Sorry Shanebaum:
I felt sure you ment the ninth circuit court of appeals. The one that belongs to the Anti-Christ Legal Underwriters.
Sorry Shanebaum:
I felt sure you ment the ninth circuit court of appeals. The one that belongs to the Anti-Christ Legal Underwriters.
Really? I don't remember choosing to be heterosexual. It was simply there. I don't know anyone (hetero or homo) who felt they had the option of choosing. And homosexual behavior is common in other species.Originally Posted by Shutterbug
And you of course have the corner on what God (or if you prefer GOD, capitals make a difference?) wants, right? How fortunate for you.
Actually my religion (Roman Catholic) accepts evolution, including the Pope. Which is why it is taught in Catholic schools. I have heard the Pope called a lot of things, but "village idiot" is a new one. Funny he always struck me as an extraordinarily intelligent fellow. Perhaps he lacks your expertise in "monkeyology".
No, but thanks for helping me demonstrate to Pete what I was referring to, about the belief in the persecution of Christians in America being part of right-wing doctrine.
Your argument that laws that are made just because "people are willing to legally suppress the activities of other people because they do not approve of them or find them distasteful" are legitimate, and you support their validity. Were laws allowing slavery OK with you? Were German laws restricting the rights of jews, and forcing them to live in ghettos OK with you?
It amazes me how ready you are to equate the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry with slavery and/or the build up to the Holocaust. Rather than dignifying your comments with an answer, I'll leave it up to whatever you feel to believe regarding whether I'm in favor of slavery or killing millions of innocent people.
As for Shanbaum, I'm sure even you believe in the correctness of some laws which are based on the common perception of morality (I mean, unless you are for public nudity, pornography on our nationwide networks, etc.). In effect then, your apparent contempt for anyone who is against the concept of making a homosexual relationship a legally recognized family unit is equivalent to saying that you should be the sole determiner of just what morality is. That is, the moral laws of which you approve are just- but ones which you disapprove of are unjust. Wow, what a heavy burden to bear.
Ironically enough, I find myself playing devil's advocate (quite literally, actually) on an issue I actually don't feel that strongly on. Frankly, for all the animosity this issue brings, I wish homosexual marriage would just be legalized so we can all get over ourselves. The reason I felt compelled to comment is due to the fact that most of the other conservatives on this forum seem driven to cram their feet deeper and deeper in their mouths (which irks me more than you frequently funny- but even more frequently patronizing and annoying- bits of sarcasm).
Anyway, if you will do us all the kindness of laying out exactly what everyone's morality should be, perhaps we can all save a lot of time for everyone and get into a right frame of thinking. For Christ's sake- some people feel homosexuality is wrong (in fact, most people). Calling them stupid- even when they act accordingly- isn't a form of argument. Its just another form of ignorance.
There, I think I've about dissed everyone equally now...
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
The sentiment is the same: If enough people agree, even if the reason is mere distastefulness, then a law is valid in your eyes. I take the point to a ludicrous degree only to illustrate how wrong that concept is.
I think that's what the right wing is doing. I don't want to speak for Shanbaum, but it seems that he is not making a moral judgement on same gender marriage, he is speaking out against those who support discriminating against a segment of our population. Correct me, if I'm wrong, Robert.
I may have said this before, Pete: That's very liberal of you. And it's the whole point. Just let them do it, already!
I think Bush and his buddies feel that it's their job to tell us what our morality should be, from the way they try to legislate.
I think killing is wrong, and I don't want Americans to be killed, yet our country is at war and our soldiers are being killed every day. Maybe I should lobby for a constitutional amendment banning war.:hammer:For Christ's sake- some people feel homosexuality is wrong (in fact, most people). Calling them stupid- even when they act accordingly- isn't a form of argument. Its just another form of ignorance.
There, I think I've about dissed everyone equally now...
Pete said:
The reason I felt compelled to comment is due to the fact that most of the other conservatives on this forum seem driven to cram their feet deeper and deeper in their mouths (which irks me more than you frequently funny- but even more frequently patronizing and annoying- bits of sarcasm).
So we cram our feet deeper and deeper in our mouths. Unbelievable especially from Pete.:hammer:
Spexvet, with that in mind, you said this to Chip in post #97 of the Kennedy thread:If you think that there are times when war is unavoidable, then we can infer that you do NOT think killing is always wrong... therefore, you shouldn't lobby for a constitutional amendment banning war. [Anyway, I realize you were just using an analogy to make a point.]
Well, there are Christians who are Christian in name only, and there are Christians who actually follow Jesus' teachings. Your claim that Jesus loved every one regardless of their conduct is true, but Jesus would NEVER approve of wrong conduct, even on the part of religious leaders and the government of his day. He grew violent in the temple when the money changers were bilking the poor. He strongly rebuked Peter when he tried to dissuade him from following his appointed destiny to trade his life for ours, and he would not accept Judas' greed and theft from the money slated for the poor. He also admonished the apostles on many occasions about their hunger for status and glory, and their bickering amongst themselves. He would not associate with wrongdoers who refused to change, and was staunchly opposed to his fathers' enemy Satan and would not tolerate his hostile attempts to catch him off guard and ruin his chances of success in his most important endeavor. He openly called him and his followers liars, and added that Satan was the father of the lie.Also, I love this whole Christianity thing. I will point out anyone here, because I do not personally know any of you, but I do find it funny that in the World that so many Christians know absolutely nothing about Christianity. I have been a Christian all of my life and have followed the ways of Jesus. Christianity is about loving they neighbour and doing onto others as you would expect others to do onto you. Christianity can be summed up in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I know in the Old Testament that the Lord was a vengeful Lord, and I know that Moses brought in a lot of new laws, some which incorporated anti-homosexual laws; however, I ask you to look at Jesus, as he offers a different perspective. If homosexuality was such an evil sin then why didn't Jesus speak up against it? Christianity is not about being the right religion, fighting those who oppose it, killing sinners, or being better than everyone else. Christianity is about being riotous, loving everyone no matter what they do, forgiveness, and being a down right good person.
Clearly, love and tolerance are different things.
Oh, one more point. Your reference to the scripture in Jon 8.7 is a common one, but that scripture does not appear in the oldest surviving texts. There is strong evidence that it was added later by an over-zealous scribe or possibly added to help prove a line of thinking that was popular at the time. Regardless of the reason, it was added and so not included in proper scripture cannon. The better translations now leave it out altogether, or change the color or prints size with footnotes about it's doubtful place in inspired scripture. Just FYI :)
You might also consider these teachings, recorded by Jesus' closest students and later trusted to act as Jesus' spokesmen:
Rom. 1:24-27: “God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”
1 Tim. 1:9-11: “Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God.” (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)
Jude 7: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word “sodomy,” which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)
Your claim that Jesus did not hate the sinners is valid. However, he DID hate the sinful conduct and was concerned with the attitudes that lead people into slaving for sin and eventually losing their chances of living in his Kingdom.
He pitied their ignorance and tried during the entire 3 1/2 years of his ministry on earth to teach them the differences between sinful and righteous conduct and how important it is to live in accord with accurate knowledge.
The point is clear. We can easily be deceived and NEED help to "walk in integrity". I'm sure that Jesus is greatly saddened to see what we've become.
Contempt? Show me where I've shown contempt for "anyone who is against the concept of making a homosexual relationship a legally recognized family unit". Nor have I called anyone stupid, especially not you.
I agree that this issue can be couched in terms of liberty rights versus morality. As the question was phrased in Bowers (roughly) - does the Constitution protect the right of people to engage in sodomy?
I think the answer to that question - loaded as it was - should be "yes", because as was held in Lawrence, the state doesn't have a compelling interest to - as I would put it - abrogate that right. I believe that we should start with liberty as a fundamental postulate, and work from there - which is what makes me a liberal, in the classic meaning of the term.
And I would also agree that moral relativism is a heavy burden to bear - it requires people to search for answers to moral questions, rather than accept doctrine prepared by others - doctrine which, I would argue, arose from the same kinds of searches, just done by other people, usually in the distant past. That is, I reject the notion that a series of men who lived long ago actually had more of a connection to the divine than do you or I. That's not to say they have nothing to contribute. It just means that their contributions are the contributions of men, not gods.
By the way, I was glad to see you mention public nudity as something presumptively immoral. I'm reminded of Scalia's dissent, where he says (in not so many words), "if we can't prohibit homosexual behavior, we can't prohibit masturbation." If you ever get to visit the Mediterranean coast of France and Spain, you'll find that there is in fact disagreement about the immorality of public nudity. As for masturbation - what do you think, Pete? Should the state have the power to prohibit masturbation, or not?
I'm well aware that there are lots of people who think homosexuality is wrong, and I don't think that they are stupid or contemptible for believing that. I do think (and I acknowledge that I could be wrong) that most people who believe that, believe it for religious reasons. They are certainly entitled to do that, just as they're entitled to engage in activities in opposition to its practice. When, however, there is an attempt to use the power of the state to enforce religious belief in suppression of a liberty right, I will, at the very least, bristle in opposition - until convinced of the necessity and reasonableness of that suppression - and by that, I mean to establish a high bar.
It could be. See we have to understand that the New Testament is almost 2000 years old, and the Old Testament, or Torah, is even older. Throughout that time the words in the bible have been passed down through absolute powers who have most likely manipulated parts of the bible to help support their cause. The Bible is a wonderful resource, but has to be read with an open mind and spirt. Do we know exactly what has happened, the truths, and the real stories? No. What we have to do is look at the bible as a bases of values and togetherness. The problem is that many people pick something small out of the bible and use it as the end all to everything without considering the bible as a whole. Many things said in the Old Testament were later put to rest by Jesus.
Therefore, I have always questioned, and so have many religious powers, if homosexuality is really considered a sin or not. While I look at the values of the bible as a whole to me it would not be because what Jesus has said and what the true ten commandments say do not reflect the same bases.
While that is an interesting speculation and an easy way to salve a conscience the truth is that the oldest copies we have of the new testament were completed around the first century (a hundred year window - very close to original). Comparisons of what we have now with what is contained in the oldest writings are VERY close, with only minor pronuciation marks, and things like that marring their "purity". One would have to assume that God has the ability to preserve his writings intact and govern their translation and would use that power if life and death are really involved for us individually.It could be. See we have to understand that the New Testament is almost 2000 years old, and the Old Testament, or Torah, is even older. Throughout that time the words in the bible have been passed down through absolute powers who have most likely manipulated parts of the bible to help support their cause. The Bible is a wonderful resource, but has to be read with an open mind and spirt. Do we know exactly what has happened, the truths, and the real stories? No. What we have to do is look at the bible as a bases of values and togetherness. The problem is that many people pick something small out of the bible and use it as the end all to everything without considering the bible as a whole. Many things said in the Old Testament were later put to rest by Jesus.
Another interesting scriptural observation is made at 1 Cor. 6:9-11: “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.” (Regardless of such a background, if persons now abandon their former unclean practices, apply righteous standards, and exercise faith in his provision for forgiveness of sins through Christ, they can enjoy a clean standing before God.)
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including those that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want to please God. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the past they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God’s will, the desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation, he can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by heeding the counsel of God’s Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices.
Except drunkeness affects others, violence affects others, but homosexuality doesn't.
Think about the spread of disease. For AIDS, it might be 10 years before the carrier even knows he has it. During that time he (or she) may infect countless other unsuspecting persons. There are certainly victims of homosexuality, even as there are of alcoholism, violence and fornication. We can't pass this off as a victimless activity. There are also emotional scars and even physical maladies associated with the practice. Often even "consenting" adults don't think about what they may be consenting to! This is dangerous activity than should be avoided.
Before we state that Jesus loves and forgives everyone and everything. He did not forgive or pardon Judas or the "other" thief on the cross. And do not forget what Jesus is to do on his return. I believe it is written, He shall come not as a Lamb but as a Lion and he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
Note: No where is it written he shall come to forgive the quick and the dead.
Chip
With that same theory we can condem hetrosexuality for passing off other STD's.
I thought :hammer:would indicate that I was not serious. Could you imagine a constitutional ban on war? Not likely, and not smart.
Did Jesus force people to act the way He wanted them to? He showed them the way. He taught them. He informed them of the consequences of not heeding His teaching. I can't remember Him making laws, or enforcing laws, or "excommunicating" those who did not follow. IMHO, He would be against a constitutional ban of same gender marriage.
A point I keep trying to remind our preachers when they are looking for "volunteers". Jesus never asked anyone to do anything. He told them what to do.
Indeed. I knew you weren't serious about the constitutional ban on war, but I wasn't completely sure about the "I think killing is wrong (regardless of context)" part. If you want to rile people up, use the issue of flag burning in your next analogy.
:bbg: :D :bbg: :D
Doesn't informing them of the consequences inply law? And in view of what his closest students said above, of COURSE he would ban same gender marriage. The law would come from HIS Kingdom, not another government - but the law is valid. :oDid Jesus force people to act the way He wanted them to? He showed them the way. He taught them. He informed them of the consequences of not heeding His teaching. I can't remember Him making laws, or enforcing laws, or "excommunicating" those who did not follow. IMHO, He would be against a constitutional ban of same gender marriage.
I can't speak for Him, but I feel sure that Jesus would not only support a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, I feel sure that he would condem those who engage in such practices to Hell.
Analogy: A student is having a behavior problem in school. His parent tells the student "You need to behave in school. Watch how I behave, and behave the way I behave when you are in school. That's the way I behaved when I was in school. If you don't behave, you'll be expelled." The parent does not make the law, and doesn't enforce the law.
What His closest students said is what His closest students said, not what's in the Gospel. IMHO, it's risky to assume that what they said is what He thought or wanted. It could be that they were wrong in their interpretation of Him, or had their own feelings on the matter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks