you dissecting every post. That makes things often more convolluted not less. now to discuss the points as you've divided them.

(18-10-2012 09:45 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Hey there Dave, don't want to step in too far as I'm currently barely able to get on. You'll have more than enough theological discussions in the future. I do have one thing though which seems an important question for you.

As a product of biology I was born neither male nor female. My outward appearance primarily that of a male. As a baby I had a surgery to repair my genitals (an offence in itself that restricts me from jewish orthodoxy) this was necessary so that I could pee. While the state declared that I am male it in no way was an actual fact. I had multiple puberties before even getting the hormones necessary to keep my body in a stable mode. According to the book that you have chosen most wise I do not even exist as there are only two options available to all humanity. Any form of sexual interaction with me would be seen as a sin because I am not of one or the other. What makes you feel that by nature of being born inbetween I should be forced to lead a life in absolute service to god in fear of sinning by being myself?

(18-10-2012 06:11 PM)The Theist Wrote:  The spirit creatures themselves as well as Jehovah God are without gender, neither male nor female. You say you are both. Is the restriction from Jewish orthodoxy a problem for you in that you are Jewish? Because one thing to consider is that the Law of Moses is no longer in effect, since Christ. (Jeremiah 31:31-34 / Hebrews 8:6-13) If you are able to have sex as a female with a male, or a male with a female then you are either male or female, what would be the problem? If you are unable to have sexual relations then you are without sin. If the only way that you can have sex is in a way unnatural to God then you would have only to make a choice which is important to you.

This mention of spirit creatures seems innoccuous here. Are you referring to a later point by me about the sumerian deities? My reasoning behind discussing those was to make it obvious to you that the early isrealites would understand that hermaphroditism actually exists. My statement of jewish restriction was in regards to if I were jewish. I am not religious. Your attempt at easing me into being ok with a christian concept is pathetic though, as jesus, the one you're supposed to follow, never suggested anything of the sort. In all accounts where the old law was discussed by him he stated that it must still be followed. Paul might have been an important figure in crafting the popular version of christianity but his words should not be able to defy the words of your supposed god.

If I am able to have sex as one or the other in the biblical sense is a non-sequitor. As a non-dichotic gendered being I would be considered to be performing same sex either way. My penis that you seem to define me by is not a natural occurence it is something that science devised. My "natural" genitalia wouldn't have anything to do with sex as I would've died within the first week due to being unable to pee. Following the way that my body is currently molded has nothing to do with god, as gods' view of what should have happened with me is death at childbirth. Unless you're suggesting as the Arabs suggest, that sex is as pointless of a designation by god that cosmetic surgery can alter it, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Your ending statement of me being asexual putting me above sin is absurd. If as a human I withdraw myself from the procreative cycle, in what way am I following one of the first commandments mentioned?; to go forth and multiply. Many christians see those unable to reproduce as non-human entities for a reason. There is no discussion in the bible of infertility outside of a punishment by god. Calling me without sin for being infertile is preposterous by your own book.


(18-10-2012 09:45 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Hermaphroditic gods existed before Judaism so it is not likely to be something they just plain had no idea of. The Sumerians had hermaphroditic gods and were one of the religions most connected to the birth of Judaism. Why follow conscripts of sexuality that are so heavily biased? I have no hope of reproduction and am therefore not allowed to perform sexual acts due to the meaninglessness of them.

(18-10-2012 06:11 PM)The Theist Wrote:  According to who? The church? Do you really think it wise to pay any attention to what they have to say on the subject?

"It was not until the second century C.E. that professed Christians began to adopt the Stoic rule which dictated that the sole lawful purpose of marital intercourse was procreation. This was a philosophical rather than a Biblical reasoning, and through the ages various Catholic theologians expanded upon it, the result of which was that sexual pleasure between married couples except for the purpose of procreation was considered sinful and immoral. Not until the 13th century did Pope Gregory IX enact the first legislation by a pope against contraception. Again, the Bible doesn't teach this. Proverbs 5:18-19 says; "to be blessed and rejoice with the wife of your youth . . . Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly." Source

As previously stated this break seemed like a really bad plan on your part as you discussed this quote in your previous part of the response. You seem to be missing a key tenant of the biblical marriage. I must be one part or the other to be married. Otherwise any union I have with another is an abomination. I cannot be consecrated as in no way does ?+f/m create a bond between f+m. I never discussed contraception at all. I was discussing my possibilities within the realm of sexual activity. The reason I discussed my infertility again at this point is that had I been in some way fertile it would more denote a proposed gender. Being both infertile and androgenous removes all reasoned ways of fitting me into any role within a biblical marriage which according to the bible is the only role in which sex is anything but an abomination.

(18-10-2012 09:45 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I see no reason that you should take sexual descriptions that force you to heavily ignore bodily needs. You may find what you did in the past disgusting at this point, but I bet you still think about it. The human mind has a wonderful ability to contradict itself and to simply deny a need is to torture yourself in a way that won't end until your death.

(18-10-2012 06:11 PM)The Theist Wrote:  I'm fine with it.

This is your most apt dissection but at the same time rather pointless, Why cut off a small part of what I said to add a sentence? this all would be perfectly understandable had you just talked normally. The only reason I've complied and seperated this response was to highlight how pointless your dissection was.

If you're fine with it then whatever, I was discussing my opinion in this matter. I never said it was impossible for you to convince yourself it's a good thing.

I know the post is insanely long with my quotes added, but the way he expects me to respond makes no sense without them.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Lilith Pride's post
20-10-2012, 03:04 PM
RE: David, The Theist



[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 05:55 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 11:41 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  First off I really don't understand why a large number of theists seem so focused on dissecting posts. I'm ok with why you dissected some of mine but not all of it and have seen you dissecting every post. That makes things often more convolluted not less. now to discuss the points as you've divided them.

(18-10-2012 09:45 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Hey there Dave, don't want to step in too far as I'm currently barely able to get on. You'll have more than enough theological discussions in the future. I do have one thing though which seems an important question for you.

As a product of biology I was born neither male nor female. My outward appearance primarily that of a male. As a baby I had a surgery to repair my genitals (an offence in itself that restricts me from jewish orthodoxy) this was necessary so that I could pee. While the state declared that I am male it in no way was an actual fact. I had multiple puberties before even getting the hormones necessary to keep my body in a stable mode. According to the book that you have chosen most wise I do not even exist as there are only two options available to all humanity. Any form of sexual interaction with me would be seen as a sin because I am not of one or the other. What makes you feel that by nature of being born inbetween I should be forced to lead a life in absolute service to god in fear of sinning by being myself?

(18-10-2012 06:11 PM)The Theist Wrote:  The spirit creatures themselves as well as Jehovah God are without gender, neither male nor female. You say you are both. Is the restriction from Jewish orthodoxy a problem for you in that you are Jewish? Because one thing to consider is that the Law of Moses is no longer in effect, since Christ. (Jeremiah 31:31-34 / Hebrews 8:6-13) If you are able to have sex as a female with a male, or a male with a female then you are either male or female, what would be the problem? If you are unable to have sexual relations then you are without sin. If the only way that you can have sex is in a way unnatural to God then you would have only to make a choice which is important to you.

This mention of spirit creatures seems innoccuous here. Are you referring to a later point by me about the sumerian deities? My reasoning behind discussing those was to make it obvious to you that the early isrealites would understand that hermaphroditism actually exists. My statement of jewish restriction was in regards to if I were jewish. I am not religious. Your attempt at easing me into being ok with a christian concept is pathetic though, as jesus, the one you're supposed to follow, never suggested anything of the sort. In all accounts where the old law was discussed by him he stated that it must still be followed. Paul might have been an important figure in crafting the popular version of christianity but his words should not be able to defy the words of your supposed god.

If I am able to have sex as one or the other in the biblical sense is a non-sequitor. As a non-dichotic gendered being I would be considered to be performing same sex either way. My penis that you seem to define me by is not a natural occurence it is something that science devised. My "natural" genitalia wouldn't have anything to do with sex as I would've died within the first week due to being unable to pee. Following the way that my body is currently molded has nothing to do with god, as gods' view of what should have happened with me is death at childbirth. Unless you're suggesting as the Arabs suggest, that sex is as pointless of a designation by god that cosmetic surgery can alter it, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Your ending statement of me being asexual putting me above sin is absurd. If as a human I withdraw myself from the procreative cycle, in what way am I following one of the first commandments mentioned?; to go forth and multiply. Many christians see those unable to reproduce as non-human entities for a reason. There is no discussion in the bible of infertility outside of a punishment by god. Calling me without sin for being infertile is preposterous by your own book.


(18-10-2012 09:45 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Hermaphroditic gods existed before Judaism so it is not likely to be something they just plain had no idea of. The Sumerians had hermaphroditic gods and were one of the religions most connected to the birth of Judaism. Why follow conscripts of sexuality that are so heavily biased? I have no hope of reproduction and am therefore not allowed to perform sexual acts due to the meaninglessness of them.

(18-10-2012 06:11 PM)The Theist Wrote:  According to who? The church? Do you really think it wise to pay any attention to what they have to say on the subject?

"It was not until the second century C.E. that professed Christians began to adopt the Stoic rule which dictated that the sole lawful purpose of marital intercourse was procreation. This was a philosophical rather than a Biblical reasoning, and through the ages various Catholic theologians expanded upon it, the result of which was that sexual pleasure between married couples except for the purpose of procreation was considered sinful and immoral. Not until the 13th century did Pope Gregory IX enact the first legislation by a pope against contraception. Again, the Bible doesn't teach this. Proverbs 5:18-19 says; "to be blessed and rejoice with the wife of your youth . . . Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly." Source

As previously stated this break seemed like a really bad plan on your part as you discussed this quote in your previous part of the response. You seem to be missing a key tenant of the biblical marriage. I must be one part or the other to be married. Otherwise any union I have with another is an abomination. I cannot be consecrated as in no way does ?+f/m create a bond between f+m. I never discussed contraception at all. I was discussing my possibilities within the realm of sexual activity. The reason I discussed my infertility again at this point is that had I been in some way fertile it would more denote a proposed gender. Being both infertile and androgenous removes all reasoned ways of fitting me into any role within a biblical marriage which according to the bible is the only role in which sex is anything but an abomination.

(18-10-2012 09:45 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I see no reason that you should take sexual descriptions that force you to heavily ignore bodily needs. You may find what you did in the past disgusting at this point, but I bet you still think about it. The human mind has a wonderful ability to contradict itself and to simply deny a need is to torture yourself in a way that won't end until your death.

(18-10-2012 06:11 PM)The Theist Wrote:  I'm fine with it.

This is your most apt dissection but at the same time rather pointless, Why cut off a small part of what I said to add a sentence? this all would be perfectly understandable had you just talked normally. The only reason I've complied and seperated this response was to highlight how pointless your dissection was.

If you're fine with it then whatever, I was discussing my opinion in this matter. I never said it was impossible for you to convince yourself it's a good thing.

I know the post is insanely long with my quotes added, but the way he expects me to respond makes no sense without them.

I so fucking have a hardon for Lilith, and ManlyGirl approves. Thumbsup

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-10-2012, 06:14 PM
RE: David, The Theist
I'm going to be really surprised if he returns... got a lot of 'splainin to do.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 06:15 PM
RE: David, The Theist
I would like to get Lillith drunk, and take to her a debate on "Natural Law", with Feser, or Craig.

Exhibit 1A.

They would shit bricks. BlushTongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 06:18 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 06:14 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm going to be really surprised if he returns... got a lot of 'splainin to do.
The prophecy has spoken of a chosen one who will lead all the unbelievers back to the light. Lecture_preist

I bet 5$ that he'll be back.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
20-10-2012, 06:36 PM
David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 05:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 11:41 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  First off I really don't understand why a large number of theists seem so focused on dissecting posts. I'm ok with why you dissected some of mine but not all of it and have seen you dissecting every post. That makes things often more convolluted not less. now to discuss the points as you've divided them.



This mention of spirit creatures seems innoccuous here. Are you referring to a later point by me about the sumerian deities? My reasoning behind discussing those was to make it obvious to you that the early isrealites would understand that hermaphroditism actually exists. My statement of jewish restriction was in regards to if I were jewish. I am not religious. Your attempt at easing me into being ok with a christian concept is pathetic though, as jesus, the one you're supposed to follow, never suggested anything of the sort. In all accounts where the old law was discussed by him he stated that it must still be followed. Paul might have been an important figure in crafting the popular version of christianity but his words should not be able to defy the words of your supposed god.

If I am able to have sex as one or the other in the biblical sense is a non-sequitor. As a non-dichotic gendered being I would be considered to be performing same sex either way. My penis that you seem to define me by is not a natural occurence it is something that science devised. My "natural" genitalia wouldn't have anything to do with sex as I would've died within the first week due to being unable to pee. Following the way that my body is currently molded has nothing to do with god, as gods' view of what should have happened with me is death at childbirth. Unless you're suggesting as the Arabs suggest, that sex is as pointless of a designation by god that cosmetic surgery can alter it, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Your ending statement of me being asexual putting me above sin is absurd. If as a human I withdraw myself from the procreative cycle, in what way am I following one of the first commandments mentioned?; to go forth and multiply. Many christians see those unable to reproduce as non-human entities for a reason. There is no discussion in the bible of infertility outside of a punishment by god. Calling me without sin for being infertile is preposterous by your own book.




As previously stated this break seemed like a really bad plan on your part as you discussed this quote in your previous part of the response. You seem to be missing a key tenant of the biblical marriage. I must be one part or the other to be married. Otherwise any union I have with another is an abomination. I cannot be consecrated as in no way does ?+f/m create a bond between f+m. I never discussed contraception at all. I was discussing my possibilities within the realm of sexual activity. The reason I discussed my infertility again at this point is that had I been in some way fertile it would more denote a proposed gender. Being both infertile and androgenous removes all reasoned ways of fitting me into any role within a biblical marriage which according to the bible is the only role in which sex is anything but an abomination.



This is your most apt dissection but at the same time rather pointless, Why cut off a small part of what I said to add a sentence? this all would be perfectly understandable had you just talked normally. The only reason I've complied and seperated this response was to highlight how pointless your dissection was.

If you're fine with it then whatever, I was discussing my opinion in this matter. I never said it was impossible for you to convince yourself it's a good thing.

I know the post is insanely long with my quotes added, but the way he expects me to respond makes no sense without them.

I so fucking have a hardon for Lilith, and ManlyGirl approves. Thumbsup

You'll have to go after me first. You willing to have my sloppy seconds, Bob?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 06:42 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(20-10-2012 06:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 06:14 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm going to be really surprised if he returns... got a lot of 'splainin to do.
The prophecy has spoken of a chosen one who will lead all the unbelievers back to the light. Lecture_preist

I bet 5$ that he'll be back.

He's been back. Not here. He tried to shoot down the Yahweh thread. Sorta pathetic. I think he pastes in stuff from elsewhere, as so much is irrelevant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: