|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 418
400+ posts
|
400+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 418 |
That's true, CJ. I don't know what it feels like to be gay either (I heard it's sorta tingly, tho) so I'm in the same shoes.
Like I said, just a general statement. Seemed to fit since some of the people who are saying that gays aren't discriminated against are the same that are getting angry at certain anti-Christian remarks in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Just did the Gay Pride thing here in Minneapolis. The parade is the longest one in MN. I would say about 15 percent of it were various churches. I bring this up because the fact that there are many gay Christeans out there. Its not really two seperate groups.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
I keep saying I'm not going to post to this thread, but I keep thinking of things that I feel need to be said.
Something I was thinking about earlier, while designing a logo, of all things. I find it hypocritcal (maybe not the exact word I'm looking for) of people who bash Christians and say they're right and we're wrong, they have a right to say what they want, but the second a Christian opens their mouth and defends their faith/belief, they are labled closed minded hatemongers. Yet those that label us that are the "loving ones".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Just did the Gay Pride thing here in Minneapolis. The parade is the longest one in MN. I would say about 15 percent of it were various churches. I bring this up because the fact that there are many gay Christeans out there. Its not really two seperate groups.
Not to nitpick, but you spelled Christian wrong. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I keep saying I'm not going to post to this thread, but I keep thinking of things that I feel need to be said.
Something I was thinking about earlier, while designing a logo, of all things. I find it hypocritcal (maybe not the exact word I'm looking for) of people who bash Christians and say they're right and we're wrong, they have a right to say what they want, but the second a Christian opens their mouth and defends their faith/belief, they are labled closed minded hatemongers. Yet those that label us that are the "loving ones".
I dont see any homosexuals going out of their way to set up rules that say if you're gay you cant be Christian...but Christians do go out of their way to bash homosexuals and their style of life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Actually DWB you do interpet the Bible with your own bias. The story of Sodom for example you apply to todays gay people. What literaly happened in that story? A mob tries to rape some angles & are punished by God. Now if one of the villagers asked one of the angles out on a date & was punished by God I would believe your interpretation.
Because, for the 50th time, comparing the many verses of the Bible about homosexuality, and moral purity, and sexual purity, and the sanctity of marriage (clearly, between a man and a woman), the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality specifically.
quote:
LEVITICUS 20:13
13 The LORD said to Moses... " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "
and Romans chapter 1, verses :
quote:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The meaning of these words is clear and unmistakeable. There is no question of interpretation, or expiration date. The Bible is clear this is the eternal law to be preserved. God the Father/Jesus clearly condemns homosexuality as an immoral act.
For the 50th time. Indisputably.
~
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
I know it's off-topic but I would be interested in your interpretation of Jesus's view on piety?
Jesus said the most important things were to:
1. Love the Lord with all all your heart, mind and spirit.
2. Love your neighbor as your self. Show compassion and mercy, show kindness to your enemies, and pray for your enemies, treat all men (or all humankind) as brothers (i.e., the same respect as your own family)
3. Teach the good news of God's mercy, of God's love of all men and women, and of Jesus' own sacrifice, and gift of salvation to all humankind.
(I'm not preaching, I was asked this question.)
Jesus was critical of the Pharisees and Saduccees (dominant Jewish sects of the time), because they were technically following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Jesus taught love and compassion, but not abandonment of Old Testament law. He clearly condemned sexual immorality, which homosexuality is a sub-category of as well, since what God the Father condemned in the Old Testament is what Jesus condemned with the same voice:
again,JOHN 10, VERSE 30 quote:
"I and the Father are one..."
,
and MATTHEW 5, VERSES 17-18:
quote:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
OK interestingly enough (to me anyway) I revisited Romans & found that the word perversion was only in the International Standard Bible, in most of the others it's "error of their ways" Those are two very different words!
As for Mathew scripture, if you read on Jesus than goes on about the old laws. Adultry, divorce, fasting etc. etc. but absent is anything about homosexuality or eating pure or impure food. This is also where he says don't judge or you will be judged BTW. Odd to say the least that something that seems so important is neglected here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
An honest question: Would any Christians mind if the legality of Christian marriage was withdrawn, basically taking away the benefits gays are currently striving for?
No malice intended. It's a serious question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
An honest question: Would any Christians mind if the legality of Christian marriage was withdrawn, basically taking away the benefits gays are currently striving for?
No malice intended. It's a serious question.
No malice taken, but the wording is confusing me. The 'legality of Christian marriage'? What do you mean? Christian marriages and legal marriages are two seperate things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I keep saying I'm not going to post to this thread, but I keep thinking of things that I feel need to be said.
Something I was thinking about earlier, while designing a logo, of all things. I find it hypocritcal (maybe not the exact word I'm looking for) of people who bash Christians and say they're right and we're wrong, they have a right to say what they want, but the second a Christian opens their mouth and defends their faith/belief, they are labled closed minded hatemongers. Yet those that label us that are the "loving ones".
And I find it hypocritical that Christians - not all mind you but based on some of the comments on this thread certainly some - can actually be surprised when they judge people who don't follow their beliefs to the letter and call anyone who chooses a lifestyle that they are uncomfortable with "perverts" or sinner" and things less kind. Christians can defend their beliefs just like anyone else, but it seems to me that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Christian way of thinking is immoral, a sinner or deviant on some level. And that way of thinking has been shown throughout this thread. And if people are made to feel that they are going to be labeled in an incredibly negative way because they don't subscribe to a "Christian" point of view, well, then I don't think its unreasonable that they are going to come out swinging. If you throw the first stone, don't be so surprised that it gets thrown back at you.
Listen, Christians, like anyone else practicing anyreligion, have every right to think and feel the way they do. What has surprised me though, throughout the four pages of this thread that I have read (the last four, BTW), is that quite a few times "Christian values" have been brought up as something that people should follow as if there are no other moral codes that people follow. And that's fine, if you are a Christian. You want to follow your beliefs, go right ahead, but to judge everyone by your rules and moral code is inevitably going to lead to a debate if those people don't follow your rules. What seems to be ignored is that not everyone is a Christian - and the whole "morals" thing is very subjective. I may not follow Christian values, but does that make me "immoral"? I don't think so. The values that Christians espouse are just a fraction of the different values that other people have in this country - and throughout the world - and not everyone is going to follow them.
Having said that, I was with a friend last night walking through the Village and then up through Chelsea. Clearly there had been a Gay Pride parade earlier in the day and having grown up in the City I can still say that last night was nothing I'd seen before. Couples were out in droves (my friend and I stood out like sore thumbs) and they were celebrating the Supremes decision earlier this week. It was really lovely to see. Now, I realize that not everyone agrees with this - for whatever their reasons - and that is fine, but throwing my 2 cents in at this late date - whether I agree with this lifestyle or not really doesn't matter - what I believe it comes down to is that what 2 consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my damned business. Who am I to tell them what they can and cannot do? I would hate to think that the government can police what I chose to do in my bedroom with my b-friend.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
True. I'll clarify.
When I was married in a Catholic Church, we were legally married immediately afterwards (we exited the Church hall, walked into a smaller room, signed some papers, and were legally married). The priest was allowed to provide the final signature that legally bound us.
What I'm asking, is what if the two were arbitrarily separated. What if two people who were married under the Christian faith were not allowed a legal marriage? Would anyone here fight this on legal grounds?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I find it hypocritcal (maybe not the exact word I'm looking for) of people who bash Christians and say they're right and we're wrong, they have a right to say what they want, but the second a Christian opens their mouth and defends their faith/belief, they are labled closed minded hatemongers. Yet those that label us that are the "loving ones".
The difference is that I will never argue that you be denied basic freedoms. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. When you 'loving' christians open your mouths in debates like this, it's to deny me mine. Is the difference so hard to see? I believe you have the right to worship God as you see fit, where as you seem to feel that your religious convictions should stand as a valid argument against my freedoms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I guess ultimately we're not debating Christianity, the moral appropriateness of homosexuality, the separation of Church and State, or whether or not people should come into a thread halfway through and start flaming everyone without giving a substantial argument of their own. All this thread was intended to do was inform us that someone somewhere was thinking about legalizing gay marriage. Ultimately, it's the government's call, since any legal, financial, or other material benefits for any marriage are sanctioned by the government anyway. If you've got an opinion, the best place to voice it is at your ballot box or in a letter to your local legislators.
The polls and court decisions will be the final judge of what's legal. As has been seen here, it's pointless to try and convince anyone of what we think is right or wrong. I'm saving anything else I might have to say on this for other threads - if I feel like it. I'd honestly rather see Rob close this topic and have someone else fire up a thread for the stuff we're discussing somewhere else than watch this thread continue to descend into mindless flame wars.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
quote:
No malice intended. It's a serious question.
No malice taken, but the wording is confusing me. The 'legality of Christian marriage'? What do you mean? Christian marriages and legal marriages are two seperate things. [/QB]
Actually, CJ brings up a good point - there is a difference between a Christian marriage and a legal marriage. I don't think that there is any problem with a legal marriage between gay couples, however I do think that there is a problem with a Christian gay marriage. With the latter, you would be asking the entire religion to change a core belief to suit the individual. While I am not a devout Jew, I would be hard pressed to be accepting of anything that would alter a core foundation of Judiasm. And it is here that I can understand a Christian being resistant to having gay couples wanting a Christian marriage, as it goes against something so fundamental in the beliefs of Christians. And you can't expect the Church - or any other religion - to change to suit you as an individual.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
or whether or not people should come into a thread halfway through and start flaming everyone without giving a substantial argument of their own.
Whoa. I don't think that's what I did at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
...however I do think that there is a problem with a Christian gay marriage. With the latter, you would be asking the entire religion to change a core belief to suit the individual. While I am not a devout Jew, I would be hard pressed to be accepting of anything that would alter a core foundation of Judiasm. And it is here that I can understand a Christian being resistant to having gay couples wanting a Christian marriage...
And no one here is asking for that.
What IS being asked for is the legalization of same-sex marriage with the same benefits and responsibilities bestowed on same-sex couples that are given to female-male couples.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
True. I'll clarify.
When I was married in a Catholic Church, we were legally married immediately afterwards (we exited the Church hall, walked into a smaller room, signed some papers, and were legally married). The priest was allowed to provide the final signature that legally bound us.
What I'm asking, is what if the two were arbitrarily separated. What if two people who were married under the Christian faith were not allowed a legal marriage? Would anyone here fight this on legal grounds?
Ah okay. I was confused because at my sister's wedding, it was me, not the celebrant (he was not Catholic, my family is also Baptist and Protestant) that signed the marriage contract. And I know several couples that were legally married and years later were married in a church wedding.
Well you would probably need a legal marriage for several reasons (tax benefits, legal issues, children custody, etc etc etc). So it would make sense to have the legal marriage contract. Isn't the divorce rate around %50? I hope I don't ever get divorced (screwed up too many loved ones as of late) but you need legal protection.
(Does anyone know in detail the good/bad things about legal marriages? I'd like to learn more.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
...however I do think that there is a problem with a Christian gay marriage. With the latter, you would be asking the entire religion to change a core belief to suit the individual. While I am not a devout Jew, I would be hard pressed to be accepting of anything that would alter a core foundation of Judiasm. And it is here that I can understand a Christian being resistant to having gay couples wanting a Christian marriage...
And no one here is asking for that.
What IS being asked for is the legalization of same-sex marriage with the same benefits and responsibilities bestowed on same-sex couples that are given to female-male couples.
And I think I was just responding to an interesting difference that CJ pointed out.
As to the legalization of a same-sex marriage, if I wasn't clear before then let me say now that I think there's nothing wrong with two people who love each other to be legally married regardless of gender.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
...(Does anyone know in detail the good/bad things about legal marriages? I'd like to learn more.)
Oh boy! There are a whole lotta legal benefits to marriage (numbering over 1000) but a few are...
- joint parenting, adoption, visitation, foster care, custody, etc.
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent
- joint insurance policies (home, health, etc)
- inheritance rights (in the absence of a will)
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support
- annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child
- decision-making power with remains of deceased partner
- crime victims' recovery benefits
- blah, blah, blah
Any of these can also be considered a negative, given the right (or wrong) situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
or whether or not people should come into a thread halfway through and start flaming everyone without giving a substantial argument of their own.
Whoa. I don't think that's what I did at all.
Dawson didn't mean you, Harley--- he was talking about me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
quote:
No malice intended. It's a serious question.
No malice taken, but the wording is confusing me. The 'legality of Christian marriage'? What do you mean? Christian marriages and legal marriages are two seperate things.
Actually, CJ brings up a good point - there is a difference between a Christian marriage and a legal marriage. I don't think that there is any problem with a legal marriage between gay couples, however I do think that there is a problem with a Christian gay marriage. With the latter, you would be asking the entire religion to change a core belief to suit the individual. While I am not a devout Jew, I would be hard pressed to be accepting of anything that would alter a core foundation of Judiasm. And it is here that I can understand a Christian being resistant to having gay couples wanting a Christian marriage, as it goes against something so fundamental in the beliefs of Christians. And you can't expect the Church - or any other religion - to change to suit you as an individual. [/QB]
No church is ever going to be forced to change their policies--- if they don't want to accept gays or perform church weddings for them that is their right. And that's the way things should be.
But many churches DO accept gays--- and I'm sure more than a few churches WILL perform weddings for gays one day (some already do). Like Matter-Eater Lad mentioned earlier, a win-win situation for ALL parties. EVERYONE has the right to their faith in this country regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I find it hypocritcal (maybe not the exact word I'm looking for) of people who bash Christians and say they're right and we're wrong, they have a right to say what they want, but the second a Christian opens their mouth and defends their faith/belief, they are labled closed minded hatemongers. Yet those that label us that are the "loving ones".
The difference is that I will never argue that you be denied basic freedoms. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. When you 'loving' christians open your mouths in debates like this, it's to deny me mine. Is the difference so hard to see? I believe you have the right to worship God as you see fit, where as you seem to feel that your religious convictions should stand as a valid argument against my freedoms.
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. On first inspection, they seem persuasive, but when broken down and examined, they are based on illogic. That's not an insult: its a statement of fact.
I acknowledge that debate is something of a science, with a set of debate rules. But a courtroom or debate event has an impartial judge (one hopes), and I feel that you're a biased judge in this debate essentially. And that skews the "scientific" rules of debate here.
I've answered a number of points, and I don't think my detailed and well-thought out answers have been given fair weight by you. And often, quite frankly, my views have been misrepresented and paraphrased in a biased way.
( for example, you come back again and again and allege that I single out homosexuality but excuse heterosexual immorality, and I've answered AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that the Bible has the same standard for both. And then you come right back and make the same allegation that I single out homosexuality for selective enforcement. Which is simply not true, in your --by all appearances-- deliberate misrepresentation of my views and Bible interpretation. )
( For a second example, you allege that I say that AIDS/HIV is a gay disease and is proof that homosexuality is immoral. I've come back AGAIN AND AGAIN and explained otherwise, that homosexuality is ONE FORM of immoral behavior that spreads the virus, that it is a manifestation that homosexuality is not a "victimless crime". But each time you come back and allege that I'm ignorantly saying that AIDS is only spread by gays. )
Again, you're smart, Dave, you're an attorney, you know how to read the fine print. And I could understand if ONE time you misrepresented what I was saying. But for you to do it repeatedly indicates that you either subconsciously want to believe I'm wrong, or are consciously misrepresenting what I've clearly said, OVER AND OVER. In either case, I don't buy your contention that yours is at this point an unbiased evaluation of the facts. Your opinions are self-appointed as facts, and mine, no matter how logical, dismissed as opinion.
I reject the "logic" of this court.
Logic, in your subjective opinion, which rejects a spiritual Biblical perspective (i.e., the Bible is inspired by God, and the ultimate authority on human behavior) OUT OF HAND. The subject of Gay marriage is regarding religious faith and Bible interpretation, and the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation is very relevant, and not to be easily dismissed, in any fair and impartial review of the issue. And yet it IS dismissed, so how can you fairly evaluate?
Dave, I could go through your posts point-by-point and clarify the fallacy of each point you raised, but I've already answered 98% of the issues you've raised already in my prior posts, 4 and 5 times.
And I'm frankly tired of spending 2 and 3 hours going through your posts point-by-point, giving logical and consistent arguments in favor of the Biblical position, only to have you repeatedly ignore my logical responses and again imply ignorance, when I've clearly made a factual argument.
My points are dismissed by you arbitrarily, based on a pseudo-factual argument that unquestionably favors your liberal/secular point of view. You're not an impartial judge. And yet you set yourself up as both the prosecution and the judge. That's a loaded verdict.
The cornerstone of my position is the Bible I believe in as a Christian. If not for the Bible, then anything goes, and virtually the entire argument for not allowing gay marriage can be dismissed as "just opinion", and gay marriage would therefore be permissible. Without that clear Biblical standard, then I would probably acquiesce to political correctness, and say "sure, whatever, if you want to."
My argument's cornerstone is the Bible.
And basically, your rules of "logic" instantly reject at the outset that the Bible is a valid basis for opinion, even within the Christian community. (You allege that my opinion is logic by consensus(a.k.a., the "this is how it's always been done." fallacy. You ALLEGE that my opinion is basically a consensus of the ignorant, that just because many people believe it, that doesn't make it true. But in point of fact, my opinion is based on a consensus of Bible scholars, who have translated and approved the NIV, American Standard and King James versions of the Bible, who are familiar with the original greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, who have prepared the study Bibles that are commonly used. It is not a consensus of the ignorant, it is a CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO BEST UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE. By your allegation, if only one person disputes that interpretation, then the consensus of scholars means nothing, no matter how specious and contrived the dissenting single view is. I don't consider that a "logical" standard to use. )
THAT is bias. And is certainly not to be confused with an impartial debate.
Even within the INTERNAL CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE (cross referencing verses for a consistent theme, which I used with my quoted passages), you defy logic and refuse to accept that what the Bible says about homosexuality is consistently and unquestionably a condemnation of the practice.
Well, in no uncertain terms, that's your evasiveness against logical evidence to the contrary.
You CHOOSE not to acknowledge the true Biblical position on homosexuality, despite the abundance of passages, and common themes that run CONSISTENTLY through the Bible, in the contexts of sexual purity, spiritual purity, sexual immorality,phrases "the Bride", "the Whore", ad infinitum. MY ARGUMENT is consistent with recurring Biblical themes. Yours is NOT.
And I found your latest characterization rather insulting:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Which is precisely the trap you've allowed yourself to fall into. Allow gays the right to get married in a church, and soon we'll all be sleeping with animals." Its a fallacy, without logic.
I never said this.
You presented it as if that were part of a "logic" argument that I'd written. It is an oversimplified and mocking misrepresentation. I only said that allowing gay marriage, and the legal precedent it would set, would open the door to rights and legal precedents for other sexual/moral abberations. You have attempted to FABRICATE a "slippery slope" in my argument, where one does not exist.
Similarly, other paraphrases of my opinion, that you have skewed to favor your liberal position, and ridicule/oversimplify my own:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Finally, a concession! So its not just gays, it's heterosexual but promiscuous people who are corruptive. So, I guess promiscuous people are also not allowed to get married in a church?
It's not "finally", I've been proclaiming the same standard for heterosexual and homosexual immorality since this topic began. And it's not a concession, it's what I've been saying over and over and over. Either you're not reading my posts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.
And I never said that "promiscuous people are not allowed to get married in a church". I ALSO never said "gay people are never allowed to get married in a church". But I did say that, CONSISTENT WITH BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF FORGIVENESS, AND ALSO BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF SEXUAL PURITY, that they can be forgiven, and begin practicing premarital abstinence in line with Christian pre-marital behavior, and THEN marry in a Christian church.
There are so many other points I'd like to respond to, but what's the point?
I'm not mad or anything, Dave . But it is frustrating for you hold yourself as prosecutor, judge and jury, and expect me to consider that "logical" and impartial.
Especially when you've bypassed and compelled me to repeat myself so often, and you STILL come back with the same misrepresentative allegations (see the two parenthetical examples above. )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
An honest question: Would any Christians mind if the legality of Christian marriage was withdrawn, basically taking away the benefits gays are currently striving for?
No malice intended. It's a serious question.
Marriage is by definition: one man/one woman, for life.
Gay marriage is never stated or implied in the Bible. And as I've said endless times, chapter and verse (LEVITICUS 20, ROMANS 1, GENESIS 18 and 19) clearly and indisputably condemned, literally, symbolically, and cross-freference thematically. Gay marriage, based on the Bible, is polar opposite what the Bible says about homosexuality.
You and others keep talking as if the Bible endorses gay marriage, and that gay and heterosexual forms of marriage have equal weight, Biblically. They clearly do not.
If you abolish heterosexual marriage, you might as well abolish Christianity. And I believe that is what is being attempted by those who advocate homosexual marriage: Deliberate undermining and confusion of what Christianity is, to the point it ceases to exist popularly in accordance with Biblical teachings.
It is an attempt to turn Christianity into a "buffet religion" and destroy its sanctity and meaning. And the sanctity and meaning of Christian marriage as well.
I think, in your hypothetical situation, Wednesday, if Christian marriage and benefits were banned, that Christian marriage would just be driven underground. It would not be recognized as sacred and substantial to the state, obviously, but it would remain valid and sacred to Christians.
But as I said one man/one woman is arguably the entire world's standard (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever)and so I think is not a parallel with the concept of gay marriage. The two are not the same in the eyes of a majority on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
And I find it hypocritical that Christians - not all mind you but based on some of the comments on this thread certainly some - can actually be surprised when they judge people who don't follow their beliefs to the letter and call anyone who chooses a lifestyle that they are uncomfortable with "perverts" or sinner" and things less kind...
Listen, Christians, like anyone else practicing anyreligion, have every right to think and feel the way they do.
You must mean me. I've only quoted what the Bible says. As I've said on pretty much every page of this topic, repeatedly, it's NOT my/our judgement. We are all imperfect in different ways (i.e., we are ALL sinners, whether Christians or non-Christians, homosexuals or HETEROsexuals, all are imperfect in the eyes of God.)
I've only clarified what the Bible ITSELF says. I've pointed out the STANDARD, not passed judgement. Judgement is reserved for God alone.
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
What has surprised me though, throughout the four pages of this thread that I have read (the last four, BTW), is that quite a few times "Christian values" have been brought up as something that people should follow as if there are no other moral codes that people follow. And that's fine, if you are a Christian. You want to follow your beliefs, go right ahead, but to judge everyone by your rules and moral code is inevitably going to lead to a debate if those people don't follow your rules.
But again, as I've said endlessly, gays have a right to their beliefs, OUTSIDE of Christianity. But to attempt the idea of gay marriage under the facade that Christianity endorses it, is to warp the meaning of Christianity out from under the Christians who practice it.
It is a violation of Christian ideology and teaching.
To me, it's like a black guy trying to join the Klu Klux Klan.
Or a Klansman trying to join the N.A.A.C.P.
Or a bunch of Christians getting together and creating a new denomination "Islam".
Or a bunch of radical Palestinians getting together and forming a new denomination, calling it "Judaism".
The polar difference in ideology in all of these examples would make any of these occurrences justifiably threatening to the given pre-existing organizations and religions.
Again, gays have a right to their lifestyle. They do NOT have the right to distort the meaning and traditions of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
I find it amazing that people have a problem with "wrong" and "right". I refuse to force anything upon anyone. The "gay" movement forces their morality upon me.
I think they are wrong but at the same time I do not look for rights and other things to advance my sexual taste upon others. I just look at the facts and do not let them confuse my judgement. Or my opinion. A mom and a dad is the best reality for a child to grow up in. How is that such a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. On first inspection, they seem persuasive, but when broken down and examined, they are based on illogic. That's not an insult: its a statement of fact.
I acknowledge that debate is something of a science, with a set of debate rules. But a courtroom or debate event has an impartial judge (one hopes), and I feel that you're a bised judge in this debate essentially. And that skews the "scientific" rules of debate here.
Let me be clear: I'm not acting as a judge. I'm acting as an adversary (in the non-Biblical sense!). Of course I'm biased. But I'm attacking your arguments on the basis of non-biased logic.
I mean, playing devil's advocate, you could easily use logic to argue against the most vulernable argument presented against you.
1. All people can get married
2. The Christian Church is a place to get married
3. All people includes homosexuals as a subset.
Conclusion: all people can get married in a Church including homosexuals
Except of course only Christians can get married in a Church, not "all people".
quote:
I've answered a number of points, and I don't think my detailed and well-thought out answers have been given fair weight by you. And often, quite frankly, my views have been misrepresented and paraphrased in a biased way.
( for example, you come back again and again and allege that I single out homosexuality but excuse heterosexual immorality, and I've answered AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that the Bible has the same standard for both. And then you come right back and make the same allegation that I single out homosexuality for selective enforcement. Which is simply not true, in your --by all appearances-- deliberate misrepresentation of my views and Bible interpretation. )
That is the topic at hand though - homosexuality. So I keep reverting to it.
quote:
( For a second example, you allege that I say that AIDS/HIV is a gay disease and is proof that homosexuality is immoral. I've come back AGAIN AND AGAIN and explained otherwise, that homosexuality is ONE FORM of immoral behavior that spreads the virus, that it is a manifestation that homosexuality is not a "victimless crime". But each time you come back and allege that I'm ignorantly saying that AIDS is only spread by gays. )
No, I'm trying to ascertain why you are saying AIDS is spread by immoral behaviour, but only gays are targetted as immoral enough not to get married in a Church.
quote:
Again, you're smart, Dave, you're an attorney, you know how to read the fine print. And I could understand if ONE time you misrepresented what I was saying. But for you to do it repeatedly indicates that you either subconsciously want to believe I'm wrong, or are consciously misrepresenting what I've clearly said, OVER AND OVER. In either case, I don't buy your contention that yours is at this point an unbiased evaluation of the facts. Your opinions are self-appointed as facts, and mine, no matter how logical, dismissed as opinion.
I reject the "logic" of this court.
Logic, in your subjective opinion, which rejects a spiritual Biblical perspective (i.e., the Bible is inspired by God, and the ultimate authority on human behavior) OUT OF HAND. The subject of Gay marriage is regarding religious faith and Bible interpretation, and the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation is very relevant, and not to be easily dismissed, in any fair and impartial review of the issue. And yet it IS dismissed, so how can you fairly evaluate?
Actually, I've tried to keep my bias against the Bible as a source of authority out of it, and attack your arguments purely on the basis of a lack of logic. Otherwise, I'd have spent more time looking at the source of authority to the Bible. But that woudl open up another can of worms, and we already have enough worms as it is.
quote:
Dave, I could go through your posts point-by-point and clarify the fallacy of each point you raised, but I've already answered 98% of the issues you've raised already in my prior posts, 4 and 5 times.
And I'm frankly tired of spending 2 and 3 hours going through your posts point-by-point, giving logical and consistent arguments in favor of the Biblical position, only to have you repeatedly ignore my logical responses and again imply ignorance, when I've clearly made a factual argument.
My points are dismissed by you arbitrarily, based on a pseudo-factual argument that unquestionably favors your liberal/secular point of view. You're not an impartial judge. And yet you set yourself up as both the prosecution and the judge. That's a loaded verdict.
Its not a "pseudo-factual argument". Its the application of logical principles.
quote:
The cornerstone of my position is the Bible I believe in as a Christian. If not for the Bible, then anything goes, and virtually the entire argument for not allowing gay marriage can be dismissed as "just opinion", and gay marriage would therefore be permissible. Without that clear Biblical standard, then I would probably acquiesce to political correctness, and say "sure, whatever, if you want to."
My argument's cornerstone is the Bible.
OK, so you're arguing from a position of faith, not logic. That's fine.
quote:
And basically, your rules of "logic" instantly reject at the outset that the Bible is a valid basis for opinion, even within the Christian community. (You allege that my opinion is logic by consensus(a.k.a., the "this is how it's always been done." fallacy. You ALLEGE that my opinion is basically a consensus of the ignorant, that just because many people believe it, that doesn't make it true. But in point of fact, my opinion is based on a consensus of Bible scholars, who have translated and approved the NIV, American Standard and King James versions of the Bible, who are familiar with the original greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, who have prepared the study Bibles that are commonly used. It is not a consensus of the ignorant, it is a CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO BEST UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE. By your allegation, if only one person disputes that interpretation, then the consensus of scholars means nothing, no matter how specious and contrived the dissenting single view is. I don't consider that a "logical" standard to use. )
No, my consensus poitn was addressed to your statement that you have met people of all nationalities, and none of them have good things to say about homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong. That is logic by consensus.
quote:
THAT is bias. And is certainly not to be confused with an impartial debate.
Even within the INTERNAL CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE (cross referencing verses for a consistent theme, which I used with my quoted passages), you defy logic and refuse to accept that what the Bible says about homosexuality is consistently and unquestionably a condemnation of the practice.
Well, in no uncertain terms, that's your evasiveness against logical evidence to the contrary.
You CHOOSE not to acknowledge the true Biblical position on homosexuality, despite the abundance of passages, and common themes that run CONSISTENTLY through the Bible, in the contexts of sexual purity, spiritual purity, sexual immorality,phrases "the Bride", "the Whore", ad infinitum. MY ARGUMENT is consistent with recurring Biblical themes. Yours is NOT.
You're missing my point on this. I accept your argument that the Bible has numerous references about homosexuality being a sin. I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm arguing with you on the point that the Bible is open to something other than strict interpretation. And I contend that it has to be considered an allegory, in order to allow Genesis to be acceptable in light of atsrophysics and evolutionary theory.
quote:
And I found your latest characterization rather insulting:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Which is precisely the trap you've allowed yourself to fall into. Allow gays the right to get married in a church, and soon we'll all be sleeping with animals." Its a fallacy, without logic.
I never said this.
You presented it as if that were part of a "logic" argument that I'd written. It is an oversimplified and mocking misrepresentation. I only said that allowing gay marriage, and the legal precedent it would set, would open the door to rights and legal precedents for other sexual/moral abberations. You have attempted to FABRICATE a "slippery slope" in my argument, where one does not exist.
No, I gave an example of a conduct you would considered immoral. You say open condonement would open the door to allowing other sexual/ moral aberrations to be acceptable. This is a slippery slope.
quote:
Similarly, other paraphrases of my opinion, that you have skewed to favor your liberal position, and ridicule/oversimplify my own:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Finally, a concession! So its not just gays, it's heterosexual but promiscuous people who are corruptive. So, I guess promiscuous people are also not allowed to get married in a church?
It's not "finally", I've been proclaiming the same standard for heterosexual and homosexual immorality since this topic began. And it's not a concession, it's what I've been saying over and over and over. Either you're not reading my posts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.
And I never said that "promiscuous people are not allowed to get married in a church". I ALSO never said "gay people are never allowed to get married in a church"[/i]. But I did say that, CONSISTENT WITH BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF FORGIVENESS, AND ALSO BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF SEXUAL PURITY, that they can be forgiven, and begin practicing premarital abstinence in line with Christian pre-marital behavior, and THEN marry in a Christian church.
OK, so non-repentant homosexuals and non-repetant promiscuous heterosexuals are EQUALLY not permitted to get married in a church?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I acknowledge that debate is something of a science, with a set of debate rules. But a courtroom or debate event has an impartial judge (one hopes), and I feel that you're a bised judge in this debate essentially. And that skews the "scientific" rules of debate here.
Let me be clear: I'm not acting as a judge. I'm acting as an adversary (in the non-Biblical sense!). Of course I'm biased. But I'm attacking your arguments on the basis of non-biased logic.
I mean, playing devil's advocate, you could easily use logic to argue against the most vulernable argument presented against you.
1. All people can get married
2. The Christian Church is a place to get married
3. All people includes homosexuals as a subset.
Conclusion: all people can get married in a Church including homosexuals
Except of course only Christians can get married in a Church, not "all people".
quote:
...( for example, you come back again and again and allege that I single out homosexuality but excuse heterosexual immorality, and I've answered AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that the Bible has the same standard for both. And then you come right back and make the same allegation that I single out homosexuality for selective enforcement. Which is simply not true, in your --by all appearances-- deliberate misrepresentation of my views and Bible interpretation. )
That is the topic at hand though - homosexuality. So I keep reverting to it.
quote:
( For a second example, you allege that I say that AIDS/HIV is a gay disease and is proof that homosexuality is immoral. I've come back AGAIN AND AGAIN and explained otherwise, that homosexuality is ONE FORM of immoral behavior that spreads the virus, that it is a manifestation that homosexuality is not a "victimless crime". But each time you come back and allege that I'm ignorantly saying that AIDS is only spread by gays. )
No, I'm trying to ascertain why you are saying AIDS is spread by immoral behaviour, but only gays are targetted as immoral enough not to get married in a Church.
quote:
...Logic, in your subjective opinion, which rejects a spiritual Biblical perspective (i.e., the Bible is inspired by God, and the ultimate authority on human behavior) OUT OF HAND. The subject of Gay marriage is regarding religious faith and Bible interpretation, and the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation is very relevant, and not to be easily dismissed, in any fair and impartial review of the issue. And yet it IS dismissed, so how can you fairly evaluate?
Actually, I've tried to keep my bias against the Bible as a source of authority out of it, and attack your arguments purely on the basis of a lack of logic. Otherwise, I'd have spent more time looking at the source of authority to the Bible. But that would open up another can of worms, and we already have enough worms as it is.
quote:
...My points are dismissed by you arbitrarily, based on a pseudo-factual argument that unquestionably favors your liberal/secular point of view. You're not an impartial judge. And yet you set yourself up as both the prosecution and the judge. That's a loaded verdict.
Its not a "pseudo-factual argument". Its the application of logical principles.
quote:
The cornerstone of my position is the Bible I believe in as a Christian. If not for the Bible, then anything goes, and virtually the entire argument for not allowing gay marriage can be dismissed as "just opinion", and gay marriage would therefore be permissible. Without that clear Biblical standard, then I would probably acquiesce to political correctness, and say "sure, whatever, if you want to."
My argument's cornerstone is the Bible.
OK, so you're arguing from a position of faith, not logic. That's fine.
quote:
And basically, your rules of "logic" instantly reject at the outset that the Bible is a valid basis for opinion, even within the Christian community. (You allege that my opinion is logic by consensus(a.k.a., the "this is how it's always been done." fallacy. You ALLEGE that my opinion is basically a consensus of the ignorant, that just because many people believe it, that doesn't make it true. But in point of fact, my opinion is based on a consensus of Bible scholars, who have translated and approved the NIV, American Standard and King James versions of the Bible, who are familiar with the original greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, who have prepared the study Bibles that are commonly used. It is not a consensus of the ignorant, it is a CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO BEST UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE. By your allegation, if only one person disputes that interpretation, then the consensus of scholars means nothing, no matter how specious and contrived the dissenting single view is. I don't consider that a "logical" standard to use. )
No, my consensus poitn was addressed to your statement that you have met people of all nationalities, and none of them have good things to say about homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong. That is logic by consensus.
quote:
THAT is bias. And is certainly not to be confused with an impartial debate.
Even within the INTERNAL CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE (cross referencing verses for a consistent theme, which I used with my quoted passages), you defy logic and refuse to accept that what the Bible says about homosexuality is consistently and unquestionably a condemnation of the practice.
Well, in no uncertain terms, that's your evasiveness against logical evidence to the contrary.
You CHOOSE not to acknowledge the true Biblical position on homosexuality, despite the abundance of passages, and common themes that run CONSISTENTLY through the Bible, in the contexts of sexual purity, spiritual purity, sexual immorality,phrases "the Bride", "the Whore", ad infinitum. MY ARGUMENT is consistent with recurring Biblical themes. Yours is NOT.
You're missing my point on this. I accept your argument that the Bible has numerous references about homosexuality being a sin. I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm arguing with you on the point that the Bible is open to something other than strict interpretation. And I contend that it has to be considered an allegory, in order to allow Genesis to be acceptable in light of atsrophysics and evolutionary theory.
quote:
And I found your latest characterization rather insulting:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Which is precisely the trap you've allowed yourself to fall into. Allow gays the right to get married in a church, and soon we'll all be sleeping with animals." Its a fallacy, without logic.
I never said this.
You presented it as if that were part of a "logic" argument that I'd written. It is an oversimplified and mocking misrepresentation. I only said that allowing gay marriage, and the legal precedent it would set, would open the door to rights and legal precedents for other sexual/moral abberations. You have attempted to FABRICATE a "slippery slope" in my argument, where one does not exist.
No, I gave an example of a conduct you would considered immoral. You say open condonement would open the door to allowing other sexual/ moral aberrations to be acceptable. This is a slippery slope.
quote:
Similarly, other paraphrases of my opinion, that you have skewed to favor your liberal position, and ridicule/oversimplify my own:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Finally, a concession! So its not just gays, it's heterosexual but promiscuous people who are corruptive. So, I guess promiscuous people are also not allowed to get married in a church?
It's not "finally", I've been proclaiming the same standard for heterosexual and homosexual immorality since this topic began. And it's not a concession, it's what I've been saying over and over and over. Either you're not reading my posts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.
And I never said that "promiscuous people are not allowed to get married in a church". I ALSO never said "gay people are never allowed to get married in a church"[/i]. But I did say that, CONSISTENT WITH BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF FORGIVENESS, AND ALSO BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF SEXUAL PURITY, that they can be forgiven, and begin practicing premarital abstinence in line with Christian pre-marital behavior, and THEN marry in a Christian church.
OK, so non-repentant homosexuals and non-repetant promiscuous heterosexuals are EQUALLY not permitted to get married in a church? This is the concession I thought we had.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I find it hypocritcal (maybe not the exact word I'm looking for) of people who bash Christians and say they're right and we're wrong, they have a right to say what they want, but the second a Christian opens their mouth and defends their faith/belief, they are labled closed minded hatemongers. Yet those that label us that are the "loving ones".
The difference is that I will never argue that you be denied basic freedoms. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. When you 'loving' christians open your mouths in debates like this, it's to deny me mine. Is the difference so hard to see? I believe you have the right to worship God as you see fit, where as you seem to feel that your religious convictions should stand as a valid argument against my freedoms.
The specific point in question here is gay marriage.
Gays have a right to work, date, live together, and otherwise live their lifestyle. Even have some kind of equivalent of marriage, calling it legal union or somesuch. Which gives spousal benefits in a secular/state framework.
The only right they do NOT have is to change the clear Biblical meaning of marriage, and warp the meaning of Christianity, sexual purity, marriage, Biblical terms such as "the Bride", etc., out from under Christians.
Another parallel example I thought of is the Former Yogoslavian province that broke off and named itself Macendonia. Which is very threatening to the Greek province of Macedonia. When you change people's traditions arbitrarily, you're asking for trouble.
When Salmon Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses the Ayatollah put out a contract for his death, because the book, however good or bad, ias arguably a blasphemous attack on the religion of Islam. I certainly don't endorse putting a contract out on Rushdie, I do understand the anger that Muslims felt for someone messing with their religion.
I'll note that The Last Temptation of Christ came out about the same time, and no one put out a contract on its actors, writers and producers. But no doubt, Christians (including myself) felt outrage at the obvious and pointless blasphemies and distortions.
I don't see these as expressions of freedom. I see them as comtemptuously urinating on someone's sacred ground.
Gays attempting to change the meaning of Christianity is not a "freedom". It is a violation of another group's freedom and cultural integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
Actually, CJ brings up a good point - there is a difference between a Christian marriage and a legal marriage. I don't think that there is any problem with a legal marriage between gay couples, however I do think that there is a problem with a Christian gay marriage. With the latter, you would be asking the entire religion to change a core belief to suit the individual. While I am not a devout Jew, I would be hard pressed to be accepting of anything that would alter a core foundation of Judiasm. And it is here that I can understand a Christian being resistant to having gay couples wanting a Christian marriage, as it goes against something so fundamental in the beliefs of Christians. And you can't expect the Church - or any other religion - to change to suit you as an individual.
Thank you so much for posting this. I'm glad to see someone in the Center of this discussion (as opposed to the Left or Right) understands the point I'm making.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
[QUOTE]You must mean me. I've only quoted what the Bible says. As I've said on pretty much every page of this topic, repeatedly, it's NOT my/our judgement. We are all imperfect in different ways (i.e., we are ALL sinners, whether Christians or non-Christians, homosexuals or HETEROsexuals, all are imperfect in the eyes of God.)
I've only clarified what the Bible ITSELF says. I've pointed out the STANDARD, not passed judgement. Judgement is reserved for God alone.
Actually, I didn't mean you specifically. I wrote that without anyone in particualr in mind, but with some of the things I had read two nights ago still in my head - who said what wasn't what I was thinking about. I was trying to respond to Batwoman's comment about Christians defending themselves. My point was only that if Christians (or for that matter, anyone really) called someone something negative, they cannot then be surprised that someone responds by defending themselves. That's all.
However, I do now have a question based on the above comment. You state that this is not your judgment - or rather, a Christian judgment - but just a standard that is established. But the standard sets the bar that people should follow and so it becomes clear that if you do "A" you're good, but if you do "B," then you are not. Yes, that's oversimplifying it, but my question is, isn't that a judgment? And if so, then people following these tenents set by religion do judge based on the standard. Yet, you claim its not your judgment. How can you separate the two?
Dave TWB, I realize that this being the internet tone and inflection are lost, so let me just say that I don't mean this to be rude, I am curious even though it's wandered off the original topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I find it hypocritcal (maybe not the exact word I'm looking for) of people who bash Christians and say they're right and we're wrong, they have a right to say what they want, but the second a Christian opens their mouth and defends their faith/belief, they are labled closed minded hatemongers. Yet those that label us that are the "loving ones".
The difference is that I will never argue that you be denied basic freedoms. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. When you 'loving' christians open your mouths in debates like this, it's to deny me mine. Is the difference so hard to see? I believe you have the right to worship God as you see fit, where as you seem to feel that your religious convictions should stand as a valid argument against my freedoms.
Actually klinton (and everyone else that didn't actually read what I said), if you read what I wrote, you'd see that not once did I say anything about denying you anything. I said Christian bashers, or anyone that just doesn't agree with what we have to say (no matter what that is) can say whatever they want, yet the second a Christian says anything about their faith, or is called to defend their beliefs, they are labled as hatemongers or close minded.
But of course you'd never read what I wrote. Why would you? According to anyone that disagrees with me, I'm a close minded hatemonger who judges everyone because I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, not the person. I've had plenty of homosexual bosses and coworkers and we got along great. Not once did we ever get did they call me close minded or a hatemonger because I'm a Christian. A fact that I never hide, online or offline. When I worked at a dotcom, where about half of my bosses were/are gay, I listened to Christian music all day long, I'd talk about stuff I've done with church groups, etc. Did they every say anything against my faith or me for being a Christian? No.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Should point out there are already gay marriages, it's really a matter of legalizing them.
I don't think anyone has posted saying any churchs should be forced to marry gays. In fact I think everyone has said their against that. Of course there are churchs that would & do marry gays.
Totally can't see how anyone can force morality on somebody. If you could force morality it wouldn't be morality anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
[QUOTE]You must mean me. I've only quoted what the Bible says. As I've said on pretty much every page of this topic, repeatedly, it's NOT my/our judgement. We are all imperfect in different ways (i.e., we are ALL sinners, whether Christians or non-Christians, homosexuals or HETEROsexuals, all are imperfect in the eyes of God.)
I've only clarified what the Bible ITSELF says. I've pointed out the STANDARD, not passed judgement. Judgement is reserved for God alone.
Actually, I didn't mean you specifically. I wrote that without anyone in particualr in mind, but with some of the things I had read two nights ago still in my head - who said what wasn't what I was thinking about. I was trying to respond to Batwoman's comment about Christians defending themselves. My point was only that if Christians (or for that matter, anyone really) called someone something negative, they cannot then be surprised that someone responds by defending themselves. That's all.
I've already re-explained what I said so I wont bother to repeat myself. I will say this, however, not once did I say anything about Christian's bashing anyone, or saying anything negative against anyone. My point was, Christians can't say anything about their faith or beliefs with out someone coming over and calling us closed minded hatemongers, yet anyone that isn't a Christian, or doesn't agree with us, can say whatever they want. Now tell me that's not hypocritical. And before anyone will say I'm lying I'll tell you a true story that happened in my journal.
For those that have never ready my journal, I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian, in fact, I often talk about it and what was said in church or what my church group has done, etc. So one day I did a post that mentioned nothing of Christianity, not the fact that I'm a Christian, not the words Bible or church, nothing, and yet some troll decided to come over, post anonimously(sp) and say something to the extent of how my God hates people, or is wrong, or something. I don't remember what was said exactly, but I did do a screen caputre of it, right after I closed my journal to anoymous(sp)posts which sucked because there are plenty of people that don't have a live journal but read my journal and sometimes post to it. Granted that's a rare time, but still.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
My point was, Christians can't say anything about their faith or beliefs with out someone coming over and calling us closed minded hatemongers, yet anyone that isn't a Christian, or doesn't agree with us, can say whatever they want. Now tell me that's not hypocritical.
I think many people's problems with conservative Christianity is that its a closed shop to "alternative" (but increasingly mainstream) lifestyles: it concentrates more on orthodoxy (the "close-midedness" you refer to) than the pragmatic reality that there are gay Christians, there is science which disproves many aspects of the Bible, and there are problems in the priesthood (not least of which is the right of women to become priests).
In marginalising honorable and decent members of the community, it will eventually become marginalised itself, if indeed this has not already happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Dave, I still feel that, whether deliberately or by misinterpretation, you have not accurately portrayed my views in your counterpoints. I keep seeing interpretations of what I've said that contradict what I've actually said many times in multiple posts. based on that, I don't feel compelled to explain any further. If you want, you can review what I've already written. Because the points you keep raising are ones I've already answered, and I keep repeating what I've already said, which is frustrating because you keep misinterpreting what I said, and paraphrasing it in terms that I think oversimplify or otherwise reinterpret innacurately what I've already said. It's crystal clear what my position is on the points I've answered (again, my parenthetical examples above, for openers, as examples.) I sincerely feel re-reading what I posted previously would be equally productive to my repeating myself. On a minor point: quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
OK, so non-repentant homosexuals and non-repentant promiscuous heterosexuals are EQUALLY not permitted to get married in a church? This is the concession I thought we had.
Gays can get married to persons of the OPPOSITE sex, once they give up sexual immorality, and change to a Bible-based Christian lifestyle.
Heterosexuals who have engaged in premarital/extramarital sex can marry in a church, once they give up sexual immorality and change to a Bible-based Christian lifestyle.
I paraphrased only slightly, but what I've said is exactly the same as in many of my posts where I answered the same question previously. I fail to understand what is so difficult to grasp in this stated position.
You seem to imply each time that they're forever banned by their past or present behavior. Whereas I think it's clear in each time I've posted that once someone changes to a Christian lifestyle, all is forgiven.
And in this hypothetical scenario, I'm speaking of the official view, not what really occurs. Real-life Christian practice is a bit more complicated, in any individual or church. No doubt many in church are having sexual affairs (hetero or homo) and in other ways violating Christian standards.
For some, church is just a social event, and they have no second thought about their extra-Christian sex life.
For others they are having a temporary lapse, and become devout again later.
Some began as devout, and lose faith completely, and leave the Church.
Or possibly just leave spiritually, but still attend for social reasons.
Some are coming from a decadent lifestyle (by Biblical standards), and continue having illicit sex for a while, but eventually become devout, and completely leave their past extra-Biblical life behind.
Which may sound like an unnecessary and common sense thing to point out, but I feel it's relevant to say that I know "faithful" and "unfaithful" is not so cut and dry. There are fluctuations and inner conflicts of right and wrong that each individual has to sort out, and only God can judge fairly.
It's not for me to say "This one stays, this one goes..."
We're speaking hypothetically and ideally about certain isolated specified situations, and what the Bible/Christianity specifies as the appropriate Christian standard for conciliation with God and the Church.
But recognizing that daily struggles with religious purity by any given individual can have many lapses, and that said person, after many mistakes, can still be faithful in the end, shouldn't be a rationalization for just letting slide someone's daily immorality, over days, years, or a lifetime. There have to be standards to adhere to, or why have Christian faith at all? I advocate the standard and the ideal, while recognizing the reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
My point was, Christians can't say anything about their faith or beliefs with out someone coming over and calling us closed minded hatemongers, yet anyone that isn't a Christian, or doesn't agree with us, can say whatever they want. Now tell me that's not hypocritical.
I think many people's problems with conservative Christianity is that its a closed shop to "alternative" (but increasingly mainstream) lifestyles: it concentrates more on orthodoxy (the "close-midedness" you refer to) than the pragmatic reality that there are gay Christians, there is science which disproves many aspects of the Bible, and there are problems in the priesthood (not least of which is the right of women to become priests).
In marginalising honorable and decent members of the community, it will eventually become marginalised itself, if indeed this has not already happened.
To my knowledge, Cathlics are the only ones that deny women the right to become priests. Granted I've never seen a female pastor myself, but I have never once heard anything from any of the pastors at any of the churches I've attended in my life, that have said women can't beome pastors. And those problems in the priesthood you keep speaking of, is again the Catholic faith. If you insist on trying to point out that what I have to say is wrong, that I suggest you get your facts right before you post. Sorry if that came across as short or harsh, it wasn't meant to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I think many people's problems with conservative Christianity is that its a closed shop to "alternative" (but increasingly mainstream) lifestyles: it concentrates more on orthodoxy (the "close-midedness" you refer to) than the pragmatic reality that there are gay Christians, there is science which disproves many aspects of the Bible, and there are problems in the priesthood (not least of which is the right of women to become priests).
I disagree with all these points. To answer them:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I think many people's problems with conservative Christianity is that its a closed shop to "alternative" (but increasingly mainstream) lifestyles: it concentrates more on orthodoxy (the "close-midedness" you refer to) than the pragmatic reality that there are gay Christians...
1. Christianity is open to all who will believe. Those who violate Biblical teachings are, by definition, non-believers. It's the choice of those who break the Biblical law of Christian behavior, not the Christians or the God who live by them.
Your example is like saying that it's society's fault that an armed robber is in prison for 25 years, not the fact that he held up a liquor store and shot someone. "Society is hateful for putting him in prison, why do they have to enforce the laws?" Because those are the rules of society, and if you do not obey those rules, you are excluded for the good of all who believe in and obey the rules. Those who don't obey destroy it with actions and counter-ideology. Every organization and culture has to have rules and a standardized ideology to preserve itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:... there is science which disproves many aspects of the Bible...
2. Calls into question perhaps, but not disproves. As I said earlier, there are a number of books that explore the archaological and historical evidence for the Bible and its accuracy.
For all we know, the universe could have been created in 7 days.
I've read news articles in the recent past that confirm Biblical statements about the time of the fall of Jericho, that the Biblically prescribed number of days after birth for an infant's circumcision coincides with the most recent biological findings of when an infant's blood development makes him physically ready for that ritual, the forseen "army in the east" of 300 million men, which is foretold, and China now boasts a reserve of exactly that number. And that there are plans for damming of the river Euphrates, exactly as predicted for the end times, that would make an invasion of Israel possible from the far East.
So who is to say that the world wasn't created in 7 days?
My attitude on this fact has been, despite the fact that it doesn't seem possible with my present knowledge, that it should be taken as literal until proven beyond a doubt to be only symbolic. For me, the Bible and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hold them as two theories, until one can be proven absolutely over the other.
But science has not disproven the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave: ....and there are problems in the priesthood (not least of which is the right of women to become priests).
3. I don't see women as priests as a major problem. Many are now Protestant pastors. There's no moral issue there. That will continue to develop very quickly, I think. It is far different from the gay marriage issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
In marginalising honorable and decent members of the community, it [the Christian church] will eventually become marginalised itself, if indeed this has not already happened.
4. I don't think the Christian church marginalizes anyone. It is open to all who will believe, as I said.
If you change the rules of a volleyball club to rules of basketball, you no longer have a volleyball club. It has become a basketball club, by any other name.
The same thing with Christianity.
It should not be expected to change its teachings which have worked just fine for over 2000 years, just because non-Christians want to re-make it in their own secular humanist image.
Using the example of gays:
It is HATEFUL of Christianity to expect gays to change, to Biblical laws of morality.
And yet it is NOT hateful for gays to expect Christianity to change, to conform to the gay concept of "morality".
That's quite a double standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
How strange--- Dave actually behaving like a halfway decent, sensitive fellow. Mucho weird.
I'm sure this rosey, heartfelt, and somewhat reasonable (for Dave, anyway) post makes up for all the other ugly, insulting, and down-right shitty things you had to say about homosexuals. Right? You didn't mean to sound so judgemental, hateful, and "strident" in all those other posts--- ya just got so carried away with your cold-blooded scripture-quoting that you forgot that these people were living, feeling human beings with just as much right to their religious faith as you. Right? Riiiiiight.
You really take the cake, Davey.
All I've EVER said here was to quote Biblical scripture to clarify what it truly says, and in what context. A high level of denial and disinformation has forced me to dwell on scripture longer than I wanted to.
It is not "hateful" to clarify what the truth is. Nothing ugly, nothing insulting. These are just more slanderous emotional labels that you're well known for here.
( I find it wildly funny that you could accuse ANYONE else of being "ugly" and "insulting", given the foulness and vitriol you spew in just about every post. )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Dave,
I still feel that, whether deliberately or by misinterpretation, you have not accurately portrayed my views in your counterpoints.
That is called a "strawman" argument, and is a very unfair way to debate: I don't think I've done that, but have merely tried to get at the crux of what you've been saying.
quote:
On a minor point:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
OK, so non-repentant homosexuals and non-repentant promiscuous heterosexuals are EQUALLY not permitted to get married in a church? This is the concession I thought we had.
Gays can get married to persons of the OPPOSITE sex, once they give up sexual immorality, and change to a Bible-based Christian lifestyle.
Heterosexuals who have engaged in premarital/extramarital sex can marry in a church, once they give up sexual immorality and change to a Bible-based Christian lifestyle.
I paraphrased only slightly, but what I've said is exactly the same as in many of my posts where I answered the same question previously. I fail to understand what is so difficult to grasp in this stated position.
You seem to imply each time that they're forever banned by their past or present behavior. Whereas I think it's clear in each time I've posted that once someone changes to a Christian lifestyle, all is forgiven.
Yes, you've made this plain. What I was trying to get at is that the promiscuous heterosexual and the homosexual are treated differently in your paradigm - which you have refuted. You say you have to have overcome your heterosexual promiscuity before being allowed to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
My point was, Christians can't say anything about their faith or beliefs with out someone coming over and calling us closed minded hatemongers, yet anyone that isn't a Christian, or doesn't agree with us, can say whatever they want. Now tell me that's not hypocritical.
I think many people's problems with conservative Christianity is that its a closed shop to "alternative" (but increasingly mainstream) lifestyles: it concentrates more on orthodoxy (the "close-midedness" you refer to) than the pragmatic reality that there are gay Christians, there is science which disproves many aspects of the Bible, and there are problems in the priesthood (not least of which is the right of women to become priests).
In marginalising honorable and decent members of the community, it will eventually become marginalised itself, if indeed this has not already happened.
To my knowledge, Cathlics are the only ones that deny women the right to become priests. Granted I've never seen a female pastor myself, but I have never once heard anything from any of the pastors at any of the churches I've attended in my life, that have said women can't beome pastors. And those problems in the priesthood you keep speaking of, is again the Catholic faith. If you insist on trying to point out that what I have to say is wrong, that I suggest you get your facts right before you post. Sorry if that came across as short or harsh, it wasn't meant to.
Fortunately for the two of us, I get may facts straight. The only place in the world a woman can be an Anglican/Protestant priest right now is in Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
