Imke

I know Mando Diao. :p

^ Learned that right now. :nod:

Yeah, I think at some point you're also doing more harm with trying to get someone to stop. I know that my brother reacts in a pretty aggressive way when we confront him about his smoking habit. It's more like it's encouraging him to smoke even more. He knows the facts, the will to stop has to come from himself now.

I've never tried to smoke, never even touched a cigarette and am not planning to. It completely disgusts me to just touch one even when I'm drunk. My father smoked for quite some time while I was younger though. Of course he had to do it outside because my mother doesn't like smoking either. Anyway, my father quit a while ago. My brother started smoking as well. He had to do it outside too and because my father was feeling like he didn't connect to my brother as good as he should, he was having a cigarette with my brother outside from time to time over the course of maybe a month. Then he had a heart attack. In his discharge papers from the hospital "the abuse of nicotine" was noted. Until this day my father still claims he doesn't understand how the doctors could've put that in there. My brother still smokes until this day and says he would never quit because he enjoys it too much. Let's just say the men in my family are giving me the motivation to never even try it out of curiosity. I know I'm already beginning to write more than was actually asked for in this topic but what also makes it hard for me to understand the habit of smoking are the costs. I bet my brother spends as much as 50€ a month for cigarettes. I know others spend more. My brother is a student, lives at home and doesn't have a job on the side. It just boggles my mind how on earth he could spend so much money on something that is a hobby at best. :shrug:

You're welcome. :nice: I think it's important for everyone who has faith to go into such depth an discover what there is apart from the scripture. Well, when it comes to Paul and the condemnation of sexual acts it is not just interpretation. He was talking about idolatry in Pagan temples therefore it cannot be applied to homosexuality as it is today and absolutely should not. Interpretation surely is a choice, sexuality is an inborn quality though. That's why I just want to urge you to think twice before you put someone down and label their relationships an abomination because of your choice of interpreting Bible passages.

I was expecting that reply. It is quite common to disregard everything in Leviticus except for the part about a man lying with another man because it has been repeated in the Romans. However, if you do some research, you will find that lots of historians and theologians around the world think that in the Romans he refers to homosexual idolatry in Pagan temples. The concept of a loving relationship between two people of the same sex simply did not exist back then. Even the passage you quoted can't be seen as anything else than a prohibition of idolatry in form of sexual acts in Pagan temples. That is absolutely not applicable to homosexual people today. I'm just going to leave this link here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm EDIT: And also this, which talks about misunderstandings due to different translations of the Greek version of the Bible: http://web.archive.org/web/20071018080921/http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/gensem.html It also shows that the English Bible (as you and many other conservative Christians quote it) is after all just a translation of a book that was written in a language that didn't quite have the same concepts that contemporary languages have. It is also quite prone to abuse, because as you can see in this article, the term "homosexual" wasn't used until hundreds of years after the Bible was written. Some translations of the Bible even put Leviticus as saying "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden". "In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship."

Okay, sorry if I sound rude, but you don't need to explain the Bible to me. I've read it, in detail. It's okay if you need some time to think, but I'd really like a more founded post from you concerning Leviticus because as it is now you are basing discrimination of a group of people on it while indeed you are not completely truthful to Leviticus either. Don't just ask someone wiser than you! Go read the Bible, read Leviticus, make up your own mind. It's your religion! :smiley:

You are constantly avoiding the questions concerning Leviticus though. Let me ask one simple question: Do you wear clothes that are made of different materials and do you eat shrimps, lobsters etc.?

Nobody is questioning your faith. What we are questioning is what you make of the Bible and how you take some parts literally that fit with "your beliefs" and ignore others that apparently don't.

So now we can eat shrimps, lobster and whatnot (even though they're an abomination) because there are no longer any health risks. Gays are still an abomination though and always will be, because an abomination is an abomination and will always be an abomination. You can't just selectively bend some rules to modern society and then still stick with others that are just as ancient.

This debate makes me fall in love with my avatar all over again.

Okay, so you can wear clothes made of 50% cotton and 50% polyester because it's not an abomination ... even though what's written in Leviticus is the word of god and he said "Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." Yeah, makes total sense. Here's what is an abomination (according to Leviticus and therefore in your logic also to god) though: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Yes, and I shall come to France now to take you as my slave because my male and female slaves are to come from the nations around me. God said so! I quite like this part of Leviticus too: "18 For whatever man he be that has a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that has a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is broken footed, or broken handed, 20 Or hunch back, or a dwarf, or that has a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or has his stones broken; 21 No man that has a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come near to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he has a blemish; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 23 Only he shall not go in to the veil, nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. 24 And Moses told it to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel." (Leviticus 21:21)

On Leviticus ... "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9) Let's kill them all! "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45) I guess I'll get myself a Danish slave then. :nod: "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27) Men, no more shaving! It is an abomination! :angry: "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19) Hmm, I'll guess I'll throw away half of my wardrobe now. Unless you decide to stick to 100% of Leviticus (which is impossible imo), don't quote parts of it and name it as a reason to discrimate against people with a different sexuality.

I'm a bit curious about the show now. Don't know if they might not decide to cancel even more shows after all, but tbh, I'd rather have a cancelled/rescheduled show than a Matt who forces himself to give a show and a Matt who doesn't really enjoy himself. :shrug:

Alrighty. :nice:

If you want to continue the discussion, I'll leave it, otherwise I'm moving it. Up to you now. :p

Yeah, sorry for that. I'll remove the thread completely in a bit.

He was the 3285743895th personification of a member that has been banned for good 2 years ago. :wink:

Oslo, Stockholm and Malmo are cancelled.

"I was running barefoot and slipped - my foot broke the fall on a concrete step! " Ouch!

Poor Matt ... but ... but ... concert in 16 days. :uhoh2:

Apparently it is expected by some. :thinking: I've had the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it is a lot more common in the goold ol' USA. Like, I've worked with this girl from America and we've been to the Andes together, far away from Western civilisation (and her boyfriend btw), and she still shaved her legs every day knowing that with -5°C at night and maybe 18°C at day she wouldn't get to show them anyway. We got to talk about shaving in general and I told her I couldn't shave my legs every day because of the bloody mess it would cause, and her response was "ARE YOU SERIOUS?11??" as in How the fuck do you NOT shave your legs every day?! I've also read this whole "unshaven legs are not hygienic" quite a few times. As if female hair was less hygienic than male hair. :anxious: I think I'm going off-topic. I also think my "I shave my whole body"-friend is an extreme example.

Noooo, I just didn't make it clear enough.

No ... :anxious: Let's say everything up to her nose. :nod: