| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2009 05:35:04 PM · #3076 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So... Christians shouldn't get their undies in a bundle about gay marriage because gay marriage and any government cannot change God's mind about marriage, and everyone else should stop bashing Christians and complaining that Christians don't like homosexuals. |
The bashing will stop when "Christian" groups stop funding/promoting opposition to your "Part A" interpretation becoming the law of the land.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Why is it that people always come to the conclusion that because Christians don't condone gay marriage, that must mean they don't like gays? |
Probably the frequent use by prominent "Christians" of words like "abomination" ... |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 06:00:45 PM · #3077 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
B: "Marriage" as defined by God is a covenant between one man, one woman, and God.
When a Christian get's married, it ALWAYS involves part B and usually involves part A (at least in the United States). |
Two problems here:
1. God hasn't defined ANYTHING. Such definitions are based on interpretations of human-authored texts, and frequently subject to reinterpretation or change. Some religions (Mormon, Muslim, and even early Christian) have at times defined marriage to include one man and multiple women, and many have historically considered wives to be property rather than a union of equals.
2. The United States is not a Christian theocracy (at least it's not supposed to be).
EDIT– OK, three problems. Please explain how any god would place such a restrictive definition on a natural world with considerably more diversity?
Message edited by author 2009-12-17 18:12:51. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 06:13:02 PM · #3078 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So... Christians shouldn't get their undies in a bundle about gay marriage because gay marriage and any government cannot change God's mind about marriage, and everyone else should stop bashing Christians and complaining that Christians don't like homosexuals. |
If you're a Christian, you love the person, but don't condone the action.
However:
If you're a wedding Christian photographer, you can get sued for not accepting a client who is having a gay marriage.
If you're a Christian church who rents out your property to weddings, you can get sued if you don't rent it out to a gay couple who are getting married.
If you're a Christian adoption agency, you must allow gay couples to adopt. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 06:34:01 PM · #3079 |
@ scalvert
1. You're "technically" right that God never defined "marriage" in the Bible. He simply said that a man and woman would join together and become one flesh. Marriage has simply been used in conjunction with the idea of a man and woman becoming "one flesh".
2. Which part of my post led you to believe I was suggesting that the United States is, or is supposed to be, a Christian Theocracy?
3. I hate questions like this. "Why would God...?" "How can God...?" "What kind of God would...?" These kind of questions assume that God owes us something or that God is supposed to be good to us. I don't know where people get those crazy ideas... What did you do to deserve something from God? How can God give his creation restrictions? Because he can and he has all the right to! If you take a picture on your camera don't you have the right to determine what happens to it and who can get a copy of it (to put it in DPC terms)?
Job 38 says, "1 Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:
2 “Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them."
I can't explain to you why God made every guideline that he did. All I know is that he made that guideline and I'd rather just do it then try to question him. Sorta like when I was a kid and my dad would get upset with me and tell me to do something. I didn't argue with him... I just did it. No questions asked.
Christians = follow first, ask later
non-Christians = ask and...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2009 06:36:54 PM · #3080 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
However:
If you're a wedding Christian photographer, you can get sued for not accepting a client who is having a gay marriage.
If you're a Christian church who rents out your property to weddings, you can get sued if you don't rent it out to a gay couple who are getting married.
If you're a Christian adoption agency, you must allow gay couples to adopt. |
You're applying irrational fears to a "what-if" scenario. Would a Christian church be sued for refusing to marry a Jewish couple? Must a Christian adoption agency allow Muslim couples to adopt? Likewise, gay couples aren't likely to seek out the services of an organization that expresses disdain or hatred towards them anyway. The Episcopal and Anglican churches are both large Christian denominations that don't have a problem with gays, so being a Christian photographer does not automatically imply a discriminatory bias. You'd probably find some people who are OK with the idea within most church congregations. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 07:01:46 PM · #3081 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
All I know is that he made that guideline and I'd rather just do it then try to question him. |
Correction, you make an assumption that he made that guideline (or any other). All you really know is that some unknown author(s) claimed he did. Those same authors claim that he made other guidelines that we ignore as abhorrent in civilized society. Furthermore, there isn't a single word attributed to Jesus on the subject.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Which part of my post led you to believe I was suggesting that the United States is, or is supposed to be, a Christian Theocracy? |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When a Christian get's married, it ALWAYS involves part B and usually involves part A (at least in the United States). |
Right there. Attaching the word Christian to marriage implies that the U.S. is defined by what Christians do when our Constitution was expressly framed to prevent the establishment of any single religion. In addition, Christians in four U.S. states currently don't have to be of the opposite sex to get married, so your assertion is patently false. Washington D.C. may be next.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I hate questions like this. "Why would God...?" "How can God...?" "What kind of God would...?" These kind of questions assume that God owes us something or that God is supposed to be good to us. I don't know where people get those crazy ideas... |
I hate that people who flatly declare that God made some black and white decree inevitably stick their head in the sand and hum "la,la,la,la..." when confronted with the fact that the natural world doesn't fit such a restrictive definition. Asking how a perfect God can define marriage as between a man and a woman while "creating" individuals who can't readily be categorized either way is a fair question, and dismissing it with an "I don't question it" response doesn't make the problem go away.
Message edited by author 2009-12-17 19:04:07. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 08:04:37 PM · #3082 |
@ scalvert
Actually, most of the authors of the Bible are known.
When I put the United States in parenthesis there, what I meant was that in the United States Christian marriages are usually recognized by the government. There are places in the world that Christian marriages are not recognized by the government because of religious oppression. I am not suggesting that the U.S. should be defined by what Christians do. Likewise, Christianity should not be defined by what the U.S. government does. This is my whole argument really... Christians shouldn't panic about gay marriage because it doesn't define, or redefine, the Christian perspective of marriage.
I apologize for using the word "hate" when I referred to your question. Please don't think I'm a person who sticks my head in the sand, etc... I am aware that the "natural world" does not always agree with my faith. What you perceive as question dodging is the reality that you and I have a different idea of what truth is. Many people (not saying you) believe that science is the truth and that if something cannot be proven by science or cannot be recreated in the natural world, then it is ultimately not the truth. I believe that God is truth. If something doesn't fit with God's truth, then I believe it is false.
You claim that certain individuals, such as the ones in the news article you referenced, cannot readily be categorized either as male or female. You examine this situation and see that there is some scientific gray area. It is not black and white. Therefore, if the natural world is not black and white, then how can God create rules that are black and white? (let me know if I'm way off, or relatively close)
I believe that God created humans as male and female just as the Bible says. Originally, everything was clear cut, black and white. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world (I'm sure you've heard that before). Now, sin screwed everything up and the world became something other than what God wanted it to be. What is the result of sin? Cousins marrying cousins and giving birth to children with genetic disorders, just like the individuals in the article. God didn't "create" people with that specific genetic disorder. God created a world in which there were men and women.
You try to make God fit your reality of the natural world. I make my world fit the reality of God, and I don't stick my head in the sand in the process. I'm very proactive with my faith and pursuit of truth. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 08:11:25 PM · #3083 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that God created humans as male and female just as the Bible says. Originally, everything was clear cut, black and white. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world (I'm sure you've heard that before). Now, sin screwed everything up and the world became something other than what God wanted it to be. What is the result of sin? Cousins marrying cousins and giving birth to children with genetic disorders, just like the individuals in the article. God didn't "create" people with that specific genetic disorder. God created a world in which there were men and women. |
Kudos for at least attempting to answer the question, even though it suffers from a fatal flaw. Who were the descendents of Adam and Eve supposed to marry if not siblings and cousins? |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 08:12:47 PM · #3084 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that God created humans as male and female just as the Bible says. Originally, everything was clear cut, black and white. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world (I'm sure you've heard that before). Now, sin screwed everything up and the world became something other than what God wanted it to be. What is the result of sin? Cousins marrying cousins and giving birth to children with genetic disorders, just like the individuals in the article. God didn't "create" people with that specific genetic disorder. God created a world in which there were men and women. |
Kudos for at least attempting to answer the question, even though it suffers from a fatal flaw. Who were the descendents of Adam and Eve supposed to marry if not siblings and cousins? |
How is that a flaw? |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 08:18:40 PM · #3085 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that God created humans as male and female just as the Bible says. Originally, everything was clear cut, black and white. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world (I'm sure you've heard that before). Now, sin screwed everything up and the world became something other than what God wanted it to be. What is the result of sin? Cousins marrying cousins and giving birth to children with genetic disorders, just like the individuals in the article. God didn't "create" people with that specific genetic disorder. God created a world in which there were men and women. |
Kudos for at least attempting to answer the question, even though it suffers from a fatal flaw. Who were the descendents of Adam and Eve supposed to marry if not siblings and cousins? |
How is that a flaw? |
You said that the problem of cousins marrying cousins (and the resulting genetic flaws of such inbreeding) is the result of sin. If with world started with only Adam and Eve, then all descendents would be siblings or cousins regardless of sin. There wasn't anybody else to marry!
Message edited by author 2009-12-17 20:19:22. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 08:23:14 PM · #3086 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that God created humans as male and female just as the Bible says. Originally, everything was clear cut, black and white. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world (I'm sure you've heard that before). Now, sin screwed everything up and the world became something other than what God wanted it to be. What is the result of sin? Cousins marrying cousins and giving birth to children with genetic disorders, just like the individuals in the article. God didn't "create" people with that specific genetic disorder. God created a world in which there were men and women. |
Kudos for at least attempting to answer the question, even though it suffers from a fatal flaw. Who were the descendents of Adam and Eve supposed to marry if not siblings and cousins? |
How is that a flaw? |
You said that the problem of cousins marrying cousins (and the resulting genetic flaws of such inbreeding) is the result of sin. If with world started with only Adam and Eve, then all descendents would be siblings or cousins regardless of sin. |
Yes, but the world as God originally created it was perfect. There was no disease, no genetic disorders, and no sin. There was no rule that prevented inbreeding, in fact Adam and Eve only had one rule, which was to not eat from the tree in the center of the garden. God didn't give humans any rules until they started sinning and needed some rules to get back on track. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 09:08:57 PM · #3087 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Yes, but the world as God originally created it was perfect. There was no disease, no genetic disorders, and no sin. There was no rule that prevented inbreeding, in fact Adam and Eve only had one rule, which was to not eat from the tree in the center of the garden. God didn't give humans any rules until they started sinning and needed some rules to get back on track. |
So you're another one of the Christians that's going to twist and turn and change your story for every flawed theory that you have shot out of the saddle, and your pat answer is "Because it'sGod's will." when the really difiicult questions come along that you can't answer, right?
You have every right to have your beliefs, but you simply cannot apply them in a rational, intellectual conversation with people who don't share them.
Especially when you're using the "God created the perfect world" thing amongst people who pretty much have a long standing, serious background in evolution and cannot buy into creation on any level.
Things is, as you say it, Eve ate the forbidden fruit, right? Then the downfall of the vile humans was set in stone, right? So explain how the incest thing works for you.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2009 09:14:26 PM · #3088 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Yes, but the world as God originally created it was perfect. There was no disease, no genetic disorders, and no sin. There was no rule that prevented inbreeding, in fact Adam and Eve only had one rule, which was to not eat from the tree in the center of the garden. God didn't give humans any rules until they started sinning and needed some rules to get back on track. |
Now you're opening up all sort of logic problems. We can see plenty of disease and genetic disorders in fossils predating any mammals, let alone humans. There's no rule (aside from laws in some cultures) that prevents inbreeding now, which is precisely why Gaza is facing this problem. If you're suggesting that genetic flaws from inbreeding were "introduced" as punishment for human sin, then they wouldn't exist in animals, but they do. Nevermind the myriad rational problems of an omniscient being inflicting eternal suffering on an entire species after planting a talking animal to goad them into committing an act that would be required for them to comprehend what sin was in the first place. If there was only one rule, then the only possible sin would be eliminated by removing them from the proximity of this forbidden flora, and there would be nothing else to get on track.
A far simpler explanation: Biblical-era authors didn't have a clue about genetics, and people generally died of disease or injury by their 30's, so it made perfect sense to suggest that people could marry close relatives (a common practice back then) and might otherwise live to be hundreds of years old if not for maladies "imposed" as punishment. We now know better, so the only way to maintain such beliefs is to assume that "God changed natural laws." However even that fails to withstand even cursory reasoning since the same laws apply to other animals that aren't being punished.
Nevertheless, we have digressed far from the topic, and there's little point in belaboring it. As I said, kudos for at least tackling the question. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 09:57:17 PM · #3089 |
@ NikonJeb
I don't think I'm twisting "my story", at least I hope I'm not. I don't claim that any of this stuff is "my story", I'm just trying to interpret it. I also don't believe that I (or anyone) can answer all the really difficult questions. I disagree that religious people are unable to apply their arguments in an intellectual way. If you're not willing to try to have an intellectual conversation with someone with different beliefs than you, that's going to be a major determent to you. At any rate, I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. I'm simply responding to the topic and the questions that have been proposed as a result.
To answer your question about incest... Before "the fall", and before sin entered the world incest was not identified as a bad thing. After the fall, it still wasn't wrong until God declared that it was wrong when he gave humanity his laws. What other explanation do you need?
@ scalvert
First of all, I don't think that God introduced sin as punishment. I think that Adam and Eve provided Satan with an open door to bring sin into the world. God didn't create sin, nor did he use it against his creation as a form of punishment. Sin, by definition, is disobedience to God. God didn't, and still doesn't, create things specifically for the purpose of opposing him.
Second, when sin entered the world, it entered the world. Sin doesn't exclusively influence humans. Sin has influence over everything, including animals.
Third, you're right, we have digressed. What you see as problematic is not problematic to me, and vice-versa.
No offense guys, but the Adam and Eve incest question and the God using sin to punish creation question are really, really old and any good Bible reading Christian is not going to be phased by those questions. Obviously, you're going to disagree with the answers and the reasoning behind those answers, but asking the same questions over and over to try and prove the fallibility of Christian "logic" usually doesn't work against Christians.
Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I always have fun having these conversations. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 10:16:14 PM · #3090 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
God didn't create sin ... |
I thought God created everything ... before The Creation there was only the void (i.e. nothing) except God. You can't have an Ultimate Creator without that Creator having created everything, including sin, Satan, etc.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Sin has influence over everything, including animals. |
How can an entity without a soul or conscience be capable of sin? If animals are capable of sinning, wouldn't it murder to kill them? I know the Jains believe something like this, but I'm guessing most Christians are not vegetarians ... |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 10:32:11 PM · #3091 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
God didn't create sin ... |
I thought God created everything ... before The Creation there was only the void (i.e. nothing) except God. You can't have an Ultimate Creator without that Creator having created everything, including sin, Satan, etc. |
God created Satan as an angel, Lucifer. Lucifer disobeyed and rebelled against God (which is the definition of sin), thus becoming Satan. God created humans and angels with free wills. Satan chose to sin, as did Adam and Eve. God didn't create them as sinful beings, they chose that for themselves. God did not create sin. Sin is the result of a choice that happened apart from God's will. Sin is the result of a choice. It's cause and effect.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Sin has influence over everything, including animals. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How can an entity without a soul or conscience be capable of sin? If animals are capable of sinning, wouldn't it murder to kill them? I know the Jains believe something like this, but I'm guessing most Christians are not vegetarians ... |
I didn't say that animals were sinners, I said they were under the influence of sin. If someone hates me, I am under the influence of that persons hate and their hate will have negative impacts on me, but that doesn't make me a hater.
Message edited by author 2009-12-17 22:36:28. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 12:52:39 AM · #3092 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
No offense guys, but the Adam and Eve incest question and the God using sin to punish creation question are really, really old and any good Bible reading Christian is not going to be phased by those questions. |
Not phased = unable to address. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 06:22:36 AM · #3093 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't think I'm twisting "my story", at least I hope I'm not. I don't claim that any of this stuff is "my story", I'm just trying to interpret it. I also don't believe that I (or anyone) can answer all the really difficult questions. I disagree that religious people are unable to apply their arguments in an intellectual way. If you're not willing to try to have an intellectual conversation with someone with different beliefs than you, that's going to be a major determent to you. At any rate, I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. I'm simply responding to the topic and the questions that have been proposed as a result.
To answer your question about incest... Before "the fall", and before sin entered the world incest was not identified as a bad thing. After the fall, it still wasn't wrong until God declared that it was wrong when he gave humanity his laws. What other explanation do you need? |
A baseline to index from.....
What's your personal feeling on gays?
Do you feel that it's a "Lifestyle Choice", or something that just "Is"?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2009 07:39:04 AM · #3094 |
boooooooooooooooooooooring :-)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:17:23 AM · #3095 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't think I'm twisting "my story", at least I hope I'm not. I don't claim that any of this stuff is "my story", I'm just trying to interpret it. I also don't believe that I (or anyone) can answer all the really difficult questions. I disagree that religious people are unable to apply their arguments in an intellectual way. If you're not willing to try to have an intellectual conversation with someone with different beliefs than you, that's going to be a major determent to you. At any rate, I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. I'm simply responding to the topic and the questions that have been proposed as a result.
To answer your question about incest... Before "the fall", and before sin entered the world incest was not identified as a bad thing. After the fall, it still wasn't wrong until God declared that it was wrong when he gave humanity his laws. What other explanation do you need? |
A baseline to index from.....
What's your personal feeling on gays?
Do you feel that it's a "Lifestyle Choice", or something that just "Is"? |
My personal feelings are irrelevant. I can tell you what the Bible says about it, but what I "feel" doesn't matter. I try to live my life in accordance with the Bible as best I can, and my feelings often times just get in the way of that. So I really try to treat people and interact with people in a way that I believe is pleasing to God and not in the way that I feel people should be treated. For example... When I treat my wife how I feel she should be treated, I usually don't treat her as well as I could. Sometimes I'm upset with her and I don't feel like being nice to her. So, I just blow her off or ignore her. But, when I treat her how I know I'm supposed to treat her in accordance with the Bible, I usually try to be very sweet and kind to her. So, when it comes to gays, I try to put my feelings aside so that I can treat gays in the same way that I would treat heterosexuals or anyone else.
You probably hear Christians say that they think homosexuality is wrong. I say, that it doesn't matter what Christians think is right or wrong, it only matters what God thinks is right and wrong. Simple answer: I feel the same way about gays as I do about everyone else on this earth... we all need a savior (Christ), even if we don't want a savior.
Message edited by author 2009-12-18 10:19:28. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:39:30 AM · #3096 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When I treat my wife how I feel she should be treated, I usually don't treat her as well as I could. Sometimes I'm upset with her and I don't feel like being nice to her. So, I just blow her off or ignore her. But, when I treat her how I know I'm supposed to treat her in accordance with the Bible... |
How about treating her in accordance to how one well-formed adult should treat another adult? |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:49:49 AM · #3097 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
However:
If you're a wedding Christian photographer, you can get sued for not accepting a client who is having a gay marriage.
If you're a Christian church who rents out your property to weddings, you can get sued if you don't rent it out to a gay couple who are getting married.
If you're a Christian adoption agency, you must allow gay couples to adopt. |
You're applying irrational fears to a "what-if" scenario. Would a Christian church be sued for refusing to marry a Jewish couple? Must a Christian adoption agency allow Muslim couples to adopt? Likewise, gay couples aren't likely to seek out the services of an organization that expresses disdain or hatred towards them anyway. The Episcopal and Anglican churches are both large Christian denominations that don't have a problem with gays, so being a Christian photographer does not automatically imply a discriminatory bias. You'd probably find some people who are OK with the idea within most church congregations. |
These aren't "what-if" scenarios. These are actual scenarios I've quoted from many times in this long thread. Check out this article.
As for the Episcopal and Anglican churches not having problems with gay people, you're wrong there too. This a big schism in those churches over homosexuality.
Scalvert, you seem to always make these claims, but with a little digging, there's nothing behind it.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:07:06 AM · #3098 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When I treat my wife how I feel she should be treated, I usually don't treat her as well as I could. Sometimes I'm upset with her and I don't feel like being nice to her. So, I just blow her off or ignore her. But, when I treat her how I know I'm supposed to treat her in accordance with the Bible... |
How about treating her in accordance to how one well-formed adult should treat another adult? |
How about it? I'm just saying it's better to treat someone "as you should" as opposed to treating them "as you feel". You can treat someone as a good Christian should, a good mature adult should, a good American should, a good gentleman should, etc... In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person, but in practice that doesn't happen because no Christian lives by the Bible perfectly. Christians make mistakes just like everyone else.
Message edited by author 2009-12-18 11:07:55. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:29:15 AM · #3099 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
These aren't "what-if" scenarios. These are actual scenarios I've quoted from many times in this long thread. Check out this article. |
Minorities and women, and others have faced the exact same discrimination over the years. "Oh, but we'll be forced to serve blacks!" "Women might be put in a position of power over men!" Yeah, they're humans too. Deal with it. Nobody's going to force a church to marry people they disapprove of, as evidenced by the ludicrous proposition that Catholic churches would be forced to marry Jewish couples.
Originally posted by Nullix:
As for the Episcopal and Anglican churches not having problems with gay people, you're wrong there too. This a big schism in those churches over homosexuality.
Scalvert, you seem to always make these claims, but with a little digging, there's nothing behind it. |
Several openly gay Episcopal, Anglican and Lutheran bishops would likely disagree.
PS- Gay marriage just became law in Washington D.C. Have a nice day. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:33:01 AM · #3100 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person.... |
Uh.... no. |
|
