If it is one of the most frustrating things I have never been able to comprehend from those on the "Left", is why and how, on God's great and green earth they are absolutley incapable of learning from other's grievious mistakes. How utterly stupid, ridiculous, and redundant is implementing that which has already proven itself to be a dismal failure and a contributing factor to moral decay and societal justice breakdown in a civilisation.
Yet such is par for the course when we discuss the insanity of the "Left". These are the people who make the self righteous, and I might I add, very humble claims of their "Forward thinking" ways which somehow make them the great purveyors of the "Progressive" movement in the further evolvement of their world of delusional Utopia.
When we discuss the moral politics of any nation the "Left" proclaims that issues such as "reproductive freedom" and "gay marriage" are just yet another advancement of their forward thinking policies to complete acceptance of diversity. Including different morality and value issues. After all, they argue, it is about human rights! The "Right" is often accused of being stuck in the stone ages. Unwilling to come out of their rut's. The "Right" is quite often labelled as bigoted (and my personal favourite) intolerant!
Often the "Left" will point out how abortions and gay marriage will not have any detrimental effect on society and that things will continue on as they always have once people become accustomed to it. As "Progressively forward thinking" and left leaning Sun media columnist Lyn Cockburn points out in a recent article she did about Canada's first two same sex RCMP couple "tying the knot" (Oh yay :p):
"Their nuptials will constitute the first ever same-sex marriage in RCMP history."
"As much as there is an ongoing controversy about same-sex marriage, this is also a matter of firsts"
"In every case (regarding first's), there was an outcry, a sense of outrage, however muffled, however loud."
"The firsts go on and on, dragging prejudice, controversy and condescension with them.
Until, that is, we get bored with them. We are no longer surprised or even interested that the cop is a woman (for example)...."
First (no pun intended) off, who cares what their occupation is? The men in question are not the first gay couple to marry. Secondly, Canada is not the first country to introduce this unneccessary insult to human rational by re-defining marriage. The continued mantra chant of the "Left" is that morality issue's such as abortion and same sex marriage are basic human rights.
Here is what the "Left" ignores, turns a blind eye towards, and a deaf ear. Many of these social issue's have already been tried by other nations and are going exactly the direction that us "stone age" conservatives said they would go.
Let's just observe the trend here in Canada and where we are heading. When Liberals introduced the legalisation of abortion decades ago they came in on the platform that this procedure was only going to be legal in cases where the patient's and/or babies life was at risk or in cases of rape or incest.
Conservative thinker's said that this would lead to de-valuing human life and eventually this procedure would be treated as just another form of convienient birth control. Liberals in their grand foresight of utopia said that would never happen.
So let's see just how far we have come under these "Progressive" thinkers.
Last year in Canada over 400,000 women became pregnant. Of those 400,000 plus women who were impregnated, over 106,000 of those babies lost their live's in the abortion mills of our "Progressive" nation. All in the name of "reproductive freedom" and the "Right" to choose. Of those 106,000 lives that were snuffed out, an astounding 103,880 WERE NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY! What a "Forward thinking" way to build a nation with a future. Conservative forecast was bang on!
Of course we are now dealing with same sex marriage and where it will lead our nation in the future. Liberals see this as a "progressive" move in our country like they are the first ones to ever come up with the idea. They stubbornly refuse to look at other nations who have implemented these policies and are paying a heavy price "All in the name of human rights". Conservatives, including myself, have said that re-defineing marriage will open up Pandora's box to many different groups wanting to redefine marriage to suit their sexual preference's and lifestyle. This would include polygamist's, pedophiles, incestous relationships, and even those who practice beastiality.
Just to further back my point, in the comments section of my October 15, 2005 entry titled "I am not an animal", I respond to a fellow blogger regarding same sex marriage with the following qoute:
" allowing legislation to reflect what some may consider the norm is just another part of the slippery slope. Many sexual practises will start lining up at Parliaments gates such as the polyigamists, incestous parents, and pedophiles. They will eventually use the same argument about how natural it is for them. I know that may sound far fetched but don't forget that 12 short years ago when homosexuals were fighting for same sex benefits the very same Liberals in power today were the ones who said yesterday that those benefits would not lead to redefining marriage. I am quite convinced that polygamy will be the next thing on the Liberals agenda of forced acceptance of unnatural sexual lifestyles. (Should they remain in power)"
Sound far fetched to you? Think it would never happen here...or any where for that matter. For the record, polygamist's are now starting to line up in Alberta for their "right" to be married to more then one woman. But it goes even further then that. The "progresive forward thinking" nations of our ever expanding world of Tolerance, Acceptance, and Diversity" head down an even darker path that is so twisted and sick.
One of the most "Progressive and Forward thinking" Nations in the world today is the Netherlands. So progressive are they that prostitution, marijuanna, abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are ALL legal. Once again all in the name of human "Rights". So what is the next step for such a progressive nation to lead us into the future by setting their fine example of human dignity and morality?
How about what I and every other "Stone age" conservative have already forecast. A new political party has emerged known as the Charity Freedom and Diversity Party. Their platform? Quite straight forward. (qoutes taken from every blinking newsite off the web)
"The NVD is Europe's first political party dedicated to promoting and legitimizing pedophilia."
My, how Progressive. Let me guess, because it is about the "RIGHTS" of the children. Am I far off?
" The newly formed Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party of the Netherlands has introduced itself to Dutch politics as a champion of children's rights and has vowed, "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
Yep, I was right. Good to see they put the children first by looking out for their "Rights". So what exactly are these perveted pigs looking for in their agenda of children's human rights? Well keep on reading:
" a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals" (They eventually would like to see consensual age done away with completely)
"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper." He goes on to say "We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion,"
"The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed"
" It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening."
"Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal" (I was unaware an animal could even consent to sex in the first place!)
"The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.
This, my FORWARD THINKING AND PROGRESSIVE LEFTWING NUT friends is what happens when marriage has no direct reference or definition. It is the end result when sexual "Rights" trump everything that is common sense and dencency. Just ask Belgian child rapist, Marc Dutroux, who I am sure will be one of the NVD's biggest party supporter's.
We "Stone age" Right wing Conservatives have said for decades that this is the dark path liberalism would lead us down but apparently we were just too narrow minded and intolerant in our views. It can and will happen over here if forward thinking liberals continue to allow countries like the Netherlands to be their example.
And the final question...will the Charity Freedom and Diversity party get their official party status? YES!!! Of course they will. They have RIGHTS you know.
Until next time...
72 comments:
Some people more unkind then myself, might mistake your post as a homophobic rant. It doesn't matter if you love someone of the same sex or opposite sex, if you are a jerk you will be a jerk no matter what sex you marry. Who you choose to have sex with shouldn't even be a concern of anyone else, just because you have relations with the opposite sex does not automatically make you a better person.
lucyp...
it doesn't automatically make you a better person but it's a good start. heehee j/k
Why does not agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle make someone homophobic?
Who you choose to have sex with shouldn't be a concern to anyone else?? WHat about pedophiles?
Lucyp:
Since I do not recognise the name I will welcome you as a first time visitor. Allow me to address your comment, which I might add, I do appreciate regardless of whether or not you agree with the posting.
-"Some people more unkind then myself, might mistake your post as a homophobic rant."
Of course they would. That would be those who do not take the time to read the article in it's entirety and try to comprehend exactly what it is I am trying to address.
These would also be individuals who cannot see past their own "blur of red" and absolutley insist you see things their way in order to be considered a TOLERANT individual in society. As long as you agree with them, your acceptable. But if you dare to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle you are automatically labelled a homophobe. Even though you do not hold any "hate" towards them. You simply disagree.
Last time I checked, disagreeing is still allowed in a civilised democratic society and is recognised as a fundemental right without fear of reprecussion!(or name calling) :)
If someone does misconstrue this and has unkind words towards myself, let them rant! They display their own hypocritcal intolerance towards those with a differing view. Provided they do not go on some swearing, name calling tirade, I will even let their comment remain on this site.
I am always open and eager to differing views. Funny isn't it?
Because I am the one who still get's labelled as the close minded, bigoted, homophobic, INTOLERANT ONE
-" It doesn't matter if you love someone of the same sex or opposite sex"
I agree. As a hetrosexual male I can attest that there are many men in my life that I deeply love and express that verbally to them without any inhibitions. I just do not have sex with them in order to prove it. Nonetheless, I still love them.
-" Who you choose to have sex with shouldn't even be a concern of anyone else"
Again I agree. If two men or two women want to engae in sex, although I do not recognise it as a natural or Godly union, I do recognise that it is their choice to make. This I would not interfere with.
It is when sexual lifestyles decide they have the "Right" to redefine terminology that has serious impact's on the lives of other's and ESPECIALLY where children are directly affected.
The posting address's the negative impact that redefineing marriage is already having. (Which you do not seem to acknowledge)
If two people of the same sex want to have sex, then I agree with you that it is their personal business, but when they feel that because they engage in this chosen lifestyle that they are now "entitled" to marriage because it is their "right" is where the lines now get blurred.
As the point of the article is revealing, when you start to redefine marriage for another sexual lifestyle outside the hetrosexual union, you now open the floodgates for "other" more deviant practises to flood the courts as well as the political spectrum and much like children they will charge:
"Well if the homosexuals can now marry then why can't us polygamist's, pedophiles, (and so on) marry?"
-"just because you have relations with the opposite sex does not automatically make you a better person."
Could you please point out in my article where I actually state this. What is the purpose of this statement?
This comment is more dirivative of a typical "Left" wing tactic to try and deflect the attention away from the obvious error in redefining marriage by trying to make the messenger (that would be me) look like he is putting him/herself on some pedestal.
In fact, let's not address the issue at hand that pedophiles are now lining up to have sex with our children because "progressive forward thinking" left leaning Liberals want to open marriage up to everyone because "Everybody" has "Rights" when it comes to sex.
Instead let's not admit that the "left" has once again embrassed themselves with this dumbass idea. Instead let us try and make the "Righty" who exposed it....well...look like he is just an arrogant bubblehead who "thinks he/she is better then everyone else because he/she is a hetro!"
I would encourage you, Lucyp, to address the issue at hand.
Pedophiles, thru politics and "Rights", want to make it legal to rape children and animals. All because of the redefinition marriage which is a "left wing" idea. That was the intent of the article.
If someone cannot see that, then they are clearly in denial of the obvious.
Haksaw:
Nice to hear from you. Always appreciate your comments.
Intolerant One,
telling it as it is! Great!
I should memorize this text haha! Whenever i get the question why i don't support gay marriage i just can't motivate it except by saying God didn't intend it. Which should be enough... but not for tolerant people.
Gonna learn this rant now...
Hi Haksaw, thank you for the greeting and a well articulated reply, it is nice to not to have to wade through swearwords as is usual on some other blogs.
The first line of my comment was not a back handed dig at you in anyway, i was just literally saying that some people could mistake your piece as a homophobic rant. No slight intended.
Public opinion, i would hope, will not allow more deviant types of marraiges. Homosexual marraiges are still banned under many religions and in many peoples eyes it is wrong and it has been a slow process to where we are today as people have became more accepting of homosexuals and their rights which they rightly have as their are laws governing age of consent as there are in straight relationship laws. I can't believe people will ever tolerate pedophilia and these perverts would more likely be lynched then accepted. It is illegal so there are no laws governing it so therefore no rights.
The "just because you have relations with the opposite sex does not automatically make you a better person" bit was just me saying that it doesnt matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual, your sexuality does not make you a good person or a bad person, your personality and how you treat others does that.
If society ever accepted pedophiles in any form then i would be beside you waving a banner, but i hope that they will stay in prison and away from children where they belong.
To sum up..i do not see the allowing of homosexual marraiges opening any flood gates as society would not allow it, and if it did could i lend a banner off you?
Lucyp
Divorce is just as wicked of a practice as gay marriage.
Lucyp:
Upon reading your response I think you mistook me for haksaw whom I addressed right after you. It may have appeared as though Haksaw signed it. Sorry for the confusion.
If I may continue our dialogue with my further response:
-" it is nice to not to have to wade through swearwords as is usual on some other blogs"
I agree. Those "other blogs" are just liberals posing as conservatives. (LOL)
"The first line of my comment was not a back handed dig at you in anyway. I was just literally saying that some people could mistake your piece as a homophobic rant. No slight intended."
I never took it that way. I am well aware of those who would take it that way. As I tried to explain, those are individuals who simply refuse to accept that not everybody is in agreement with their views. They read about 4 lines of a post and draw conclusions without reading the post in it's entirety and looking deeper into what is actually being said.
It is easier for them to rant and rave how bigoted, intolerant, blah, blah, blah, I am because I do not agree wit them. Mature isn't it?
" I can't believe people will ever tolerate pedophilia and these perverts would more likely be lynched then accepted."
I can't believe they would either but the reality is that they already are. Remember that these yahoo's are actually being considered for party status. So what does that tell you what direction we are heading?
"I do not see the allowing of homosexual marraiges opening any flood gates as society would not allow it"
I realise you do not see it which is why I wrote the piece in the first place. Most people believe the whole "marriage" issue is now put to rest and has eneded with the gay community.
Remember society 15 years ago would not allow gay marriage yet here we are today. So what makes you think that the pedophiles and incestous parents won't have their day another 15 years from now?.
For the record*** Even though (gay marriage) is legal I do not believe the majority are accepting of it otherwise why it would not still be such an emotional issue.
As I pointed out in my article and previous qoutes, is that other sexual practises WILL begin to line up to have their RIGHTS addressed. It is not a matter of IF the floodgates will open, I am pointing out that they are already wide open and flooding over. It has begun and that is what was forecast by those opposed and that is what the "left" will not acknowledge.
Hope to have you continue to visit lucyp.
Lotus born:
Another first time visitor. How did you people hook up with me? Just curious. I welcome you anyway and hope you will continue to visit.
" think that you are a good (insightful, thoughtful) voice for "intolerance".
That has to be the most nicest, sincerest form of "intolerance" I have ever been called. Thank you!
"As for gay marriage, I think that there is no comparison between adult people of the same sex who are in a loving relationship and want to create a legal household and enjoy the basic civil rights that married people do"
Homosexuals have already been enjoying those civil liberties since the early nineties. Here in Canada that is. They have been able to enjoy ALL the same benefits and rights as a married couple. Because of this there was never any need to redefine marriage. they had it all already.
"There is absolutely no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia or people who abuse animals sexually. To say that to legalize gay marriage we encourage the legitimization and legalization of these abusive sexual behaviours"
I never stated or even insuated that there was a connection although in all fairness that does not mean that there never is in some cases.
I disagree that it does not encourage the legitmisation. Again, the whole point of my article was that marriage at one point was simply defined as one man one woman. You now have homosexuals come along and say that because they do not practise hetrosexual relations but still have "love" they too are entitled to marriage.
Now we have polygamist's, pedophiles, and other deviant sexual lifestyles saying the identical thing. It is in that manner that, YES, you have encouraged it in an indirect manner.
It is only a matter of time before you start to see these people become more bold and brazen about it.
"I doubt the NVD party will be able to legitimately run in the Dutch elections next year."
Care to wager? Remember this is a progressively forward thinking nation. And don't forget, as is the usual mantra chant, they have the RIGHT to run.
" I think that the gay marriage political argument is just a huge distraction and a waste of our political representatives energy and focus. People will be voting for candidates because of their views on gay marriage instead of other more important issues"
I would suggest to you that this is because people do not want gay marriage nor are they willing to accept it or have it force fed down their throats.
If the majority do not want it then why are the politicians not hearing their constiuents and shelving gay marriage by eliminating it so we can get on with other more pressing issue's of the day.
Obviously the people are very passionate about the issue and will not allow it to simply go by the wayside.
" I bet there are people out there that don't have health insurance who worry more (politically) about gay marriage than their own health care..."
Your probably right. But does this nullify their view? Their beliefs, values, and morality take precendent because they strongly believe in the traditonal definition of marriage.
They also believe it is something worth fighting for. No different then the homosexual's who believed in fighting for the redefinition. I am sure many of them also may have put health issues aside to vote for someone who would favor gay marriage.
Thanks for your input
TIO,
A Christian would know that God, not the government, defines marriage. God does not yield his powers of legitimacy to any legislature of mortals. If God says that marriage is between one man and one woman, no law can make it otherwise. Any "marriages" created and/or conducted contrary to the manner that God finds pleasing simply wouldn't be marriage, regardless of what rules mortal sinners created.
If God exists, saying that he isn't real wont make him go away. If God says that only those of opposite genders can be married, heretics and atheists cannot unite homosexuals in matrimony.
I don't need the state and its laws to find satisfaction, I need God and his love.
Nog:
Amen bro! I could not have explained that any better.
But that does not mean we should stand idley by and just watch the desecration of marriage take place. God call's on us to be that voice that sheds light on darkness.
However, we are rendered ineffective if we approach it like a bunch of screamin' banshees. Proclaim the truth in love. Natrurally there will be those who lash out at us anyway but at least we did not cower when the oppurtunity to speak truth arose.
The logical move you needed to make and didn't was to prove that those who argue for a "right" to pedophilia, bestiality, child prostitution, and polygamy did not exist before LGBTQ activists began agitating for gay marriage. That is, you don't demonstrate a causal connection between the legalization of gay marriage and the push to legalize these other sexual practices; your article simply points out two bad things and insinuates that they might be connected. (The logical fault of this is famously demonstrated by looking at the apparent relationship between ice-cream sales in New York City and deaths in India: the latter increase in direct proportion to the former. But it would be wrong to conclude that ice cream is made of Indian babies, or produced with Indian slave labor, or something like that---in reality, ice cream sales in New York and deaths in India increase when summer hits. There is a correlation between these data, but no causal relationship.)
I'm inclined to guess that you're a bit off, historically. Pedophilia has existed for millennia, and there have long been groups arguing for "pedophile rights." Similar points could be made about the other sexual practices your article mentioned, and I'm confident that if one were to do more extensive research than the quick-and-dirty Wikipedia-ing that I just did, one would find that the gay rights movement hardly gave rise to these other things.
Finally, I question the fact that you conflate "the Left" with self-described Leftist parties. Most of those mainstream parties are fairly poor representations of progressive politics, and have a tendency to water down and de-radicalize the arguments made by truly leftist groups. So it's not surprising that when the gay rights movement first started getting the attention of left-of-center mainstream political parties, the politicians in those parties were quick to reassure people that the homosexuals would stop soon enough. But progressivism, broadly conceived, would never make such a claim. I hope you see the distinction that I'm trying to draw; I know it sounds a little unclear. Think about it this way: the current U.S. president is a Republican, and therefore considers himself a conservative. But the expansion of government that has occurred since he entered office is not even remotely compatible with conservatism as a political philosophy, as a number of conservatives and conservative think-tanks (including, for example, the Cato Institute) have pointed out. I promise to do your ideology the respect of not conflating it with its more inept self-appointed leaders if you promise to do the same for mine.
A thought...
marriage is not only a right. It is also something men and women HAVE to do in order for their union so be seen as valid from Gods perspective. It is the only acceptable form of living together according to God.
Now i would really like to know why gay couples find it so important to be united in Christ as straight people.
Is it because they want to obey Gods word regarding living together? Well, if they have faith in God they should know that what they do is a sin.
Is it because marriage is just a nice tradition? Well if it is just that then why all this effort? Is it worth upsetting people for?
To me it seems like a clear case of human rebellion
Daniel:
Wow! Another new visitor. ( I think, as I have not seen you comment in the past). I welcome you into this discussion (and blog site) Daniel.
To respond to what you said:
" ...you don't demonstrate a causal connection between the legalization of gay marriage and the push to legalize these other sexual practices; your article simply points out two bad things and insinuates that they might be connected."
I was not trying to demonstrate a casual connection but a more blatant connection. I was pointing out how legalizing gay marriage would give way to the "other" deviant sexual lifestyles to follow suit. This is something that has been forecast since before it was legalized.
It is a snowball effect. Now that homosexuals can marry you now have these other "lifestyles" coming out and saying it too is their RIGHT to marry or engage in these practices legally. Their response is and will be: "You accommodated the gay community, what about us? This who we are sexually and who are you to tell us we cannot practice our chosen sexual lifestyle preferences?" (Are you seeing where I am going with that?)
I think with the example you use regarding New York ice cream sales and deaths in India misses the mark of where I am taking this discussion. No disrespect to you but I have no idea how this was an effective demonstration. If I may use my own example of why redefining marriage was bad idea because it would eventually lead to other sexual practice's wanting their rights recognized and legalized.
We can both agree that in this world there are men who will claim that internally they feel like a woman even though their anatomy clearly suggests otherwise. And although they may feel quite strongly about it they may still have no desire to have a sex change. Yet they might still want to be referred to as a woman.
Do we then redefine the term "woman" to include a penis in order to accomodate them and make them happy? Or do we give the more logical response which would be:
"You clearly do not fall under the definition of woman therefore you shall remain a man. If you would like to be referred to as a woman then you will need to be one in the full sense of the word"
This is not a discriminating or hateful statement. It is pointing out the obvious.
The same should be said for marriage. Gays and lesbians "rights" were not being violated when they were not allowed to marry because they already had the RIGHT to marry. Under the definition of marriage. It required them to be married to someone of the opposite sex BUT they have always had the "RIGHT" to marry.
" Pedophilia has existed for millennia, and there have long been groups arguing for "pedophile rights." Similar points could be made about the other sexual practices your article mentioned, and I'm confident that if one were to do more extensive research than the quick-and-dirty Wikipedia-ing that I just did, one would find that the gay rights movement hardly gave rise to these other things.
Gave rise? No that I agree with you. BUT with the redefining of marriage the have paved the way now for other lifestyles. It goes back to your original statement about the "connection" I am not connecting the lifestyles together. I am demonstrating that one has lead the other whether it is with or with out intent.
"Finally, I question the fact that you conflate "the Left" with self-described Leftist parties. Most of those mainstream parties are fairly poor representations of progressive politics, and have a tendency to water down and de-radicalize the arguments made by truly leftist groups. So it's not surprising that when the gay rights movement first started getting the attention of left-of-center mainstream political parties, the politicians in those parties were quick to reassure people that the homosexuals would stop soon enough."
Your make a sound argument here and I am hearing what you are saying with little rebuttal, but it is becoming clear to me that...you do not live in Canada do you? All our "center of left" parties claim to be "Progressive and forward thinking" (Actually, I am going to start compiling a list every time one of them says they are) Yet they continue to push these types of agendas forward, just like the Netherlands. Our Canadian liberals want to legalize prostitution , pot , and euthanasia. They already "rammed" same sex marriage thru despite majority polling numbers that said Canadians did not want to redefine marriage. As far as I am concerned, from a Canadian political perspective, if you call yourself a "progressive forward thinking liberal" then what I wrote about will be soon to follow.
"I hope you see the distinction that I'm trying to draw; I know it sounds a little unclear. Think about it this way: the current U.S. president is a Republican, and therefore considers himself a conservative. But the expansion of government that has occurred since he entered office is not even remotely compatible with conservatism as a political philosophy, as a number of conservatives and conservative think-tanks (including, for example, the Cato Institute) have pointed out."
Actually your following analogy does make your point clear.
" I promise to do your ideology the respect of not conflating it with its more inept self-appointed leaders if you promise to do the same for mine.
See disclaimer at the beginning of the article. It's purpose was so that any on the "Left" would not feel like I was personally assaulting their intelligence just because they are "Left". It is going after ideology that stem's from "left" thinking political perspectives.
I will do my best to respect your ideology. What I will not do is promise. I am a right wing Christian who is also fallible. In other words, I am not perfect.
Thank you Daniel for your contribution. Hope to see you back again.
Goose:
"Now i would really like to know why gay couples find it so important to be united in Christ as straight people."
Alot of them do not. In fact many are not even Christians. They just want to be united in a more civil ceremony. Which is why here in Canada, the majority of the poulation said the would support gay couples in a CIVIL UNION but not a marriage.
For those who are marrying "In Christ" as you say, according to God's word it is not recognized by Him. It is seen as a mockery of that which He has sanctified. But a worse fate awaits the minister who led them to believe that God is blessing their union.
"Is it because they want to obey Gods word regarding living together? Well, if they have faith in God they should know that what they do is a sin."
Sadly there are those who want to serve two master's. God AND the lust of the flesh. Which we both know is not accpetable to God. They look for someone to tell them that God is OK with it so they can false;y remove their shame. As it is written:
"For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths."
2 Timothy 4:3-4
"To me it seems like a clear case of human rebellion"
Yep! Pretty much. It has been going on since the fall Adam and Eve found in Genesis.
Hi again
I dont know how it is in Canada but in Sweden, our neighbour, one political party pushed for a total redefinition of marriage. It could include anyone and how many people you wanted living under the same roof.
For example a marriage could then technically mean a gay couple plus the brother/sister/parent of one of them.
Now this didn't pass. Gay marrage did however.
But since there is a political party pushing for this it is not unreasonable to expect that it will attract some votes in time. Just a matter of time. And then the step of including for example pets in the definition of marriage isn't big.
Sorry about the confusion over the names intolerant one. I like to have a look at the opposite view of the blog world but usually just come across right wing blogs that are just rants about lefties and tree huggers etc so i am always on the lookout for well written blogs who have an opposite view to me who will debate rather than go straight to the childish name calling option, so thank you for hopefully ending that fruitless search for me.
Back to this issue..the gay marraige debate does seem to fall along the lines of religious standing. Most of the time i have had this discussion it does tend to come down to religious beliefs. People who disagree with concept on religious grounds are perfectly correct to do so with accordance to their beliefs.
Lucyp
TIO,
Where in the New Testament is there a statement against homosexuality? I'll answer the question. Jesus says nothing about it. There are three instances in the letters where it could be argued that the original Greek texts say something. But questionable translations are not what Christians base their faith and beliefs on. Christianity does not have anything against homosexuality.
True, there is a lot in the OT about it. But what does that prove? The Pharasees wouldn't like homosexuality. And of course, Christians always do what the Pharasees say. But seriously, a learned Christian knows that Jesus' statements about not changing the commandments (of the Old Testament) are incredibly theologically vague. He released Christians from OT rules like Kosher Laws. Jesus just doesn't care about what people eat, wear, or which way they swing. His kingdom is of the Next World, not this one.
Lucy:
Hi again Lucy. I am glad to see you continue to come back.
" i am always on the lookout for well written blogs who have an opposite view to me who will debate rather than go straight to the childish name calling option,"
I can relate completely to what you are saying. I was once invited to join in on a "Left wing" blog. It turns out their intent was to invite "Righty's" in so they could just call them name's, swear, rant and rave. Anyone who disagreed was treated in this manner. Needless to say their blog is not drawing much attention these days.They were obviously too immature to partake in intellectual, stimulating verbal dialect.
I see we expeirence this on both side's of the spectrum.
I love a good discussion and like yourself I am not interested in running the other person down.
I will, of course, take my token jabs at "left wing" ideology but for me it is all in the spirit of good debate. I will sometimes be a little sarcastic but not in a malicious way. Nothing is accomplished thru that.
It is better to understand the other side and disagree respectfully then to get drawn into the "ego" contest.
I am also quite open minded. By that I mean, I will always consider what one has to say. I may or may not agree with it but I will give it serious thought. If I do not agree or I am not swayed I simply state my case.
Sadly some people believe that if you are not swayed to their particular view this somehow qualifies one as "close minded". They do not even stop to consider the double standard that they demonstrate.
In fact, if you check out some of my links (keeping in mind that I am "Right" and a Christian) you will notice that some of them are outspoken "Lefty's" and atheists.
Obviously I do not agree or support some of their values or beliefs (and believe me we have had our share of disagreements) but thru humane interaction with them I consider these people my cyber friends. Which is why they earn the title overhead "Bloggin' Buddies"
"so thank you for hopefully ending that fruitless search for me."
Awww shucks... I did not realise you had been looking for me your whole life :)
If you care for the odd spirited debate, and you feel your search for a "voice of reason" has now concluded (see there is my sarcasm) then I would be happy to oblige.
However when it comes to my site, I do not always blog about the "Left". If you sift thru it you will see what I mean. If you have a debate you would care to invite me into or just to comment on one of your own piece's on your site let me know. I am interested!
When I did pop over to your site and read a few of your entry's I had a good laugh at you entry titled "Right wing bloggers". I could have written the identical piece for some of the "Left" site's I have popped by.
"the gay marraige debate does seem to fall along the lines of religious standing"
In most cases but not entirely. I have only been a Christian myself for 81/2 years and prior to that I never agreed with it. There was certainly no family influence for that decision as my family for the most part is more liberal and none of them beside's myself has any "God" connection.
Surprisingly, there are a number of homosexuals out there who do not support the idea either. We have one very highly educated and outspoken homosexual in Manitoba (my Province) who speaks out against gay marriage.
"People who disagree with concept on religious grounds are perfectly correct to do so with accordance to their beliefs"
Obviously I agree. But here in Canada, because I have disagreed I have had my licence to marry couples revoked because I would not violate my own religious beliefs. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was supposed to protecet me from this and instead it has proven itself useless. So are the "Human rights laws" which are set up to protect one's right to religious freedom and one's right to freedom of moral conscience.
Up here, because of same sex marriage, people are now slowly losing their religious rights and freedoms for the sake of an unnatural form of sex. Go figure! I have now taken my case to the the highest courts over this.
But as I have said already Lucy, the "Right" said it would come to this and the "Left" dismissed it saying that it would never happen.
Thanks for stopping in again :)
Nog:
Bro, sometimes you concern me. And I mean that in the most sincerest way.
"Where in the New Testament is there a statement against homosexuality?"
Oh brother, this could be a long response. Alright, here we go starting with:
[ Avoiding Sexual Sin ] Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals...
1 Corinthians 6:9
Next:
These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching
1 Timothy 1:10
Now Nog, "These laws" that the text refers too, would these be the ones you feel Jesus cancelled? Keep in mind that Jesus did say:
"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."
Matthew 5:17
In Romans 1:18-32 we read about God's ANGER at sin not His lackadaisle attitude towards it. An excerpt from this passage makes direct refernce about God's anger towards homosexuality in verses 26-27 which states:
"That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."
All verses found in the New Testament. Now I understand that part of your argument says that "Jesus did not say" but in fact He did!
You have to ask yourself a few question's first. Is the Bible God's Word? Yes or No?
Is His Word soverign, infalliable, and the ultimate authority of His divine plan and revealation for mankind?
Being the Supreme Being beyond what the finite human mind can even begin to fathom, did He write the book "THRU" the prophets? Not the prophets guessing what He wanted them to write but that in fact, front to back, His Word was inspired by His spirit.
"ALL scripture is God breathed..."
2 Timothy 3:16
And finally, do the scriptures NOT recognise Jesus Christ as the WORD of God?
Let's go to the book of John 1.
(1)In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. (2)He was in the beginning with God. (3)He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn't make
(10)But although the world was made through him, the world didn't recognize him when he came
(14)So the Word became human and lived here on earth among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness
Christ is the Word. All that is spoken in both the Old and New come from Him. So, yes, all that is written about sexual sin is from Him.
Keep in mind that when Christ came to free us from the law it was because as sinful humans we could not keep it in it's entirety.
Today we are no longer "enslaved" to it by running to a mountain top to burn a sacrifice as a sin offering. We are, however, still bound to moral laws. That has never changed.
If I were to apply your theology then one could say that it is OK for me to engage in premarital sex or heck, why not committ adultery on my wife because the law no longer exists.
Nog, you decieve yourself if you think moral laws no longer apply. Do the Ten commandments no longer count? They were written in the Old testament!
"Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."
1 Peter 2:16
Your statement:
"Jesus says nothing about it"
sounds more like an excuse for homosexuals to openly engage in sinful activity. Jesus did not say anything about beastality either. So would you now support your neighbour having sex with farm animals because "Jesus did not say?"
And on a final note:
"Jesus just doesn't care about what people eat, wear, or which way they swing"
You are mostly correct. He does not care what you wear (although if a woman dresses like a slut and is tempting men to have sexual thoughts about her then I do think He cares) or what we eat.
He most definetly cares how we swing. If Christ, the son of the living God, does not care about our morality then He cannot possibly be the Son of God. He states in the scriptures that:
He is in the Father and the Father is in Him and that they are always in agreement and do nothing apart from one another. Right?
So why would Christ come to earth and completely undermine His heavenly Father by being OK with something God called a detestable sin and a wicked abomination? He cannot be the true Son if He contradicts the Father.
Jesus cares vey much about our sexual morality. Rememeber John 8 and the woman caught in the act of adultery?
Jesus forgave her sexual sin and He followed it by saying "Now go and SIN NO MORE.
I do not recall Him saying "I wiped out the law so screw whatever you want, whenever you want! Everybody is going to heaven anyway. I enjoyed the torture and pain of the cross so you could continue to engage in sexual immorality!"
I am not trying to chide you here and I hope you see the point I am trying to make.
Alright, I officially have typer's cramp. I am outta here for now.
The following passage have serious translation issues: 1 Corinthians 6:9. Nothing in that passage "must" be translated to say anything about homosexuality. It's optional, if I dare put it that way. We speak English, not Ancient Greek. If a word can be translated as, let's say, pervert, fornicator, whore, or homosexual, but only one at a time, how can you use it as irrefutable proof? You can't. 1 Cor 6:9 is out of the running on this issue. Romans has the same issue because it uses the same difficult Ancient Greek word.
Jesus did say that "the rules are still there", in a certain way. The rules of the faith at the time were made and held by the Pharasees and Saducees. He obviously did not honor those. He obviously did not honor Kosher laws. But they were from the old scriptures. He changed the rules a great deal.
At best I would, if I may put the analogy this way, say that Jesus left the "legislature" intact but changed the "executive" and "judiciary". He made a new, different covenant. He mooted significant OT rules. He made sins of what were not sins in the old scriptures and unsinned what the OT had as sins.
It's no longer "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Christ came to change the order, and that he did.
You actually think that linking pedophilia and homosexuality isn't homophobic?
Oh, yes, you didn't link them, you simply spoke about them in parallel. They're not the same, they simply always go together in your mind.
The fact that the sexual abuse of a child has no relation to love between two men or women seems to escape you. The only link is in your intolerant mind. You don't like one, so the other is guilty by association.
As for your disclaimer at the beginning, that's pure bs. You can't accuse your political opponents of being in favor of child abuse, which is the underlying arc of your argument, and claim to respect them or not be speaking about them.
Btw, if you were being honest, you'd mention that over 80% of Holland wants that nambla party outlawed. Tolerance of what consenting adults do to give each other orgasms does not mean someone is in favor of child abuse. You're either unintelligent or disingenuous to use this argument.
And as for your claims this is about marriage and not sex, well, the only reason homosexuality is considered deviant is because it is marginalized by society, and slandered with attacks like linking it to pedophilia, which, of course, you're not doing in the least. The slippery slope only exists in your mind. In reality, gay marriage has no relation to the boogeyman of child abuse, and the left is quite aware of this. This meme is homophobic, this post is homophobic. Saying you have no problem with gays so long as they accept the second class status you think is necessary to protect the children might allow you not to acknowledge it to yourself, but to link child abuse and homosexuality is to be homophobic. There is no connection.
And, finally, on marriage. It does not belong to the Christian church. It was not invented by the Christian church. It does not have to take place in a Christian church.
If you want to involve your religious beliefs in your marriage, that's your right and I hope it's a beautiful ceremony.
But you all need to stop pretending Christianity owns and defines the institution of marriage. It doesn't.
The Unitarian Universalist Church has been marrying Homosexuals since the 60's. They are a religious entity recognized by the U.S. Government. Christians cannot claim to own marriage. It doesn't belong to them.
Anonymous:
I will begin by thanking you for your contributing rant. If you bothered to read any of the comment thread I actually expected at least one of your type of comments. Thanks for not disappointing me. :)
Thank you as well for not swearing at me or name calling. At least I can let your comment stand rather then remove it because regardless of your frustration with me I do welcome all input. Even if your a little hot under the collar.
Unfortunately you really do read into the article wrong and in your "Haze of Red" cannot see the forest thru the trees as to what exactly I was trying to get across. If you do read the entire comment thread you will find even those who seem to share your views "Got It!"
Allow me to address your rant:
"You actually think that linking pedophilia and homosexuality isn't homophobic?"
I never LINKED the two. I was clearly pointing out that when "One" sexual lifestyle wants to completely redefine terminology to accommodate their sexual preference because they feel it is their RIGHT then other sexual practices will follow suit. NOT because one has to do with the other but because pedophiles, for example, will invoke the same argument homosexuals used stating that they have RIGHTS as well when it comes to their sexual preference for children.
Nowhere have I said homosexuality spawned pedophilia, bestiality, etc.
And as far as the "Homophobic" term is concerned this is old, tired, and boring already. Every time someone does not agree or see things from your perspective you resort to this term.
It is a term meant for the sole purpose to instill "Guilt" in an attempt to put one on the defense. A "Left wing" tactic that does not work with me. I am entitled to my opinions. And there is nothing "homophobic", hateful, discriminating or otherwise because I do not agree with your perceptions. I certainly do not accuse you of being a "Christianphobe" who is hateful and intolerant towards me because you refuse to accept my lifestyle.
"Oh, yes, you didn't link them, you simply spoke about them in parallel."
Oh! You got it! At least half of it. You are correct, I did not link them. But neither did I "parallel" them. I SIMPLY pointed out how "one" set the stage (not with intent either) for the "other 's" to lay claim to their "Rights". Something you do not seem to be able to differentiate. I have not lumped them together...you have.
" they simply always go together in your mind."
Very presumptuous of you but not surprising. You do not like or agree with what I wrote and instead of engaging in intelligent verbal dialect, instead, you will make your argument solid by telling me how I think. You of course would know exactly what is going on in my mind. Again, see previous response.
"The fact that the sexual abuse of a child has no relation to love between two men or women seems to escape you
The fact that escapes you is that a pedophile will tell you that he/she and the child are in love. Even if that is not the case in reality...in their own sick mind it is. Forgive my bluntness here, but I am not a retard. Do not insult me with your comment about it "escaping me". It is obvious you are just trying to draw me into a tantrum you appear to be having.
"As for your disclaimer at the beginning, that's pure bs. You can't accuse your political opponents of being in favor of child abuse, which is the underlying arc of your argument, and claim to respect them or not be speaking about them."
Yes, actually I can. As my "left" friends have pointed out me in the past, just because they hold "left" views does not mean they agree or support all their policies and that I should not presume that all "Lefty's" are of like mind. So I made sure my friends understood that with my disclaimer and I went after a "political policy". Something you are still not getting. You are over here taking it personal. Unless you actually support these types of policies, what are you so rattled about?
"Btw, if you were being honest, you'd mention that over 80% of Holland wants that nambla party outlawed."
Where was I dishonest? I was pointing out their policy platform and I also implied that they had not yet achieved party status. I was quite upfront which appears to be the reason you are so ripped! Truth tends to sting does it not? BTW...If you were honest, you would acknowledge that almost the same percentage never wanted to redefine marriage to accommodate same sex couples.
" Tolerance of what consenting adults do to give each other orgasms does not mean someone is in favor of child abuse."
I agree. I never stated that but, once again, in order for you to deflect from the main point of the article, you make a futile attempt at making it look like I said that where nowhere is it even implied. You follow it up by questioning my intelligence? If you keep this up only you are going to look silly at the end of this. You clearly have missed the point of this article. Maybe peruse thru the comment threads as well.
"homosexuality is considered deviant is because it is marginalized by society, and slandered with attacks like linking it to pedophilia, which, of course, you're not doing in the least."
Exactly! However I denote your sarcasm. No I am not linking the two but I am sure you will convince yourself otherwise. (Oh I forgot, you don't have to convince yourself because you can read my mind!)
But one thing you really need to get over is that when other's disagree with homosexuality and voice that in a respectable way they are not "slandering". They are exercising their fundamental "Right" to freedom of speech and expression which they are entitled too without repercussion or being hassled with terms like homophobe. This article in no way slander's homosexuals it brings into question social policies that have catered to the gay community and are ....oh never mind, I do not know how many more times I can explain it to you before you actually get it. NOT agree with it, just get it!
" The slippery slope only exists in your mind."
RRiiigggghhhhhhhtttttt! Again more presumption's and you knowing what goes on in my mind. The proof is already surfacing and someone like yourself is in complete denial about it.
" This meme is homophobic, this post is homophobic."
Blah, Blah, Blah, (yawn). This rhetoric is really out of date. Please try and come up with something fresh but polite. Otherwise I would have to remove it.
" Saying you have no problem with gays so long as they accept the second class status"
Show me WHERE I said that. You said... I said that,,, when in fact it is a lie concocted by yourself to try and paint me as this fear mongering homophobe (more yawning) In fact, the way Christianity is bashed thru media and Hollywood, not to mention everyday language, I have more reason to feel like a second class citizen. I just do not whine about it.
" but to link child abuse and homosexuality is to be homophobic. There is no connection."
Once again, I never did make a connection. Stick to the dangers of social policy I am pointing out. Policies that have begun to surface because of the redefinition of marriage not because homosexuals are initiating pedophilia. Are you getting it yet? (more yawning on homophobic term)
"And, finally, on marriage. It does not belong to the Christian church. It was not invented by the Christian church. It does not have to take place in a Christian church.
If you want to involve your religious beliefs in your marriage, that's your right and I hope it's a beautiful ceremony.
But you all need to stop pretending Christianity owns and defines the institution of marriage. It doesn't.
What is your point here? Where in the entire article do you see Christianity even mentioned? Or any religion for that matter?
You seem so bent on making a point about something that the article is not even addressing. The entry clearly address's terminology redefined and the social implication's that will occur due to every one else jumping on the "What about our Rights?" bandwagon. Try addressing this in a reasonable manner and not bringing your agenda of "Forced Acceptance".
And please stop telling me "What I think". If you knew that, you would have understood the entry.
You are most certainly welcome back but do not antagonize me with lame comments questioning my intelligence and your rhetorical accusations. People like you do absolutely nothing positive to further your cause when you lash out at other's who do not see things your way.
Let's see if next time you can put your message of TOLERANCE into practice.
One last comment:
"The Unitarian Universalist Church has been marrying Homosexuals since the 60's. They are a religious entity recognized by the U.S. Government. Christians cannot claim to own marriage. It doesn't belong to them."
The Unitarian church does not recognize the supremacy of Christ and I therefore do not recognize them as Christians. So again , what is the point of bringing them into this.? And again this whole "Christians cannot claim...". I will say it one last time...the article is about DANGEROUS SOCIAL POLICIES STEMMING FROM "PROGRESSIVE FORWARD THINKERS" which is something the "Left" often claims they are. I am the Christian here and yet you have brought my faith into this argument more then I have.
Do you think I am stupid enough to think that every "Left" political party would be supportive of these sick policies? Of course they would not. But the "Right" was pointing out to them long ago that redefining marriage would open this up to these other sicko's coming forward and playing the same "Rights" card.
As usual "Left wing" policy wonks went into denial mode.
Nog:
Instead of going into all the translations we need to simplify this. Because here is what we know according to the teachings of the scriptures that refer specifically to sexual sin. ANYTHING outside a married heterosexual union is sin, period. So where does that leave homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, or heterosexuality (outside the marital relationship)?
Sure we can debate translations of words. I can mention that Greek texts only had one word for wine (oinos) where the original Hebrew manuscripts had two words for wine. One defined "New" wine (almost no alcohol content) and the other version referred to strong wine. Everybody almost assumes that indulging in wine drinking, even excessively, must be OK because Jesus turned water into wine at a party, But how do they know it was not "New" wine. Surely the Lord would not renounce drunkenness as sin and then provide the means to indulge would He?
Does that not also apply to His design and intention towards sex? For crying out loud even medical science cannot support it so what convinces you God would?
Nog, you really need to give God more credit then you do. On one hand you acknowledge Him as supreme being of the universe (omnipresent, omnipotent) and on the other you think He is incapable of getting His message out there thru His Word. Seriously, do you think He just handed His word over to man and sat back while saying "Here guys, you run with it. try not to screw it up!" This is why He gave the word to the prophets and over the century's of one language being translated into another. Do think God was "out of the room" every time there was a translation going on? Stop putting God in a box and realize He is far bigger then that.
"Jesus did say that "the rules are still there", in a certain way. The rules of the faith at the time were made and held by the Pharisees and Sadducees. He obviously did not honor those. He obviously did not honor Kosher laws. But they were from the old scriptures. He changed the rules a great deal."
Either they are still there or they are not. They cannot "sort of" be there. That is like saying to my wife "I sort of committed adultery on you dear". How could you follow such instability? You make God sound so disorganized like He is not sure what He is doing???
Obviously Jesus did not follow the rules of the faith held by the Pharisees and Sadducees. That was because they took the laws of God and added almost 2,000 of their own for the sake of prestige and power. Thereby glorifying themselves and not honoring God. However Christ did uphold God's laws. He changed nothing regarding moral law. He simply set us free from the impending feeling of doom every time we sin. We know that He approaches the Father on our behalf. He is now our high priest who has walked a mile in our shoes. Before our only way thru the gates to Heaven was to walk a perfectly sinless life. Obviously this was not possible for man.
Although we are no longer bound to the law by straining to be absolutely perfect (God recognizes our fallibility) we are still to strive for holiness.
Keep in mind that even when old translations refer to perversion you have to ask what the term means. Perversion is that which is contrary to the natural order of things. Homosexuality falls under this category just like the other deviant sexual practices.
"At best I would, if I may put the analogy this way, say that Jesus left the "legislature" intact but changed the "executive" and "judiciary". He made a new, different covenant. He mooted significant OT rules. He made sins of what were not sins in the old scriptures and unsinned what the OT had as sins."
I agree mostly. He definitely removed a lot of the cultural laws like what to wear, what to eat, removing burnt offerings and animal sacrifice (no longer required since the blood of Christ had now made atonement for all time), etc. But when looking at both New and Old Testaments in conjunction, show me beyond all shadow of a doubt where He eradicated "Moral Law". I think if your thorough you will see that God's "Moral Law" transcends with the New covenant. It does not disappear.
And what about God being an unchanging God? You continue to portray Him as one who cannot make up His mind.
One century God is calling homosexuality a detestable sin, next century He changes His mind and sends His Son to tell us??? Which in fact He did not do, but you get the picture of where I am coming from. Either ALL moral law transcended into the new covenant or none of it. Not just homosexuality.
If God can say that one day a certain act is sin and then the next day say it is not , then He is not an unchanging God, and like a liberal lefty, cannot make up His mind or find any solid foundation to stand on. If this is Him I cannot follow Him because he is no longer God if He cannot determine what He is about while laying claim to holiness and perfection. (Which of course requires no change)
To assume a god exists at all without any observable evidence is the most arrogant thought one could possibly have. It's also boneheaded of you to equate marriage and religion since it was used as a diplomatic tool well before then. Nor is monogamy or starvation-model love the "natural" order of things; it has simply been manufactured and distributed as such.
1) "ANYTHING outside a married heterosexual union is sin, period."
And a proper heterosexual union being one with individuals who were not previously divorced? Or are you going to be a texual revisionist? Jesus banned divorce and it was the first and formost sexual crime in his (and thus the universal) book. Why not ban divorce first and then go after lesser sins?
2) "On one hand you acknowledge Him as supreme being of the universe (omnipresent, omnipotent) and on the other you think He is incapable of getting His message out there thru His Word."
What does this mean? It seems like a hollow statement to me. Not everyone is a Christian. Does that mean that God has failed at spreading his message? People are perfectly able to read the Bible improperly.
3) Rules were made moot:
ACTS 11:1-10
"1 Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
4 But Peter began, and expounded [the matter] unto them in order, saying,
5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even unto me:
6 upon which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw the fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and creeping things and birds of the heaven.
7 And I heard also a voice saying unto me, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth.
9 But a voice answered the second time out of heaven, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.
10 And this was done thrice: and all were drawn up again into heaven."
As you can see, Jesus did nullify OT laws. He did this several times in both explicit and implicit ways. His silence is enough on the issue of Homosexuality.
Typh:
I will welcome you even though you cannot state your case in a respectable tone. Your comment:
"To assume a god exists at all without any observable evidence is the most arrogant thought one could possibly have."
This statement, in and of itself, reeks of it's own arrogance.
You seem rather convinced that there is no God (which, by the way, I can recognise as you right to choose) therefore anyone who does not accept your idea of the "origins" is a complete moron. Am I right on your percieved arrogance?
You also come across as a close minded individual unwillingly to even hear out the other side. You pacify your self and your argument thru calling people names. Very mature ;)
If you want to do battle on this topic first go to my article at:
"Not as close as once thought"
Try and educate yourself on the gaping holes of evolution and how it requires more faith to buy in to that load of bunk then it does to believe in God.
Otherwise stick to the topic here.
"It's also boneheaded of you to equate marriage and religion since it was used as a diplomatic tool well before then
Boneheaded? Hmmm... yet another "lefty" incapable of intelligent debate. Thanks for not letting me down.
Go back and re-read the post and show me just one area in it where I equated marriage and religion. Just one!!!
If you cannot find it there then at least have the balls to come back and acknowledge just who the bonehead really is.
The article very distinctly address's the danger's of redefining terminology and the implications it will have on social public policy.
No religion of any kind was even brought into the equation. It would appear that YOU brought it up since I did not even write about it in my entry.
Only in the comments section was it addressed and that was because other's brought it up first. But you cannot claim it in the article itself.
" Nor is monogamy or starvation-model love the "natural" order of things;"
That is your opinion which you are entitled too although I do not understand this "starvation-model love". What is that?
The difference between you and me is I do believe in monogamy as the natural order and you don't. However I will not resort to calling you a bonehead for not agreeing with me.
That is why you make yourself look silly when comment like that. No one pays attention too someone who address's a situation thru childish tactics. Time to grow up Typh.
" it has simply been manufactured and distributed as such.
And I would argue that so has abortion and alternative lifestyles. But again, because my view is not in agreement with yours, that would make you correct and everyone in disagreement a bonehead, right?
Should you choose to come around again Typh, try putting up a sound argument. Address the topic and keep the names and berating to your self or just plain shut up.
If you want to go at this on a more intellectaul note then please do come back. I am interested in controversial discussion, not a pissing contest.
Nog:
" Why not ban divorce first and then go after lesser sins?"
There is no "Lesser" sin. Remember 1 John?
"If a man so much as hold's hatred in his heart towards his brother, he is as guilty as the sin of murder"
You also forget that it is written that God does hate divorce and yet He makes provisions for it. For example, adultery. The one who was betrayed has the right to divorce and re-marry. Not because God is OK with it but because He realizes how fallen and broken we are. The Bible clearly says that God would prefer reconciliation over divorce. But when trust has been broken and the hurt so deep it becomes more painful to remain together then to go one's separate ways. These are in exceptional circumstances.
"Irreconcilable differences" is another story. This is a man made convenience to get out easy. This is why many do not understand the high commitment level and meaning of marriage that God has made it. It has been diluted for the sake of convenience This is no excuse to abuse marriage "Hollywood style".
You must also keep in mind that there are many who divorced prior to any relationship with Jesus Christ. Their sins were in ignorance. Forgiveness of God thru Christ has provided a way that these sins and all others can be forgiven.
But more importantly, He never gave permission to now abuse this provision as a means to willfully continue and wallow in sin.
"What does this mean? It seems like a hollow statement to me. Not everyone is a Christian. Does that mean that God has failed at spreading his message? People are perfectly able to read the Bible improperly."
You have come across to me as a person who in fact does believe in God. But you tend to question, and at times, limit His abilities as a Divine Deity. Either you recognize Him as the Almighty or you don't. If you doubt His holiness or perfect moral and governing laws how is it then that you acknowledge Him as God?
If God's message has failed to get out then nobody would be persecuted or even mad at me for that matter when I talk about Him. Some receive the gospel joyfully other's lash out at it. I have no doubts God has used many a medium to get His message out. Whether thru the Bible, word of mouth, internet, TV, radio, etc. He will be sure everyone has the opportunity to hear from Him.
" Rules were made moot:"
I never disagreed with the examples you have brought up here. As I acknowledged, material laws, eating laws, and sin offering laws were all done away with. That is clearly visible in scripture. Yet there is no hint of moral law being, as you say, mooted.
What I asked you to show me in scripture is where do you find God's Moral Laws being nullified by Christ. My argument is that moral law transcended with the new covenant. Otherwise you and I are in agreement with the rest.
" His silence is enough on the issue of Homosexuality."
Very weak argument here. I mentioned to you before that Jesus was also silent on bestiality. Would that confirm in you that Christ is OK with animal sex?
I am quite convinced that Christ spoke on all these things, the question is, why were they not recorded? The laws that originally stood and were eradicated by Him had to recorded in order to verify He in fact did remove these OT laws. But He made no mention of removing the Moral code of God. So anything He would have said regarding morality would have been in line with OT teachings. Putting it in the NT would be like repeating the Old. Do you follow me on that? And can you show me scripture where He removed the "Moral Laws" of God?
Typh
"To assume a god exists at all without any observable evidence is the most arrogant thought one could possibly have."
Why is that? How did you reason your way to this conclusion?
"Nor is monogamy or starvation-model love the "natural" order of things; it has simply been manufactured and distributed as such."
When you start talking about the "natural order" of things you head into areas that tend to get uncomfortable for even the most hardcore atheist... but please clarify what the natural order of things would be.
Good morning:
While your OP, Mr. One, was not about the religious aspects of marriage conventions, certainly your religion shapes your views (as discussed in subsequent comments, whether fairly or not). But i'm curious as to how it all works out.
Jesus--who never married and encouraged his buddies to leave their families--rendered obsolete most of Leviticus, no? i don't remember if there were any particular laws regarding polygamy, but a whole bunch of early Hebrews did it anyway. Infact, most of the early Jewish law regarding sexual relations is about increasing the number of Jews in their war-torn area: Judaism is matrilineal; the woman who stops a fight by grabbing a man's testicles is to be stoned; women need to stay away while they menstruate so their husbands, inconveniently lacking foreskins, will be much randier; and Onan wasn't struck down for spilling his seed in vain: He disobeyed God's law to impregnate one's brother's wife if one's brother has died without issue.
So something happened between the OT and NT (which doesn't have polygamists, does it?) to cement monogamy as the model of marriage in the Levant. But Jesus didn't say anything about that. So marriage had changed considerably in the Judeo-Christian tradition(s) until the Papists, echoing Paul's loathing of the flesh, made it a sacrament. i suppose i just have never understood how the Bible defines marriage.
If, and i presume here, you say that times were different before Jesus, and Abraham could have a grip of wives because that's how it was, then why aren't things different now? We're in no danger of extinction (from unwillingness to procreate), so we should recognize marriage for what it should be: A property arrangement that--i hope--is based on true love. That is what is best for society and most stable; pederasts and dog-rapists and even polygamists may feel emboldened, but what they do is destructive and that is why they will not succeed in mainstreaming, or even decriminalizing, themselves. You may consider "deviant" homosexuals destructive as well, but i'd just point out the increasing property values where gay couples move in (cf. Vallejo, California).
Which is one small but important point: Homosexuality and gay folk should not be tarred with the connotations of "deviant", a word that, dictionary-wise, is appropriate, but carries too much baggage. And "lifestyle" is totally bunk: All too often (like, thrice) i've been asked by a righty, "Why would anyone choose that lifestyle?" To which i can only say, "You've answered your question. It's not a choice--who wants to be villified, have his ass kicked, be told by the sanctimonious that God hates him? My sister and i feel the same: Add a johnson into the mix and it can only be rape." My point, in short: If you want to have civil discussions touching on matters of homosexuality, avoid fighting words. Please.
Black Jack
Now that is a way to debate. Probably wont be worth the effort to answer this one.
Hi all
How we 'evolved' from gay marraige rights to creationism is a mystery but the 'how we came to be' debate is a topic that has strong emotional ties and is always popular but until The Intolerant One writes a piece about it which we can then discuss like adults (i'm an atheist by the way), i am ducking out of this particular issue until the next posting.
Well folks, after perusing the rest of the commentary I must say my sentiments were echoed in Lucy's words: (DOH!, I just agreed with a Lefty. See, miracles do happen)
"How we 'evolved' from gay marraige rights to creationism is a mystery"
AND might I add how Christianity/religion was brought into the fray when it was never part of the original article is beyond me at this point.
It would appear those in opposition addressed alot of their own personal issue's but failed to debate the topic at hand.
Many seemed angry but incapable of acknowledging the can of worms redefining marriage has opened.
As I anticipated, the counter debate (with the exception of some of the more mature of you on the "Left", and you know who are)by the majority was weak at best. Not addressing the core issue but trying to deflect away from the heart of the matter thru "typical" left wing tactics of labelling, accusing, name calling, and of course going off in a completely different direction all together with religion and creationism.
Although I do write from my Christian perspective from time to time, the said article was political.
I find it rather ironic how when discussing the political moral issue's of the day it is the "Left" that tells me to leave my faith out of the issue.
So when I do just that, they bring it back in?????
Once again proving to myself and the rest of the "Right" they cannot make up their mind on anything.
In fairness to the remaining comments, I will respond as they did take the time to write.
After that, there is no point in continuing this particular piece any further unless opposing/agreeing views can address the purpose and intent of the article (one last time for those who still do not seem to grasp the concept)
THE INTENT BEHIND THE ENTRY WAS TO EXPOSE THE IMPLICATIONS ON PUBLIC SOCIAL POLICY WHEN TERMINOLOGY IS REDEFINED TO ACCOMODATE SEXUAL RIGHTS
No one has been able to give a sound arguement opposing the reality of this and the fact that is already begining to take place.
It had nothing to do with religion, creationism, or blaming homosexuals for pedophilia, beastiality, or incestous sexual rights.
I will return for my final response's but I am off for now.
"No one has been able to give a sound arguement opposing the reality of this and the fact that is already begining to take place."
How about: In every Western country--where legalization of same-sex marriage can and is discussed--there are strict laws against pedophilia and bestiality and polygamy. The only people who want to change the status of said perverts are those perverts themselves, who will never number enough to repeal those necessary laws (even in Holland), whether through direct democratic action or through their representatives. They can claim RIGHTS all they want, but no one besides themselves would afford them that RIGHT, including every judge who might decide such cases. The pederast can continue to scream about these RIGHTS while making excellent knife-storage in the federal pen.; still ain't gonna happen--nothing is "taking place".
Letting two consenting adults marry, though, is supported by many and many more each year, because even straight folk can recognize that there is nothing wrong with encouraging a committed, loving relationship between two people. The reason why your slippery-slope is fallacious is this: Only perverts push for pervert-RIGHTS; the citizens who support gay marriage (let's just call it garriage) are substantial and growing in number, and include proportionally more straight people--who are more or less disinterested because they will never be garried.
In effect, your and Senator Santorum's concerns are bogeymen, terrifying if they were possible but never going to happen.
Does this explain the difference between recognizing the equality of gay citizens and tolerating the enormity of safely illegal abuses? Do you think that i, as a firm proponent of garriage, would ever allow molesters to legalize themselves (especially if you knew that my ex-father molested my sister (the straight one))?
And don't you think it's disingenuous to disclaim that no personal offense is to be taken when you call us "sick" and "insane" and argue that our position on garriage will lead to bestiality and child molestation? Righties are mendacious cowards whose social and economic policies lead to slavery and murder. But please don't take that personally.
TIO,
You didn’t tell me you were having a debate on homosexuality! The dust is thick, and I don’t think I will be able to read through all these comments. Perhaps I can find time (we will see). I see you have drawn a crowed armed with the common retorts. The problem with these posts is that they are a time pit; though a worthy time pit. Having to respond and dispute w/everyone with a divergent viewpoint is tiring (and frustrating). Have fun with the trolls, I see a couple have stopped by.
Note to self: No posts on homosexuality unless I have 30 extra hours in the week to defend my position.
Cheers
1) "You also forget that it is written that God does hate divorce and yet He makes provisions for it. For example, adultery. The one who was betrayed has the right to divorce and re-marry. Not because God is OK with it but because He realizes how fallen and broken we are. The Bible clearly says that God would prefer reconciliation over divorce. But when trust has been broken and the hurt so deep it becomes more painful to remain together then to go one's separate ways. These are in exceptional circumstances."
Divorce = adultery. Read the Bible on it. There is not "provision" for allowing divorce. Any claims of such constitute doctrinal innovation (I do love using that one in a sentence).
2) "You must also keep in mind that there are many who divorced prior to any relationship with Jesus Christ. Their sins were in ignorance. Forgiveness of God thru Christ has provided a way that these sins and all others can be forgiven.
But more importantly, He never gave permission to now abuse this provision as a means to willfully continue and wallow in sin. "
Thus all "remarriages" ought to be immediately terminated as they do not, in fact, constitute marriages at all but adulterous affairs.
3) "I never disagreed with the examples you have brought up here. As I acknowledged, material laws, eating laws, and sin offering laws were all done away with. That is clearly visible in scripture. Yet there is no hint of moral law being, as you say, mooted."
Laws of marriage and love are laws of Heaven as Kosher laws are laws of the flesh. Moral laws are laws of Heaven laws of flesh are laws of Earth. Jesus mooted the "laws of flesh".
The rule regarding monogamy is a law of Heaven. Two lovers come together to form in the true image of God before he split man in the beginning. Laws regarding sexual orientation are laws of the flesh. It is not the "flesh" per se that makes the couple one, thus making anatomy unimportant, but rather the "loving feeling" (if I might put it that way). A man and a man or a woman and a woman may become "one flesh" (meaning a true image of God) just as a man and a woman can.
Don't you remember learning in Sunday school that "God is love"? Why is it "love" instead of "manwoman"? God has his reasons.
Anthony:
I will address both your comments starting with:
"Good morning:""
Thank you even though it is evening for me. That is a far more civil opening to a discussion then what some have had to say and I do appreciate it.
"While your OP, Mr. One, was not about the religious aspects of marriage conventions, certainly your religion shapes your views"
And your "left" views shape yours. Because mine are shaped by my belief in a deity does this somehow invalidate them? Your opinions and views are also shaped in your own belief in what you feel is right and wrong. So I guess my response to this , respectfully, is So what!
"Jesus--who never married and encouraged his buddies to leave their families--rendered obsolete most of Leviticus, no?"
No. Not the moral law. Christ encouraged them to follow Him what He did not do was encourage them to leave their wives. Peter for example was married.
I actually would like to take the time to respond to all your questions as some of them are pretty good fodder for a future posting but I really feel this discussion is getting way off topic so I am going to weed out the one's that pertain to the entry.
I notice my pal BF has joined in and I would welcome him to address this area should he choose as I will concede that the man is a genius who is far more versed at these types of things then myself.
" Homosexuality and gay folk should not be tarred with the connotations of "deviant", a word that, dictionary-wise, is appropriate, but carries too much baggage.
They as people are not tarred. As you say, dictionary-wise, and from a purely physical standpoint, it is appropriate. The "act" moves away from the "natural" form of sexual union. Common sense dictates that , from an anatomy standpoint, men and women naturally fit together.
If it strays from the "norm" or "natural" way then clearly the term deviant applies. It is not malicious. It is appropriately applicable. Are we supposed to redefine this word as well to once again accommodate?
" It's not a choice-"
I will disagree with you here. Is a homosexual incapable of saying no? Let me try and put this in a better perspective.
I am a heterosexual man who is married. I am also human and can be tempted by other women outside my marriage. Yet I have the ability to exercise self control. If a woman comes on to me in a seductive way for sexual purposes, I may for brief seconds want to follow thru from a physical standpoint, but at that precise moment I have a "choice" to make. I can both verbally and physically say no regardless of what my bodily instincts want me to do
I am also a recovered alcohol and drug addict but again I make a lifestyle "Choice" to not indulge even though I may experience times of weakness and temptation.
You may continue to disagree, Anthony, but as far as I am concerned, everything in life is a choice. Everybody is capable of "choosing" what course of action they take in life.
" be told by the sanctimonious that God hates him?"
This I was sorry to read because if that were true (which it is not) then Christ's sacrifice on the cross was for nothing. Although I am heterosexual, prior to my conversion, I was guilty of many sexual sins as well as....well I think I just about broke every single commandment there was. If God hates the homosexual then He would hate me as well because, scriptural speaking, all sexual sin is on an equal playing field.
" My point, in short: If you want to have civil discussions touching on matters of homosexuality, avoid fighting words."
I can respect that but I do not I believe I used any. I responded according to the tone of the contributor.
On to your next comment contribution:
"How about: In every Western country--where legalization of same-sex marriage can and is discussed--there are strict laws against pedophilia and bestiality and polygamy."
For now there are laws. Like the Netherlands, we are just catching up to where they have been at for years.
"The only people who want to change the status of said perverts are those perverts themselves, who will never number enough to repeal those necessary laws (even in Holland)"
I agree. However I must point out, and I mean no disrespect here, that 20 years ago "they" were saying verbatim what you say now regarding homosexuality. Again, this is not indicative of homosexuals being responsible for the actions of these pedophiles/perverts. It just goes back to my original point of the article which I am not going to reiterate for the umpteenth time.
"They can claim RIGHTS all they want, but no one besides themselves would afford them that RIGHT, including every judge who might decide such cases."
I do not know if you are from Canada so you may not be aware of this story but outspoken pedophile John Robin Sharpe of British Columbia was charged a few years ago for distributing literature stories (that he authored) about sexual fantasies with children. Police charged him and the judge let him go saying, are you ready for this? That his vile crap:
"Warranted artistic merit"
So I do not buy that they will alone afford themselves the "RIGHT" as judges are already interpreting law thru human rights as opposed to the laws on the books. All common sense has gone out the window. This was my underlining point, that sexual rights will overrule common decency /sense
"Letting two consenting adults marry, though, is supported by many and many more each year,"
Not up here. For 6 months prior to the legalization of same sex marriage in Canada the polling showed consistent numbers. It started out at 55% against redefining by the second month it had risen to 66% and eventually topped out at 72%. The only time the numbers dropped was when the question was posed :
"Would you instead favor a civil union as opposed to marriage?"
And in all honesty I feel any acceptance gained is because the lifestyle is continually portrayed in all types of media like "everybody" is doing it. I also feel that it is going to take an opposite effect then you imagine. It is beginning to reach a point where I am seeing that even pro gay supporters (not necessarily homosexuals) are getting annoyed with the constant barrage of gay TV, and gay characters in every sitcom and movie.
It has become "Force Fed" down the throats of the people and I believe it is going to start backfiring. That is just an observation.
" The reason why your slippery-slope is fallacious is this: Only perverts push for pervert-RIGHTS;"
Again, no different then one of my previous statements. 20 years ago they were saying the same thing about homosexuals, so what makes you so sure that it will not begin to happen for these people?
"And don't you think it's disingenuous to disclaim that no personal offense is to be taken when you call us "sick" and "insane" and argue that our position on garriage will lead to bestiality and child molestation?"
UUGGGHHHHH! My article was not aimed at homosexuals it was aimed at the political ideology of left wing pundits who pushed open a door (not necessarily with intent) that opened up the whole can of worms in the first place.
The "Left" pushed for gay marriage making it about "Rights". The "Right" said that other sexual practice's will come forward using the gay marriage initiative as a precedent. In Alberta, Canada polygamists are already filing for their cases to be heard and for them as well to fit under the guise of marriage.
Even though this was revealed to them (Leftists)they clearly chose to throw caution to the wind. If one is warned about the devastation they are about to incur ( especially where children will eventually be involved) then for them to push ahead with it WAS sick! The ideology was warped behind all of this and had the whole marriage factor been left out of the equation and a provision was made for homosexuals to enter into a civil union, we would not be having this discussion.
Unfortunately it was the redefining that got the ball rolling.
" Righties are mendacious cowards whose social and economic policies lead to slavery and murder. But please don't take that personally."
I don't take it personally. I recognize it as a generalized statement from an angry "Lefty". To be honest, I am not always supportive of "Rightwing" economic policies. I do have some flexibility. If I was a coward, however, I would never have posted this entry as I knew it create a little bit of a stir and keep me up at my computer all night.
Thanks for your contributions Anthony.
Black Jack Shellac:
It appears you were not in line when the intellect and respect capabilities were being handed out.
Your asinine (and rather useless) comment has been TERMINATED
BF:
"You didn’t tell me you were having a debate on homosexuality!
Sorry bro. Remember forgiveness is mandatory. LOL. I actually thought you may have checked in and decided to stay out of this one. If you require me to report to you on the hot debates I shall ;)
Not too late to join in. I am kind of on my own here in the trenches. Goose has had my back a few times though.
" The dust is thick, and I don’t think I will be able to read through all these comments. Perhaps I can find time (we will see)."
For the amount of reading you put me thru on your site surely you can do me the honor.
" I see you have drawn a crowed armed with the common retorts. The problem with these posts is that they are a time pit; though a worthy time pit. Having to respond and dispute w/everyone with a divergent viewpoint is tiring (and frustrating)."
Amen to that ! My wife though I left her for the computer.
"Have fun with the trolls, I see a couple have stopped by."
If we are referring to ONLY the immaturity of SOME who have stopped by then, I admit, watching them address obvious reality with their TOLERANT rants, cat calling, oh!! and of course avoiding the topic altogether is my "dark" form of entertainment. (I know, I still have a few areas I need to expunge)
I hope you can join in. I would suggest you do peruse the comments though so you can see where it ALL began.
Blessings to you.
Nog:
I have not forgotten you bro. I am just exhausted now and heading for bed hoping the Lord returns so I can rest eternally. So I will answer one question of your's for now.
"Don't you remember learning in Sunday school that "God is love"? Why is it "love" instead of "manwoman"? God has his reasons."
I never went to Sunday school. I have absolutley no, zippo, zero, nudda religious "anyone" in my family.
I was a very wicked and vile sinner for the first 27 years of my life. Just look at my photo! Does that look like someone who went to church his whole life?
Give you one guess at what I used to be involved in.
I figured I would just get that out of the way. I will get to the rest of your questions later.
Peace out bro!
Dear Mr. One:
Thank for responding in kind--i most certainly appreciate that we can discuss reasonably facts and implications.
But on to your terminology, with which i do vehemently disagree; to have a reasonable debate one cannot poison the well.
The "act" moves away from the "natural" form of sexual union. [If i may appropriate your format.]
i'm not sure why you scare-quote "natural"--unless you're conceding a bit. If one looks to nature, dispassionately as is necessary in scientific endeavors, homosexuality is not rare. Those penguins in New York, like a portion of many other animals (cf. the natural bisexuality of Bonobos), are without a doubt homosexual. i even knew a lesbian dog. There was no cultural indoctrination, they simply are gay--their sexual relations may not lead to offspring but they are no less natural for it.
To extrapolate, what about b.j.s? Do they not deviate from the natural design of sexual reproduction? Do they not encourage the wasting of seed? Are people who participate in oral sex "deviant", or is that a loaded term replete with moral judgment? If so, it's a non-starter. i do not appreciate you calling my sister (who races motorcycles) "deviant", especially as she and her would-be wife are wonderful people, family-oriented and tilling their land. But i do concede that there are fewer lesbians than straight women.
I am also a recovered alcohol and drug addict but again I make a lifestyle "Choice" to not indulge even though I may experience times of weakness and temptation... Everybody is capable of "choosing" what course of action they take in life.
Indeed they--and you--are capable of choice, and i commend you for moving beyond destructive addictions. However, i was under the impression that alcoholics and drug abusers are always "recovering", never "recovered"--those temptations will always exist for you, whether you give in or not. In the exact same way a gay man is always gay, regardless of his choice to engage in such sex. The difference is: You--and i--chose to explore intoxicants; most (i'm hedging my bet, considering LUGs (lesbian until graduation) and the truly confused) homosexuals will tell you "As soon as I started feeling sexual urges, they were all for my co-genders." That is not a choice, which "lifestyle" certainly implies.
If you happen to discuss these matters with a homosexual person, you're going to lose them from the get-go if you say "lifestyle" and "choice". That may not be your concern, but that's how it is.
This I was sorry to read because if that were true (which it is not) then Christ's sacrifice on the cross was for nothing.
Yeah, i'm sorry to read it too. It breaks my heart--and infuriates me--when i see Fred Phelps's group or any other of his like-minded ilk. Yes, these people who pervert Jesus' teachings are minority, albeit vocal, but so many Christians are so far from "hate the sin, love the sinner". i was not putting words in your blog(?), i was describing the reality of being gay--we even have bigots still in the SF Bay Area, if you can believe it. To further the point i was trying to make: No one has ever been brutally beaten to death for being heterosexual, so why would anyone choose to subject himself to that real danger?
And, if i may add a little mildly sacriligious ribbing, if Jesus did die for our sins, we really don't want his sacrifice to have been for nothing.
20 years ago "they" were saying verbatim what you say now regarding homosexuality. Again, this is not indicative of homosexuals being responsible for the actions of these pedophiles/perverts.
Absolutely that is the weak point in my--our--argument; times change, as they say. But here it is: The gay movement in the US first gained steam in the 1960s, and the pederasts jumped on that wagon, just as those nasty Dutchmen are now. NAMBLA was the most visible of these molester-rights groups, owed likely to Allen Ginsburg's membership, but look at what they are now: Two addresses and 'phone number that no one answers (second-hand--i never called).
In fact, what is more likely and borne out by recent history, molesters who are trying to ride these coattails will draw increased scrutiny, leading to further ostracism by the gay community and further jail sentences demanded by society. And more shanks in the ribs. i'm not sure about north of our shared border, but i have heard absolutely nothing from or about such groups in the past two years (while this topic has been a political football). Have there been in Canada?
[i am aware of the Albertan camp of Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who came from Colorado City, Arizona. Finally our government has cracked down on these despicable people. Do you really think that they'll succeed in any way? They certainly won't down here.]
As to John Robin Sharpe, i'm certain that his writings are truly awful (and probably poorly written to boot). Our First Amendment does allow such trash, as it allows me to inveigh to heart's content against it. And if i feel strongly enough, i can beat the tar out of these ratcuffs, as long as i am willing to do the time. There's nothing wrong with taking a little responsibility for one's actions, or, for that matter, alot of intolerance when warranted. [There was a law proposed down here a number of years back to criminalize art that portrays sex with or amongst underagers; it was withdrawn when it was determined that Dirty Dancing would have been pulled from the video stores.]
Mr. One, i do have more responses--this discussion certainly warrants them--but i need to get to the bar to catch Brazil-Croatia. i need to know how Brazil'll match up against Germany when they meet again.
with all sincerity-
anthony
TIO,
You seem to be handling yourself well. I skimmed through the comments and noted that you have repeated yourself on several occasions. Honesty, my patience grows thin after a while (I am still working on my temperament). If you and Anthony don’t mind, I would like to address Anthony’s last comment:
Anthony, by way of reply,
“If one looks to nature, dispassionately as is necessary in scientific endeavors, homosexuality is not rare.”
Even if it is the case that there are some “natural” homosexual drives on animals or humans; it does not follow that those actions are morally acceptable. If I understand TIO correctly, he was speaking to the biological function of human attributes (not the moral valuation of such acts). Making an observation in animals conducting a certain activity does not speak to the moral relevancy of that act. For example, you used penguins as an example of a homosexual tendency in animals. Yet, dolphins have a tendency to gang rape other dolphins. Thus, if one were to argue the case of “natural tendency” (though I am not stating this is your position), they could argue that gang rape is “natural” and observed in nature. Hence, by that logic, gang rape would be morally permissible (if, everything “natural” is permissible).
I am sure you would reject that proposition, and I am not attributing the position to you; however, the analogy does demonstrate that just because there is a “natural tendency” to do X; it doesn’t follow that one ought to do X, or *accept* X.
“To extrapolate, what about b.j.s? Do they not deviate from the natural design of sexual reproduction? Do they not encourage the wasting of seed? Are people who participate in oral sex "deviant", or is that a loaded term replete with moral judgment?”
Your extrapolation imputes a limiting characterization of sex. Sex, as a Christian understands it, is not solely a reproductive function. Whether or not seed is “wasted” is irrelevant to the biological purpose of certain organs. If you take into consideration TIO’s original post, what relevancy does a BJ have on the redefinition of marriage? Secondly, homosexuals can do what they do without being married. I don’t see how the original post on the definition of marriage would prohibit all the above acts.
“If so, it's a non-starter. i do not appreciate you calling my sister (who races motorcycles) "deviant", especially as she and her would-be wife are wonderful people, family-oriented and tilling their land. But i do concede that there are fewer lesbians than straight women.”
What’s a non-starter? I am not sure what you are referring to. The fact that you wouldn’t “appreciate” someone calling you sister “deviant” is irrelevant to the issue. I could equally say that I don’t “appreciate” your lack of appreciation toward me calling your sister ‘deviant.” The fact is, and I think TIO would agree, that I am sure your sister is a wonderful family oriented person. We have to distinguish between talking about homosexuality vs. homosexuals. There are many great homosexuals; I know a few—but it doesn’t follow that because they are great people that the act of homosexuality has to be accepted by everyone. Moreover, in order to be “deviant”; they have to deviate from a certain standard. What is yours?
“In the exact same way a gay man is always gay, regardless of his choice to engage in such sex. The difference is: You--and i--chose to explore intoxicants; most (i'm hedging my bet, considering LUGs (lesbian until graduation) and the truly confused) homosexuals will tell you "As soon as I started feeling sexual urges, they were all for my co-genders." That is not a choice, which "lifestyle" certainly implies.”
It certainly could be the case that one cannot rid oneself one homosexual urges. However, just because one cannot “change” their tendency, doesn’t mean that such actions should be acceptable (remember the redefinition of marriage?). For example, a pedophile can use the same logical argument you just did. One could say, “As soon as I started feeling sexual urges, they were all for ‘young children’." That is not a choice, which "lifestyle" certainly implies.”
Now, again, I am not imputing this position on you. However, when TIO speaks of the “slippery slope” he stating that the same arguments used for homosexuality can be used for polygamy and pedophilia. He’s not stating they are the same, but once you use the logical arguments to make your case, what argument could you use to argue against the other positions without refuting your own position?
“If you happen to discuss these matters with a homosexual person, you're going to lose them from the get-go if you say "lifestyle" and "choice". That may not be your concern, but that's how it is.”
Lets see this in action:
**
If you happen to discuss these matters with a pedophile person, you're going to lose them from the get-go if you say "lifestyle" and "choice". That may not be your concern, but that's how it is.
**
"[S]o many Christians are so far from "hate the sin, love the sinner". i was not putting words in your blog(?), i was describing the reality of being gay--we even have bigots still in the SF Bay Area, if you can believe it. To further the point i was trying to make: No one has ever been brutally beaten to death for being heterosexual, so why would anyone choose to subject himself to that real danger?"
1) We must distinguish between what some alleged Christians say, vs. what Jesus and the NT teaches.
2) “Loving the sinner” doesn’t mean accepting/ignoring the sin.
3) I could equally say that homosexuals are “bigots” toward those who openly do not “approve” or “accept” their life style as acceptable. BTW, I have been labeled worse.
4) I strongly oppose the beating of homosexuals. It is an immoral hate crime. I would hope that you don’t lump in all people who oppose gay marriage as supporters of such atrocious acts.
I would like to address more, but I have already spent way too much time here already and have other matters to attend to.
Take care.
First, Mr. F, thank you for responding; i will address your address below. But to finish my previous post, Mr. One:
And in all honesty I feel any acceptance gained is because the lifestyle is continually portrayed in all types of media like "everybody" is doing it.
For millenia, "everybody" who is gay has been doing it. Will & Grace or Broadway or whatever else has not invented or hyped anything, they've just been more candid about the reality of the human condition: Some people are gay. Unfortunately, like any other characters written for mass consumption, nuance is traded for comedy, understanding for stereotype. i'm as sick of the few flaming queers (who are a minority of a minority) as i am of dumb jocks, sassy teens, and gruff-but-caring dads.
My article was not aimed at homosexuals it was aimed at the political ideology of left wing pundits who pushed open a door (not necessarily with intent) that opened up the whole can of worms in the first place.
While i'm flattered that you think i'm gay, i'm not. i live in sin with a wonderful Jewess whom i will marry when i can be a real husband. i am, though, a left-wing "pundit" who will pursue quite doggedly my ideology as a lawyer (i will be attending a great school on an academic scholarship, now that i'm doing playing rock and/or roll). Maybe things are different up north, but there is no can of worms here. Again, where are pedophiles and polygamists and dog-rapists? Haven't heard a peep.
I recognize it as a generalized statement from an angry "Lefty".
No need for scare-quotes, i consider myself quasi-socialist and a social libertarian; but i am not angry. Disheartened, sure; anxious, absolutely; even peeved, but anger would cheapen my position. To put specifics in place, Wal-Mart, that paragon of rightist economic practice, likes to lock in their night-shift employees--would you abide imprisonment at your job? And active gutting of workplace protections, such as at McWane Steel, is tantamount to murder. i'm glad that you, unlike many of my compatriots, have flexibility, but calling me, a progressive leftist, "sick" before saying "don't take offense" doesn't work very well.
But i'm stoked, truly, that you can take the time and effort to discourse civilly. Just as you're not a coward, i am not sick.
So to Mr. F:
Making an observation in animals conducting a certain activity does not speak to the moral relevancy of that act.
Nope, it just proves that homosexuality is indeed natural, because it appears in nature. That's the definition of natural. Once we bring in moral valuation--which for religious folk is religiously grounded, no?--well, things change, but not what actually appears in nature. Mr. One said, "AND might I add how Christianity/religion was brought into the fray when it was never part of the original article is beyond me at this point," so morality, yours (most) likely derived from religious edicts, was not part of the original discussion--the original discussion was about the supposed slippery-slope of garriage->recognized bestiality & pedophilia & bigamy. As Arizona's greatest right-winger, Barry Goldwater, said: "You can't legislate morality." You may believe homosexuality immoral, but that is not the State's concern unless it harms other people, i.e., when actions become unethical.
The issue is what is good for the State, meaning what is good for the citizens, who usually start as children unable to legally consent to any number of things. Does pedophilia harm children? Yes. Does polygamy harm children? Most certainly. Does bestiality harm children? Not usually, but animals--like children--cannot, in the estimation of the State, consent. Can two adults consent? Yes, which is why our troglodytic anti-sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional. And in the US, that is the true test: Each law on the books must pass constitutional muster, and we retain each right not enumerated in the Constitution, the point of which is to "insure domestic Tranquility,... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Making licit the bogeyman which you fear would not fulfill these aims; letting two consenting adults marry certainly would.
To analogize: Allowing a legal BAC of 0.08--not the best idea--has not lead to the right to drive on heroin, which is still illegal (as far as i know). Again, a child-molester can scream all he wants about his supposed rights, it won't keep him from getting shanked in the big house.
Sex, as a Christian understands it, is not solely a reproductive function.
Why can't Shakers have sex standing up? It may lead to dancing. You may not limit sex between two consenting, heterosexual adults, but many Christians do. What about BDSM and water sports and other fetishes with saltier names? Are they legit as long as they're between two consenting, married heterosexuals? Check my first post for my description of the thrust (so to speak) of OT sex law; if Jesus, as Mr. One said, did not overturn the moral law--i.e., in this instance, sex law--then sex is indeed about the reproductive function (but only if you agree with my interpretations of Levitical law).
There are many great homosexuals; I know a few—but it doesn’t follow that because they are great people that the act of homosexuality has to be accepted by everyone.
Um, so they're great people except for the homosexual sex. Which has nothing to do with you. Okay. You're welcome to not accept their sexuality, but if they're great people, what's the problem? Why shouldn't the State, which is not your church, pay even any attention to something that is not the State's business? These great people you know shouldn't have to check in with you or anyone else, and the State should respect their beneficial urge to settle down and raise property values. Let them go to hell on their own, even if they tend their lawns, pay taxes so your children can go to school, and stop at zebrastripes so elderly women may cross safely. i notice you said "I know a few"--any friends or family? That's what changed Barry Goldwater's mind.
What’s a non-starter? I am not sure what you are referring to. The fact that you wouldn’t “appreciate” someone calling you sister “deviant” is irrelevant to the issue.
"I will sometimes be a little sarcastic but not in a malicious way. Nothing is accomplished thru that." When speaking with gay folk--whether you agree or not--"lifestyle" and "deviant" are malicious terms. Merriam-Webster distinguishes "malice" as "a deep-seated often unexplainable desire to see another suffer". Do you want active, unrepentant homosexuals to suffer? For eternity in hell? That's why it's a non-starter; you'll catch more flies with honey than with brimstone.
However, when TIO speaks of the “slippery slope” he stating that the same arguments used for homosexuality can be used for polygamy and pedophilia. He’s not stating they are the same, but once you use the logical arguments to make your case, what argument could you use to argue against the other positions without refuting your own position? [emph. mine]
Yeah, they can be. Unsuccessfully. Please read my post again.
1) We must distinguish between what some alleged Christians say, vs. what Jesus and the NT teaches.
So who's the arbiter? If we can't decide, then we shouldn't. That's why we've got the First Amendment down here.
2) “Loving the sinner” doesn’t mean accepting/ignoring the sin.
Well, if you were the State, that would be one thing. But you're not, and an enlightened democracy has no place in regulating "sin" that does not affect other people. That's why we have churches and can also recognize morality that does not spring from fear of hellfire.
3) I could equally say that homosexuals are “bigots” toward those who openly do not “approve” or “accept” their life style as acceptable. BTW, I have been labeled worse.
Good point. Gay folk should be as free to marry as you are to disagree as they are to disagree with you and your marriage. Your right to swing your fist ends where their noses begin, and vice versa.
4) I strongly oppose the beating of homosexuals. It is an immoral hate crime. I would hope that you don’t lump in all people who oppose gay marriage as supporters of such atrocious acts.
i'm happy of course to hear that, although i didn't suspect you or Mr. One of such brutalism. Natch, i don't lump all gay-prohibition people together with the sad people who beat Matthew Sheppard and left him caught up in a barbed-wire fence to die in the cold, and you know that i wrote nothing that would lead anywhere near that assumption. i do consider your position alarmist and untenable in view of fact. Again, read my previous post and respond to both the argument and history i laid out. If those crimes--which we all agree are horrible--were not made acceptable over the past 40 years, when open homosexuality has certainly become more acceptable, then why now?
To turn it back a bit, didn't we redefine marriage in much of our nation when we struck down the laws prohibiting marriage between different ethnicities in Loving v. Virginia? Did the sky fall? And let's talk about Norway, where fewer people are getting married (though not because of legalized gay marriage), did they slip into the sea? Why is their standard of living still so much better than the US's?
Your fear, which i will concede is somewhat justifiable (which is why we're having this discussion), should dissipate upon rational--and legal--consideration. Your intolerance, and Mr. One's intolerance, don't have to. And, to finish, regarding civil unions: Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, just call it a flippin' duck already. (Although our proposed--and failed--amendment is vague enough in its second sentence to invalidate even civil unions. Bleh!)
Moreover, in order to be “deviant”; they have to deviate from a certain standard. What is yours?
Reciprocated love and devotion. Yours?
truly-
anthony
btw: Mr. One, have you rode into Winnipeg to check out Propagandhi? They're gay leftists, but man, can they rock!
Anthony:
Welcome back.
"Thank for responding in kind--i most certainly appreciate that we can discuss reasonably facts and implications."
This is the type of debate I prefer over what some of the other's had to bring. we may never come to an agreement but we can at least gain more insight to one another's perspective and some respective understanding.
I found a lot of what BF addressed with you I would, obviously, be in agreement with and I do not want to repeat everything he already put forth. I would like to highlight a few things and touch on some of the areas he did not address.
"i'm not sure why you scare-quote "natural"
Scare quote? New term for me. I think I actually was getting to lazy to type in my BOLD settings (LOL) I was simply highlighting the obvious. That heterosexual sex is the only natural form of sex between humans. I am not sure what it is you feel I might be conceding a little.
" If one looks to nature, dispassionately as is necessary in scientific endeavors, homosexuality is not rare."
BF already addressed this and I just wanted to add a little bit more. I think the bigger question is why are they engaging in it in the first place when animals are driven to procreate. Another reason some animals engage in homosexual activity is because of over population. It has nothing to do with a strong urge or desire to be with the same sex. It has everything to do with an internal clock inside that goes off during certain times of the year that says I must pro create RIGHT NOW! Their body instinctively takes over because they are being told they need to "release" their seed. Is it normal for them to engage with another animal of the same sex? No, it is because that is what is available to them. Unlike human beings who can exert self control, they cannot.
A classic example of this is "Rover", your neighbors pooch, who runs across the street and starts to hump your leg ferociously . When this takes place (admit it Anthony, we have all had our leg humped at one time or another) do we take the view of: "Hey, this could be the start of a beautiful thing!". Or do we take the more common sense approach and recognize that what is taking place is clearly not normal/natural.
" i do not appreciate you calling my sister (who races motorcycles) "deviant",
She races motorcycles? Cool! I like her already. The term "Deviant" is not a name, as I think you are taking it, but an applicable term to anyone who falls under the dictionary definition. If homosexuality moves away from the normal way of sex it is then deviant. It is like the term perverse. Perverse means to distort from the natural or designed order. I see the word as an applicable term not a name. To call a homosexual a fag or a flamer, now that is name.
"However, i was under the impression that alcoholics and drug abusers are always "recovering", never "recovered"--those temptations will always exist for you,"
Recovering means that you are in the process of beating your addiction. Recovered refers to one no longer partaking. I agree these temptations will always be before me but so will sexual temptations as well. We could also refer to me as a recovered fornicator! :)
"If you happen to discuss these matters with a homosexual person, you're going to lose them from the get-go if you say "lifestyle" and "choice"
That is bizarre because I find they use the same terminology regarding my Christian faith.
As for your link to Fred Phelps. Thank you. I will be sure to drop in and tell him what an unloving. un -Christ like ASS he is.
" No one has ever been brutally beaten to death for being heterosexual, so why would anyone choose to subject himself to that real danger?"
Hey just ask the Christians? We can relate. It is going on all over the world right now. Although I can live by "turn the other cheek" the aggressor better remember that after that I turn the other cheek, I am all out of cheeks after that. Then it's time to rumble! I know, I know, not very Christian of me.
" I have heard absolutely nothing from or about such groups in the past two years (while this topic has been a political football). Have there been in Canada?"
No groups...yet. I do not mean to sound like the pessimist here but in Canada today convicted pedophiles walk around with their ankle bracelets while Joe Canada sit's in jail for selling his wheat across the border. As much as you may not agree or want to hear this, it is our newly elected "Right wing" conservative government that is going to put a stop to this. They are already imposing mandatory sentences and lengthier jail terms.
Our liberal government was unbelievable in the "rights" they and their Liberal appointed supreme court judges were giving to these (ahem!!!) people. They make your Democrats look like Republicans. (no offense)
"[i am aware of the Albertan camp of Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who came from Colorado City, Arizona. Finally our government has cracked down on these despicable people. Do you really think that they'll succeed in any way?"
Yes I do, UNLESS they reverse the redefinition of marriage. Canada is a lot different when it comes to human rights issues. This actually touches on the point of my article. The polygamists will use the legalization for same sex marriage as a legal precedent to further their cause. Human rights in Canada regarding sexuality take precedence over everything. And, yes, the bulk of it is from the gay community. I personally, have had my license to marry couples revoked because I refused to marry gay couples due to a conflict with my religious beliefs. Under the Canadian human rights code and our Charter of Human rights of freedoms (all people being equal) my religious beliefs should have been accommodated. Instead, even though the human rights commission actually verified that I was being discriminated against by my government, they took me from being the victim and made me into the perpetrator. They did this by not addressing my personal case but by bringing in hypothetical situations involving non parties.
In other words, what IF I was approached by a gay couple and refused to marry them based on my religious convictions I would then be discriminating against them. This of course was not germane to my complaint. My complaint was the Government taking my license away for not being willing to violate my own religious beliefs. This was religious discrimination and a violation of my religious rights and freedoms as well as my right to freedom of moral conscience. Essentially, the commission failed in their duties by establishing a hierarchy of rights with a non existent party and giving favor to the non existent party.
This is political correctness gone mad. Sexual rights and freedoms are eroding all other freedoms and rights...at least in Canada. When I wrote the entry I write from a Canadian political mindset. Liberals in Canada were pushing many of the ideologies we see in the Netherlands party. Legalization of marijuana, euthanasia, prostitution, and succeeded in lowering the age of consent to 14, Who knows how much lower they were going to go. Our Conservative government is going to be moving it back up to 16.
Anyways, my personal case is now going before the highest court for judicial review. There are many cases similar to mine up here.
"While i'm flattered that you think i'm gay, i'm not. i live in sin with a wonderful Jewess whom i will marry when i can be a real husband."
Actually I didn't. I did of course wonder at times by the way you wrote but was not going to bother asking. I felt if you wanted that to be out there you would volunteer it. And you have. Even though you are not gay. homosexuals are still welcome to partake here. Good to see you are open about your sin. Only one more step for you to take now!
" but calling me, a progressive leftist, "sick" before saying "don't take offense" doesn't work very well."
You probably feel the same way I do every time I am referred to as a radical fundamentalist.
"btw: Mr. One, have you rode into Winnipeg to check out Propagandhi? They're gay leftists, but man, can they rock!"
No I have not. Because my case is public knowledge up here, I am not sure how I would be received in that environment. Although to their credit, the gay community that has contacted me agrees that I should never have been forced to marry them if it conflicted with my faith.
Thanks again Anthony, here's hoping one day you will get it "RIGHT". LOL (just a little jab)
BF:
"You seem to be handling yourself well. I skimmed through the comments and noted that you have repeated yourself on several occasions."
Thanks for the compliment.
Repeating myself...you caught that too, obviously. I caught it as I was writing it.
" If you and Anthony don’t mind, I would like to address Anthony’s last comment:"
Don't mind at all, I always value your input....carry on bro. It gives me some breathing space. By the way if you look up the thread at Nog's last comment, I felt you would have some valuable input on his concerns.
Go to it.
Anthony thanks for the reply. BTW, you can call me BF.
“Nope, it just proves that homosexuality is indeed natural, because it appears in nature.”
Though what may seem to be homosexual tendencies in nature; it does not equate to ‘normal.’ Hence, just because it appears in nature, it doesn’t follow that the aforementioned activity in strictly natural (in the sense that it is a regularity of nature or a normative function).
“so morality, yours (most) likely derived from religious edicts, was not part of the original discussion”
To the contrary, morality is a profound part of this issue. Are you not arguing for a “right” of a group or persons? Are you not stating that homosexuals have the “rights” to participate in X (in this case the union of marriage)? Are you not saying that prohibition of gay marriage is discriminatory? Is discrimination void of morality? No sir, morality is engrained in any discussion on “rights.”
“"You can't legislate morality." You may believe homosexuality immoral, but that is not the State's concern unless it harms other people, i.e., when actions become unethical.”
To the contrary (again), morality is the only thing you can legislate. Laws, in effect, force viewpoints on other people (with those who are confined under it). All laws force someone's viewpoint, whether it’s speeding laws, or laws about abortion.
“The issue is what is good for the State, meaning what is good for the citizens, who usually start as children unable to legally consent to any number of things.”
Yes, a moral issue regarding the welfare of the youth.
“Does pedophilia harm children? Yes. Does polygamy harm children? Most certainly. Does bestiality harm children? Not usually, but animals--like children--cannot, in the estimation of the State, consent. Can two adults consent? Yes, which is why our troglodytic anti-sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional.”
First, proponents of pedophilia will just argue against every point you brought up. In their retorts, they use the same line of argumentation you do for homosexuality. Secondly, in what sense does polygamy harm children? How do you factor in childless polygamy?
“And in the US, that is the true test: Each law on the books must pass constitutional muster, and we retain each right not enumerated in the Constitution, the point of which is to "insure domestic Tranquility,... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." ”
I agree. Which in turn, congress has passed the ‘Defense of Marriage Act,’ which defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman. Moreover, homosexuals account for approximately 4% of the US population (feel free to correct me, but I think that’s accurate); why should marriage be redefined based on the view of only 4% of the people?
“Making licit the bogeyman which you fear would not fulfill these aims; letting two consenting adults marry certainly would.”
I don’t particularly care for your spin on my concerns by calling it a “bogeyman.” The term connotes your opponent’s position as a silly childish belief. I will leave it at that.
“Why can't Shakers have sex standing up? It may lead to dancing.”
I don’t know if you’re joking, but I don’t find any humor in the statement. I will take you seriously if you take me seriously.
“You may not limit sex between two consenting, heterosexual adults, but many Christians do. What about BDSM and water sports and other fetishes with saltier names?”
What about them? How does prohibiting the redefining of marriage prohibit such acts???? It doesn’t. What people do in there own private life is their business.
“Are they legit as long as they're between two consenting, married heterosexuals?”
Same response as above. This is more of a red herring than addressing the issues of defining marriage.
“Um, so they're great people except for the homosexual sex. Which has nothing to do with you”.
Right, what they do on their own has nothing to do with me; but when they require me to accept their union of marriage it does.
“Okay. You're welcome to not accept their sexuality, but if they're great people, what's the problem?”
The problem arises when they redefine the institution of marriage that imputes their view on everyone else. Thus, the issue does affect everyone—including myself.
“Why shouldn't the State, which is not your church, pay even any attention to something that is not the State's business?”
If were talking about what they do behind closed doors then it’s not their business. However, their taking the issue beyond closed doors and asking the public to accept their homosexual life style.
“These great people you know shouldn't have to check in with you or anyone else, and the State should respect their beneficial urge to settle down and raise property values.”
All of your arguments here are non sequiturs. Homosexuals can settle down and raise property values without same-sex marriage.
“Let them go to hell on their own, even if they tend their lawns, pay taxes so your children can go to school, and stop at zebrastripes so elderly women may cross safely.”
Why do you have to drag in the issue of hell? What does that have to do with the issue? Am I yelling fire and brimstone? Honestly, I was enjoying the discussion, but if you’re going to start throwing in issues from the back door, beat up straw men, and characterize my position in terms of a childish “bogeyman.” —I don’t see a fruitful discussion and will cease to respond to you.
“ i notice you said "I know a few"--any friends or family? That's what changed Barry Goldwater's mind.”
My Aunt is a lesbian. I love her very much.
“Merriam-Webster distinguishes "malice" as "a deep-seated often unexplainable desire to see another suffer". Do you want active, unrepentant homosexuals to suffer?”
This is a false dilemma. It would be one thing if I kicked the door in and prohibited homosexuals from emotional and sexual interaction—but that’s not the case. Your analogy is dishonest and disturbing. The prohibition of same-sex marriage is not the prohibition of “love”. Also, replace the term “homosexual” with “pedophile” or “polygamist” it works the same.
“Well, if you were the State, that would be one thing. But you're not, and an enlightened democracy has no place in regulating "sin" that does not affect other people. That's why we have churches and can also recognize morality that does not spring from fear of hellfire”.
I never said I was the state, in fact, I was responding to your previous statement about Christian hypocrisy—your reasoning was flawed; so I correct you. Secondly, your comment about morality is utterly feeble. I am getting a little tired of the back hands. Thirdly, who is talking about mattes that don’t affect other people??????????
“Good point. Gay folk should be as free to marry as you are to disagree as they are to disagree with you and your marriage. Your right to swing your fist ends where their noses begin, and vice versa.”
Gay folks are as free to marry as I am. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. I, equally cannot marry anyone of the same sex. I am restricted by the same laws they are. The fact that they want to marry the same sex doesn’t mean everyone should accept their redefinition.
“If those crimes--which we all agree are horrible--were not made acceptable over the past 40 years, when open homosexuality has certainly become more acceptable, then why now?”
I’ll read your previous post later when I get a chance, but are you equivocating the beating of homosexuals with the prohibition of same sex marriage? I hope not. If so, how exactly are they equivalent?
“To turn it back a bit, didn't we redefine marriage in much of our nation when we struck down the laws prohibiting marriage between different ethnicities in Loving v. Virginia? Did the sky fall?”
The ruling was not a redefinition of marriage, but a ruling that all race-based legal restriction on marriage was deemed un-constitutional. Hence, it was a reinforcement of what marriage was. Moreover, ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage; it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman.
“And let's talk about Norway, where fewer people are getting married (though not because of legalized gay marriage), did they slip into the sea? Why is their standard of living still so much better than the US's?”
I guess it’s just a coincidence and there is no correlation between the steep decline of marriage and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Yet, I am sure you will just say “bogeyman which I fear.” Or maybe the fears are real maybe... polygamy is on its way... it could happen ... Why not redefine anytime? ... Nah. ...
It’s getting late.
Cheers
I just think that all forms of fraternal and monogamous love glorify God.
Nog,
It seems what your saying is that anything goes, as long as “love” is the ultimate motivation. Yet, this is not the Biblical standpoint on homosexuality.
God created Male and Female—the counterparts were not coincidental. God said, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18); and (2) a helper, suitable to him, was needed.
Jesus did restate the man woman union in Matthew 19:4-6 and Paul reiterated this same understanding in 1 Corinthians 7:2; he said, “because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.”
Now, you seem to concede that the OT condemns homosexuality, so I won’t go through the examples, but then you assert that Jesus has done away with the principal along with the Levitical Law. However, if Jesus eliminated homosexuality as a sin, how do you explain the explicit prohibition of in the NT? Why only homosexuality and not adultery, pedophilia or other sins? How do you distinguish what was “tossed out” (so to speak) and what “is still there.”
Show me some New Testament Greek scholars who say that the following is not a fair translation of the text--- TIO may have already quoted this but:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. ...who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:26-32, emp. added).
What are the alternative “translations” and how have they faired with Greek Scholarship? What should the appropriate verbiage be and does it comport wit the context? Saying something is a “questionable translation” does not mean it is a “questionable translation.”
According to Paul, God not only condemns the activity, but “those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. So your apologetic for homosexual activity (and I say this humbly recognizing my own depravity) is a serious sin to God.
Paul also says:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, emp. added).
In the passage, homosexual refers to “males allowing themselves to be used sexually by other males” Thayer, Joseph H. (1977 reprint), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker) page 387. AND Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) page 489. Lexicographers translate it the same.
So, back to your statement about love--God loves all sinners; but He hates all sin. Let’s not pretend that the NT does not speak to this issue. It does.
God bless you brother,
~bf
bf,
1) "how do you explain the explicit prohibition of in the NT?"
There is no cut-and-dry incontestable ban on homosexual behavior in the NT. 1 Cor 6:9-11 possess some words that translators no longer know the meaning for. It is far from certain that an appropriate translation of that passage would include the words "homosexuals" and "sodomites". It cannot be cited as a ban on homosexuality and sodomy because of the massive translation issues. We must all accept that we have lost the exact definitions of some of the original Greek words and that we must use what is more reliable to support our arguments (meaning not 1 cor 6:9-11).
Romans 1 doesn't help the "Jesus against gays" case out any either as it was a condemnation of Greek temple worship and its orgyesque behavior.
1 Tim 1:9-10 also has horrible translation issues that leaves the content of the English text to the translator (rather than God). It isn't reliably a condemnation of homosexuality.
1 cor 7:2 is solely a statement regarding monogomy, not the way that people swing.
2) "According to Paul, God not only condemns the activity, but “those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. So your apologetic for homosexual activity (and I say this humbly recognizing my own depravity) is a serious sin to God."
Regarding Paul, he has his own bag of issues. Historical record shows that he had somewhat of an intrest in expanding his own personal power. And above all else, he was a good orthodox Jew at heart. He loves rules and regulations. It was a very pharaseic tradition. He loved doctrine. He at times shows himself as being mostly concerned with the church bureaucracy (politics and power) at the expense of spreading true godliness. And Paul was the master of doctrinal innovation.
Any man who calls for the death of any other man for any reason forfeits his Christianity in that act. If Paul was advocating the death penalty, then he is another early church heretic. Calling for other's deaths is the exact opposite of what Jeaus lived, died, and rose from the dead for.
3) The Gospels are the Gospels. There's no contesting those red letters. But there are no red letters on homosexuality, only on love and forgivness. I'll take Jesus over Paul any time.
4) Anatomy doesn't matter. It's the feeling. God's true image can't be "flesh" because he is a deity. Only the most pure feelings can mirror him.
5) The Bible supports all of my claims.
Nog,
Lets cut to the chase,
“We must all accept that we have lost the exact definitions of some of the original Greek words and that we must use what is more reliable to support our arguments.”
The Greek is not as obscure as you suggest. There are strong consensuses among Lexicographers of all persuasion that affirm the translations we have. If there were such uncertainties as you propagate, they would at least be footnotes in all the new translations give possible different meanings for the words.
All you have done is to suggest that the text we have today is a faulty translation of the original Greek. Yet, you have not cited any lexicons or Greek scholars supporting your position. Asserting doesn’t make it so.
“Regarding Paul, he has his own bag of issues.”
Don’t we all? Just because he has “issues” it doesn’t mean he was not an Apostle. You’ll have to do better and make your case why He’s not, then exclude the majority of the NT as Gods word.
“Historical record shows that he had somewhat of an intrest in expanding his own personal power.”
Enlighten me o this “historical record.” What historical record, in context, demonstrates that Paul’s three ship wrecks, stoning, working several jobs while preaching, spending several years in prison, beaten several occasions, and then dying in Rome for his faith expands his “personal power.”
“And above all else, he was a good orthodox Jew at heart. He loves rules and regulations. It was a very pharaseic tradition. He loved doctrine. He at times shows himself as being mostly concerned with the church bureaucracy (politics and power) at the expense of spreading true godliness. And Paul was the master of doctrinal innovation.”
Yes, Paul was a Pharisee before Damascus road, but I am wondering how familiar you are with the New Testament to have misrepresented Paul’s position on the law so disingenuously and incorrectly. Off the top of my head, I can think of Paul saying things like no one should "judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Colossians 2:16, or, in Galatians 2:14 he publicly accused the Apostle Peter of "judaizing", i.e. Legalism. Or, concerning the law, Paul states in Romans 10, that the Jews, not understanding the "righteousness of God," go about to "establish their own righteousness."
Nog, seriously, you need to take Paul and the NT seriously. You’re not playing with just semantics here. One ought to heed Paul and be absolutely sure he does not speak of God when he says things like; if you meet anybody who gives you any other gospel than the gospel that I gave you, "let him be cursed." And he said it twice in Galatians 1. I would take a step back if I were you. Just think about it for a while, pray about it, study the texts and be sure *absolutely* sure of your decision. I warn you not out of condemnation, but concern for you; out of love.
“Any man who calls for the death of any other man for any reason forfeits his Christianity in that act. If Paul was advocating the death penalty, then he is another early church heretic.”
I think you need to chill out and take a step back. The early Church would have deemed you a heretic on the spot for such a comment.
“The Gospels are the Gospels”.
Yes, and the Bible is the Bible all 66 Books. Do you reject some of the canonized book of the Bible?
“There's no contesting those red letters. But there are no red letters on homosexuality, only on love and forgivness. I'll take Jesus over Paul any time.”
Well, Jesus did call fools fools, the wicked wicked, the vile vile; He even tossed over some table in His day.
What you have contracted is called “red letter syndrome.” Luckily for you, with a little prayer, studying and intervention from God, it is curable. Go and read John 1:1. (The Gospels are the Gospels remember).You will find that Jesus is the “Word”; the 66 Books is you reject the “Word” you reject Jesus.
If you don’t take the other Books as scripture why am I bother talking to you? What’s the point of making a Biblical case that is just dismissed due to asserted mistranslations and the fact that you don’t like it.
What you have done is pick and choose what you will and will not accept out of the Bible as if it were some doctrinal buffet. Again, I urge you to step back and check yourself. Take some time to delve your self into thoroughly assessing the issue. Believe it or not, when I first became a Christian I held the EXACT same position you do. Yet, hours of study and prayer brought me to the position I am in today.
"Yes, and the Bible is the Bible all 66 Books. Do you reject some of the canonized book of the Bible?"
Regarding Bible inerrancy:
1) which Bible would we be calling inerrant. The texts that we have now do not say the same things as the texts as they were first written. Even a 100 AD text would have gone through at least a dozen copiers. Scribes mess up and jot notes in. Latter scribes write the notes and errors in as part of the text. Sections were added and removed and names were changed (like "Jesus Barrabas" to "Barrabas"). There is no "authentic" Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul's letters or anything else. If one were able to produce such a document, I would gladly proclaim every word in it as immaculate, perfect, flawless, free of error, etc...
But since there is no "original authentic copy" sitting around, we must use the reason that God so graceously gave us to fix the flaws of earlier men.
2) God is omniscient, men are not. Men do not become God just because he asks them to write something. Nothing but the word of God himself cam be innerrant. Paul and his letters were laiden with flaws in their original form. The word of Jesus is flawless.
There is nothing in Christianity that says anything about "religious texts" per se. Jesus doesn't interpret Deuteronomy much for us. He doesn't tell us which gospels are the correct ones. The books of the NT were chosen by a consensus of people who managed to murder their theologial opponents into silence. The Gnostics didn't kindly decide to convert because of the gentle persuasions of the "orthodox"; they were systematically killed. They did not destroy all of the other would be NT books, the "orthodox" burned them and their containing churches. The True Word of Christ is not proved by murder. A follower of the True Christ would never accede to any claims of innerrancy surrounding the works prefered by pagans and servants of Satan.
3) "If you don’t take the other Books as scripture why am I bother talking to you? What’s the point of making a Biblical case that is just dismissed due to asserted mistranslations and the fact that you don’t like it.
What you have done is pick and choose what you will and will not accept out of the Bible as if it were some doctrinal buffet. Again, I urge you to step back and check yourself. Take some time to delve your self into thoroughly assessing the issue. Believe it or not, when I first became a Christian I held the EXACT same position you do. Yet, hours of study and prayer brought me to the position I am in today."
I accept the word of Jesus in its totality. Yet very little of it is truly known. Jesus did not want the Hebrews to accept what the Pharasees told them without question. He would not want Christians to mindlessly follow the proclaimations of the Papists (who, by the way, are in no form Christian). He gave men reason so that they could use it. The Universe does not conflict with God. Understanding one will greatly help one in the understanding of the other.
Excellent discussion Nog and BF.
I will admit, Nog, I am on side with BF but you are putting up a good debate.
I am only going to contribute a little as the past few days have been meetings and soccer games.
Nog you said:
" Jesus did not want the Hebrews to accept what the Pharasees told them without question."
Of course Christ did not want them too. He was referring not to His Father's word but the more then 2,000 "rules and regulations" they added to His Father's word in order to control and manipulate the masses for their own self glorifacation.
They manipulated the word of God with these man made additives for personal gain. Obviously, Christ being God in the flesh recognised this and exposed these wolves in sheep's clothing.
So I would agree with you when you say:
" He would not want Christians to mindlessly follow the proclaimations of the Papists"
But I still never recall Him telling us to ignore God's moral code of the scriptures. Only to question what men bring forth outside of the texts.
The papists are one thing, the prophets of the living God are another. Prophets preached His word under constant threat. Their message was God's in that it was God(B.C.)/Christ(A.D.) centered. They often suffered persecution for speaking His word. This included the moral issues. In fact I should say ESPECIALLY the moral areas.
They gained nothing for themselves like the "religious" entity's of the day who were self centered.
Nog,
I think we have gotten to the essence of the problem; which is scriptural integrity. You know, you talk like every unbeliever I have dialogued with that rejects Christianity.
I am amazed how you can go from the statement:
“There is no "authentic" Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul's letters or anything else.”
To:
“The word of Jesus is flawless”
You basically remove the foundation right out from under your feet. Also what happened to “the Gospels are the Gospels”—you’re all over the map.
Continuing…
“There is nothing in Christianity that says anything about "religious texts" per se.”
I would slice and dice this with plentiful NT references, but your statement is useless anyway, because anything brought to your attention is discarded with a response like:
“The texts that we have now do not say the same things as the texts as they were first written. Even a 100 AD text would have gone through at least a dozen copiers. Scribes mess up and jot notes in. Latter scribes write the notes and errors in as part of the text. Sections were added and removed and names were changed (like "Jesus Barrabas" to "Barrabas").”
So why bother? The issue is your lack of understanding regarding the inerrancy. We go back to that later.
Jesus doesn't interpret Deuteronomy much for us. He doesn't tell us which gospels are the correct ones.
It would be a little difficult for Jesus to tell you which Gospels are the correct ones since they were written after the crucifixion. Secondly, for someone who reveres red letters so much, your ignorance of them is astounding. To the contrary, Jesus used the OT and thought from it regularly.
Jesus applied the OT prophecies to himself (Luke 4:18)
He made it clear that He had come to fulfill the Law (Matt.5:17-20)
When speaking of His death and resurrection He referred to the 'Sign of Jonah' (Matt.12:39-40).
He also showed others "the Scriptures concerning Himself" (Luke 24:27) and demonstrated the He had a unique position in relation to the OT Scriptures.
He was "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28)
Jesus used direct quotations of OT Scripture to:
1. Defeat the enemy (Matt.4:4, 7, 10).
2. Rightly interpret the Law (5; 15:4, 8-9; 22:32).
3. Explain the purpose of His coming (9:13; 10:36).
4. Explain the ministry of John the Baptist (11:10).
5. Explain God's requirements (12:7).
6. Explain the response of some people who heard Him (13:14-15).
7. Explain particular points He was making (18:16; 19:4-5; 21:42; 23:39).
8. In answer to questions asked Him (19:18-19; 22:37, 39).
9. Show an OT Scripture that needs to be fulfilled (21:5; 26:31).
10. Remind evil-doers what the prophets say (21:16).
11. Ask others a question (22:44).
12. Remind people of unfulfilled prophecies (24:15; 24:29).
13. Express His emotions on the cross (27:47).
Jesus used direct quotations of OT Scripture to:
1. Explain the response of some people who heard him (Mark 4:12).
2. Remind people of OT Prophecies (7:6-7).
3. Explain a point He was making (7:10-11; 9:48; 10:6, 8; 12:10-11).
4. In answer to a question (10:19; 12:29-31).
5. Remind evil-doers what the Prophets say (11:17).
6. Rightly interpret the Law (12:26).
7. Ask others a question (12:36).
8. Remind the people of unfulfilled prophecies (13:14 & 24).
9. Show an OT Scripture that needs to be, or will be, fulfilled (14:27).
10. Express His emotions on the cross (15:34).
Continuing…
“The books of the NT were chosen by a consensus of people who managed to murder their theologial opponents into silence. The Gnostics didn't kindly decide to convert because of the gentle persuasions of the "orthodox"; they were systematically killed. They did not destroy all of the other would be NT books, the "orthodox" burned them and their containing churches. The True Word of Christ is not proved by murder. A follower of the True Christ would never accede to any claims of innerrancy surrounding the works prefered by pagans and servants of Satan.”
If I had a dime for every time I have heard this rant…
Start by Studying Church History . Then correct your errors accordingly. I expect this kind of argumentation from atheist antagonists and anti-Christian propagandists, but to hear this from a Christian is disturbing.
“I accept the word of Jesus in its totality. Yet very little of it is truly known.”
Tell me, how exactly can you accept the “word of Jesus in it’s totality” when:
1) There is no "authentic" Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul's letters or anything else.
2) The texts that we have now do not say the same things as the texts as they were first written
3) Even a 100 AD text would have gone through at least a dozen copiers
4) Scribes mess up and jot notes in
5) Latter scribes write the notes and errors in as part of the text
6) Sections were added and removed and names were changed
Continuing…
“Jesus did not want the Hebrews to accept what the Pharasees told them without question. He would not want Christians to mindlessly follow the proclaimations of the Papists (who, by the way, are in no form Christian).”
Yes, I agree, but considering there is nothing reliable for us to review; how do you know this? How do you know those are Jesus’ exact words? How do you no they were just not added? How do you no they are the inspired Word of God? Factoring in all your claims of the books of the Bible and their unreliability, how do you even know Jesus was God?? How do you know you’re even a Christian?
“He gave men reason so that they could use it.”
Exactly, don’t you think you should start exercising that gift from God?
“The Universe does not conflict with God. Understanding one will greatly help one in the understanding of the other.”
I agree, but how exactly does this apply to what we are discussing?
Regarding scriptural integrity and inerrancy let me provide you with some beginner resources:
NT Historical Reliability
Reconstructing Aunt Sally's Letter
What the Bible Claims about itself
The Biblical Idea of Revelation
The Inerrancy of the Autographa
Is the Bible innerant?
Inspiration & Inerrancy
Innerancy, and the Infalability of the Bible
Of course, the internet is no substitute for a good library and better yet, nothing is as good substitute over the inspired word of God.
1)"It would be a little difficult for Jesus to tell you which Gospels are the correct ones since they were written after the crucifixion. Secondly, for someone who reveres red letters so much, your ignorance of them is astounding. To the contrary, Jesus used the OT and thought from it regularly."
It's much more difficult to manipulate direct quotes than interpretations. Will you honesly tell me that translators and scribes haven't ever "translated" or "copied" the texts in favor of their own held convictions?
2) The little bit we know of Jesus proves him beyond a doubt. And God is totally logical. As my brother told me recently "Every day for almost ten years, I have spend at least an hour trying to justify the nonexistence of God. I've never succeeded.". It would take several dozen pages for me to explain it all out but I would hold the core theological tenents of Christianity even if I had never heard of Jesus. They are logical. Here are some of them.
1 - God must exist
2 - There is only one God
3 - God, by definition is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
4 - God is all-loving (it goes with logically perfect)
5 - Time and space do not apply to God ("I am the first and the last", "I am")
3) Faith is for the blind and ignorant. I have no faith in God. I do not "believe" in God. I know God. True Christians know.
Nog,
Check those links; as all your concerns are addressed thoroughly. We are getting way off topic from TIO’s post, but I think your objections warrant some reply here.
“It's much more difficult to manipulate direct quotes than interpretations. Will you honesly tell me that translators and scribes haven't ever "translated" or "copied" the texts in favor of their own held convictions?”
There are a couple verses that have been questioned. There are even variants such as misspellings and skipping lines. Yet, no doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on ANY textual variant. Inerrancy doesn’t hold that “translations” are inspired, the original manuscripts are. From the about 24,000+ NT copies or pieces we have we can be 99.5% sure what the originals stated. Read the “Reconstructing Aunt Sally's Letter” link for a quick run down on how that can be done. If by methodology we are that close to the original manuscripts, we can treat the texts we have now as Gods Word, and follow accordingly.
Regarding contemporary translations, you’ll find that comities that widely vary in theological convictions participate in the translation—specifically for the purpose of avoiding bias. Moreover, take your Bible to any secular Greek scholar, open your Bible at random and ask him if he/she thinks it’s a fair translation. What do you think the answer will be?
“The little bit we know of Jesus proves him beyond a doubt.”
What do you mean by “proves Him”? From how you have already characterized the NT documents, at best, you may get His existence. However, by your own words, one can never get “God” out of “Jesus.” Hence, your own words undermine any argument you can ever use to go from Jesus>>to>>God.
“And God is totally logical. As my brother told me recently "Every day for almost ten years, I have spend at least an hour trying to justify the nonexistence of God. I've never succeeded.".”
Yes, but the logical probability of the existence of God doesn’t get you to the Truth of Christianity. One can believe in the “existence of God” and not be a Christian. Therefore, you need some additional criteria to get you from the former, to the latter. If you have devalued or diminished the only criterion you have to get to Christianity, you have only managed to shoot your self in the foot.
“It would take several dozen pages for me to explain it all out but I would hold the core theological tenents of Christianity even if I had never heard of Jesus. They are logical.”
Write your several dozen pages; I will give you an honest critique. Secondly, how would you know the “theological tenants of Christianity” if you cannot establish the “theological tenants of Christianity” in scripture? Remember, you have already conceded the following:
1) There is no "authentic" Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul's letters or anything else.
2) The texts that we have now do not say the same things as the texts as they were first written
3) Even a 100 AD text would have gone through at least a dozen copiers
4) Scribes mess up and jot notes in
5) Latter scribes write the notes and errors in as part of the text
6) Sections were added and removed and names were changed
Good luck making your case.
“Here are some of them.”
1 - God must exist
2 - There is only one God
3 - God, by definition is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
4 - God is all-loving (it goes with logically perfect)
5 - Time and space do not apply to God ("I am the first and the last", "I am")
Proposition (1) can be used by a Muslim and Jew as well.
Prove proposition (2) as a logically necessity without appealing to scripture.
Proposition (3) can be used by a Muslim and Jew as well.
Proposition (4) can at least be used by a Jew
Proposition (5) is philosophically strong. However, you appealed to scripture—to which my response is to see your statements #1-6 above.
None of your five propositions prove Christianity. Secondly, you forgot the most important “theological tenants of Christianity” which is our salvation, for “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." This; however, is the very thing you undermine in your statements.
“Faith is for the blind and ignorant. I have no faith in God. I do not "believe" in God. I know God. True Christians know.”
Or, “true Muslims know” or “true Jews know” or “true Hindus know” fill in the blank. Believing in God is not the same as putting faith in Jesus Christ. Undermining God’s word is undermining Jesus; undermining Jesus is undermining Christianity, undermining Christianity is undermining the Christian, undermining the Christian_then_ is undermining yourself.
Don’t be so hasty with this. You can reserve your judgment on the issue until you have had a chance fully tackle to the issue. I don’t think Jesus would mind if you just said, “I’m not sure about this yet, but I am willing to take the time to openly analyze and consider this issue.”
Please do so.
BF:
" We are getting way off topic from TIO’s post, but I think your objections warrant some reply here."
By all means gentleman, carry on. I do believe all the "Lefty's" went home when they discovered that they could not throw me off topic by referencing to me as a homophobic, intolerant, religious fanatic, bigoted, (you fill in the blank here).
I exposed something they did not like but I think the ranting is over.
You two have a good dialogue going. Doesn't bother me a bit if you use my thread to finish it up.
My five (I do have more if you want some) propositions are things that I have proved apriori. All trains of logic must regress to an ultimate given. It is something that no man can ever reason past. I get all the way back to "existence exists". At that point, causality breaks down. Something had to "evoke" existence in an "arbitrary" manner. God is the only one that fits the description.
Back to my propositions: Three is supported by the same passages that support five. One and two are everywhere. Four is more implied than stated.
But I am a reasonable man. I know that only a deity himself could prove himself. Books do not have this ability. Jesus didn't choose the books of the Bible. Plenty were written; few where chosen. Christianity was around for a while before there was a "NT Canon" and it will be around long after. God isn't bound by mortals' reading choices. There isn't any reason why we ought to take the Gospel of Mark over the Gospel of Thomas. Why not the Apocalypse of Peter over the Revalation of John? To choose properly, one must use reason. Someone had to sit down and pick (long after the authors were dead). It wasn't "just there".
I see no more reason to "honor as valid" the essentially papist canon than I do the papist ecumenical councils. One can be a Christian without the "Orthodox" NT canon and one can be a heathen with it. The "Orthodox" NT is not "necessary" for Christians.
Nog,
Let me play ‘devil’s advocate’ here (sincerely; screwtape):
“My five (I do have more if you want some) propositions are things that I have proved apriori.”
First, you did not “prove” your five propositions. Rather, you just stated them. Since I have no beef with [some of] those presuppositions, I won’t make you qualify them; but you didn’t “prove” them. At best, you said their “logical” (again w/out support).
Secondly, your propositions do not establish Christianity. They are only preconditions to Christianity. You have already crippled any argument you can make for Christianity, so you’re regressing.
“All trains of logic must regress to an ultimate given.”
Yes, but how do you go from your presuppositions and philosophical foundations of God’s existence to the truth of Christianity?
All you did was presuppose Christianity, and then regress to the previous (1-5) propositions; which in turn, can be used for other religions. So, I don’t see how that helps your case at all. Moreover, I am still waiting for your to prove proposition (2) as a logically necessity.
“It is something that no man can ever reason past. I get all the way back to "existence exists” At that point, causality breaks down..”
Your reasoning is flawed. If “existence exists”, then causality is void. No offense, but you sound like a randoid objectivist with that statement. They axiomatically assert your statement verbatim for the non-causality of the universe.
“Something had to "evoke" existence in an "arbitrary" manner. God is the only one that fits the description.”
Right, but what religion are you arguing for? How does this lead to Christianity and not another religion.
Answer me this:
Why are you not a Muslim or Jew?
“Back to my propositions: Three is supported by the same passages that support five.”
You must have forgotten that the passage is (1) “not authentic” (2) the passage was added later (3) the text in the passage we have now do not say the same things as the texts as that was first written (4) even if that passage was written 100 AD the text would have gone through at least a dozen copiers (5) the Scribe messed up and jotted notes into the passage, which was later mistaken as text (6) or the entire passage was added later.
“One and two are everywhere. Four is more implied than stated.”
Proposition one; yes. However, prove proposition (2) as a logically necessity.
How is proposition 4 implied with all the war, suffering and hate in this world?
“But I am a reasonable man. I know that only a deity himself could prove himself.”
1) If you’re so reasonable, how do you know Jesus is deity without appealing to the Bible as an authoritative text?
“Books do not have this ability. Jesus didn't choose the books of the Bible. Plenty were written; few where chosen.”
So God could not inspire men to write His will? Or God did not want leave us with a reliable message? Or God did not care to let us know what He wills, or How to reach His Kingdom? Etc…etc…etc…
“Christianity was around for a while before there was a "NT Canon" and it will be around long after.”
Depends on what you mean by “NT Canon.” I suspect you have no idea. I suspect you think that man created the canon and not God. I suspect you think a council some time in ancient history were able to pick and choose what will and won’t be in the canon like a tasty book buffet mmmmmm yummey—I’ll take a little bit of Paul with a side of Mathew and maybe for some doctrinal desert I’ll have some John.. Nog, YOU HAVE MUCH TO LEARN
“God isn't bound by mortals' reading choices.”
I never said He was, lets not beat up stawmen k?
“There isn't any reason why we ought to take the Gospel of Mark over the Gospel of Thomas. Why not the Apocalypse of Peter over the Revalation of John?”
Then there isn’t any reason to be a Christian, because you can never authoritatively tell me what Christianity or a Christian is. You can never tell me anything about the life of Jesus, or what He said, taught and did. You can never tell me that He died for my sins without me laughing in your face. You can never tell me that Jesus didn’t require women to become men to be saved; because that’s exactly what the Gospel of Thomas says and there isn't any reason why we ought to take the Gospel of Mark over the Gospel of Thomas.
“To choose properly, one must use reason. Someone had to sit down and pick (long after the authors were dead). It wasn't "just there".
What about God; is He excluded? He cannot leave any information for us? Tell me, how can one love God, if they can no nothing about Him? Who exactly do you think Jesus is and how do you know that? How do you know the true Jesus is not of the Gospel of Thomas and requires women to become men before salvation?
“I see no more reason to "honor as valid" the essentially papist canon than I do the papist ecumenical councils. One can be a Christian without the "Orthodox" NT canon and one can be a heathen with it. The "Orthodox" NT is not "necessary" for Christians.”
What is “necessary” to be a Christian” How do you know it? What does Christian believe? How does a Christian trust what He believes?
Why be a Christian rather than a Muslim or Jew?
Sincerely,
Screwtape
You've brought up many valid points. I'll answer my favorite.
"Why be a Christian rather than a Muslim or Jew?"
To quote myself:
3 - God, by definition is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
4 - God is all-loving (it goes with logically perfect)
The god of Islam doesn't seem very loving to me. The god of Judaism is far to "manlike". He is portrayed as "less than omnipotent" on several occasions. God's image is on man. But it doesn't work backwards.
I use the strict definition of God. Most other religions do not. In pagan beliefs, Gods fight and kill each other with swords and spears. If they were "God gods" rather than "powerful immortals", they could just bring an M-16 or ICBM from "the future" because time would not apply to them. Or more likely, they would disevoke each other. But that makes no sense. There can't be two or more "God Gods". They would have to be so infinitely similar that they would be the same entity.
And then there's the whole other question of "why is the universe imperfect if there is an omnipotent and all-loving god?". I think that this stems from the fallacy of applying time and space to God. There is no "beginning" or "end" or "here" or "there" to a "God god". I am atmittedly sort of stuck every time I reason it this far. But at least I haven't given up on it.
And for clarity: How I would classify myself? "Quasi-gnostic Christian with a very large dose of deism", "not a papist".
It’s hard to see how your reply is helpful. The below might sound harsh, but I wouldn’t be true to Christ if I didn’t tell you the truth. So I apologize in advance for my bluntness.
To what I thought was relevant:
“How I would classify myself? "Quasi-gnostic Christian with a very large dose of deism", "not a papist".”
i) I take it you think I’m a “papist” then. Though, a “papist” refers to the Papal primacy over all Christians in Roman Catholicism. Yet I don’t hold the position that the pope holds such authority. Which leads me to believe, you’re making up your own terms or you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. I suspect it’s a combination of the two.
ii) Deism is the view that the universe was created by a God who then makes no further intervention in its affairs. God wound the clock then walked away. So your fourth proposition “God is all loving” that you claim to have “proved” does not comport with deism. So, again, you have no idea what your saying. To make matters worse, your argument to solve them problem of evil fell far short of the mark (and I’m being overly nice here).
iii) Believing whatever you want, rejecting all scripture, creeds, and sympathizing with Gnosticism is not Christianity. Whatever it is that you believe or practice is not Christianity; it’s your own concoction of religion.
iv) What you have stated you believe and what the Christian faith teaches is irreconcilable. ‘Quasi-gnostic’ and ‘Christian’ is an oxymoron. Just like ‘Jesus Christ’ and ‘Deism.’
v) You can believe what you want; it’s your choice, but don’t call it Christianity because it’s not. You don’t get to just redefine everything to your own liking. Make up a new name for your religion.
You have really gone off the deep end here.
I hate to say this, as I love this thread, but it is getting a little difficult to scroll down the whole comments page/\.
Nog:
Just hit "collapse comments" at the top of the thread and you will get to the bottom alot faster. Then from there you can open the most recent reply's/comment's.
ITO:
I realize you're on vacation, & this thread is worn out, but I just looked up Allen Ginsburg (I thought he was a Nambla guy too), & lo & behold:
"He said that he supported NAMBLA's right to free speech because the hysteria over pederasty reminded him of the hysteria over homosexuality itself while he was growing up."
http://www.answers.com/Allen%20Ginsburg
So, no, Ginsburg wasn't a member at all.
Means I can actually go read his stuff now. Cool.
Ginsburg was a self proclamed member.
Wasn't it Ginsburg who said "I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity"? And does his statement about "hysteria over pederasty reminded him of the hysteria over homosexuality" imply that he thinks it will be accptable (he is homosexual, BTW)
BF has you on that one RA.
BF:
Ginsburg was a self proclamed member.
No, he was a supporter - not the same thing.
And does his statement about "hysteria over pederasty reminded him of the hysteria over homosexuality" imply that he thinks it will be accptable (he is homosexual, BTW)
The actual quote is (from Wiki):
"He stated that he supported NAMBLA's right to free speech, and that the hysteria over pederasty reminded him of the hysteria over homosexuality itself while he was growing up."
Next time, quote in its entirety.
So, no, not a member, a supporter (brrhhh!).
It's a dumbass opinion - Ginsberg's.
I don't like those fuckknobs any more than you guys do - but they got rights in this country. The right to speak up, be heard, no matter how fucked up their POVs are.
Gotta tolerate 'em - long as they don't act on their opinions.
RA
“No, he was a supporter - not the same thing.”
No, he was a member. He said:
“I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity.”
Note the operative “I AM A MEMBER OF NAMBLA…”
Sometimes you have to expand your research criteria other than wiki and answers.com
See:
http://216.220.97.17/ginsberg.htm
Or just google it.
BF:
Oh, you gotta be fucking kidding me.
Somehow, I KNEW you were going to do this.
Of course NAMBLA lays claim to him as a member. He's the closest goddam thing those pedophiles got to a celebrity. They can't get ANYONE on their side.
Tell you what. You find me a video, where he SAYS that, & I'll let you have the point. Or maybe a RELIABLE news source. Secular, non-biased.
Otherwise, fahgetaboutit.
Reluctant,
I believe he made the statement in a tv interview. I am sure if I searched enough I could find more sources, but it’s really not that important to me. In fact, even if he is/was a NAMBLA member, you could still read his writings. Everyone has something we disagree with (some issues more serious than others, of course), we just spit out the bones. Even writers like Nietzsche have some periodic insights that are valuable (from a theist perspective). So, in all, we use our discernment the best we can. Also, sometimes we just want to know what crazy people think :)
Post a Comment