Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/22/2009 04:58:51 PM · #3276

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

johnny - please respond to the point made by me and others below that the allowance of gay marriage rights will in no way interfere with your church's right to not conduct or acknowledge gay marriages. if your primary objection is that you don't want churches to be forced to act contrary to its beliefs within the confines of the church, and there is no such threat, then you should be willing to allow same-sex couples to get married within the secular and religious institutions that are ready and willing . . . correct?

If not, what is your objection - beyond "I don't agree with it."?

There are lots of activities and things that I don't agree with, but it is not my right to prevent people from engaging in those activities unless they infringe upon my own rights or cause harm to others. In other words, someone being a member of the Republican Party may be personally offensive to me as the slavering, socialist Democrat that I am, but I don't have any right to prevent that person from joining the Republican Party or preventing meetings of the Federalist Society. ;)

I think I've already answered your question, as GeneralE shows below.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Let me be the first to completely cede this argument - is traditional and historic Judeo-Christian belief, practice and dogma hostile to same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality in general? Absolutely!!

Now let me add - so what?? There are lots of beliefs, practices and dogma that are supported and/or openly advocated in traditional and historic christianity that have been discarded or have been modified and/or updated so as not to conflict with modern (and I would argue, superior) moral practice and belief - slavery; genocide; tribal bigotry; effective legal ownership of women by men (fathers or subsequent husbands), to name a few, are all no longer considered acceptable practices (for the most part), even though the Bible and christian religious tradition either explicitly endorse, or were used in support of, those practices at one time.

Actually, according to the Bible all of those things have been unacceptable since the time of Christ. If people who claim to be Christians use the Bible to justify slavery, genocide, etc... then those people are frauds, and not actually Christians. Christianity has been given a bad name by the frauds, but if you read the new testament there is nothing to support these crimes. People may claim to be Christians and advocate crimes like slavery and genocide but they were probably not true Christians and they were probably using old testament law to justify it, which is ridiculous since Christians are not supposed to live by old testament law. At any rate, you're not really a Christian if you throw out parts of the Bible as you see fit, regardless of how the rest of the world changes.

Originally posted by scalvert:

If they had, then such a declaration obviously wouldn't have been necessary in the 1500's. That same meeting also decreed that members of the clergy were expected to remain celibate, and multiple wives or concubines were frowned upon (all fair game until then). Though uncommon, gay marriages were hardly unheard of in early Christian civilizations. Pope Julius III may have been gay.

Actually, Catholic canon law regarding marriage was formed in 1055. At any rate, claiming that the Catholic church speaks and sets laws for all of Christianity is about as ridiculous as claiming that Ford speaks for the entire auto industry. Besides that, many protestant and evangelical Christians (and anyone who knows the Bible actually) will tell you that Catholicism is a sect that has strayed far from true Christianity.

Actually, Jesus (the head of the church) defined what marriage was in Matthew 19:3-11.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

I put the emphasis there. At any rate, you can clearly see that Jesus is discussing the topics of marriage and divorce between one man and one woman. I don't see how that isn't clear. Like DrAchoo said, it's ridiculous to think that Christianity did not define marriage until 1500. The Catholic church was writing its own rules regarding marriage, it was not writing the rules for all of Christianity. It's as ridiculous as saying that Democracy was not defined until the United States constitution was ratified in 1787 because the United States is the biggest Democracy so it makes all the rules.

Message edited by author 2009-12-22 17:02:30.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/22/2009 05:34:49 PM · #3277

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

[M]any protestant and evangelical Christians (and anyone who knows the Bible actually) will tell you that Catholicism is a sect that has strayed far from true Christianity.

Busted.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you're referring to me, I have to argue with you. I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.

In other words, I don't manipulate the Bible to fit myself, I manipulate myself to fit the Bible.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

12/22/2009 06:16:24 PM · #3278

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

ahem . . . [cough] . . . Revelation . . . [cough]

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

People may claim to be Christians and advocate crimes like slavery and genocide but they were probably not true Christians and they were probably using old testament law to justify it, which is ridiculous since Christians are not supposed to live by old testament law.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

12/22/2009 06:17:48 PM · #3279

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Those argument SP have been done over and over and over. I was just pointing out some silly stuff. There is no point, in my eyes, to continue to argue the same points again and again. I'll respond to the most egregious arguments, but otherwise it's a case of been there, done that on both sides.

Alright - but sometimes the horse just won't . . . stay . . . dead.

;)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/22/2009 06:27:03 PM · #3280

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Actually, Jesus (the head of the church) defined what marriage was in Matthew 19:3-11.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

The Catholic church was writing its own rules regarding marriage, it was not writing the rules for all of Christianity.

Isn't it interesting then that the Catholic Church does not permit divorce, while most Protestant sects do?

David Ey

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

12/22/2009 06:34:10 PM · #3281

The catholic church and most sects make their own rules rather than follow the bible, unfortunately.

12/22/2009 06:40:05 PM · #3282

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[M]any protestant and evangelical Christians (and anyone who knows the Bible actually) will tell you that Catholicism is a sect that has strayed far from true Christianity.

Busted.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

[/quote]

The Bible = Christianity
Catholicism ≠ The Bible
I am not Catholic
So, how am I busted?

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Actually, according to the Bible all of those things have been unacceptable since the time of Christ. If people who claim to be Christians use the Bible to justify slavery, genocide, etc... then those people are frauds, and not actually Christians. Christianity has been given a bad name by the frauds, but if you read the new testament there is nothing to support these crimes.

ahem . . . [cough] . . . Revelation . . . [cough]

Revelation is a book of prophesy. Prophesy is not the same as commands for living. I also don't know what verses you're talking about.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The idea that it is obvious that christians are not subject to old testament law is only a relatively modern concept. While the actual practices of the majority of early christians remain a subject of heated academic dispute, it is clear that there has never been a universally accepted set of dogmatic and/or canonical practices, including no consensus on the application of old testament law. Indeed, whether - and to what extent - old testament strictures still apply to modern christians remains a point of contention even today. Just declaring the idea "ridiculous" without support and with a complete lack of historical perspective as to the faith and practice of your religion is symptomatic of the modern evangelical strain of American fundamentalism, which obstinately thinks that however they practice and believe in their church on Sunday is the "way it has always been." (Here is a clue - it ain't.)

Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

It seems to me that the idea of Christians not needed to live according to old testament law is a very one and not a modern concept. You completely misunderstand Christianity. In your mind, Christianity is the structured religion that has popes, bishops, deacons, priests, cardinals, pastors, etc... When actually, that is not Christianity. The Bible is the final authority of Christianity on earth, not some religious organization devised by human hands. The Bible is God's word and it is the final authority on all subjects.

12/22/2009 06:48:05 PM · #3283

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

claiming that the Catholic church speaks and sets laws for all of Christianity is about as ridiculous as claiming that Ford speaks for the entire auto industry. Besides that, many protestant and evangelical Christians (and anyone who knows the Bible actually) will tell you that Catholicism is a sect that has strayed far from true Christianity.

For several hundred years, it was more like Apple speaking for the Macintosh community. The Vatican has said the same about Protestants... another strike against Biblical infallibility, and a strong indicator that its authorship and interpretation is closer to fortune cookies.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female..."

We already debunked that one earlier. Starting with one male and one female (as the story of Adam and Eve claims) is a good way to wipe out a species through inbreeding. Obviously, either the text is a generalization that ignores other possibilities, things have changed (and therefore the statement no longer applies), or it's just the baseless claim of human authors. Take your pick.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

""Moses permitted you to divorce your wiveS because your hearts were hard...." you can clearly see that Jesus is discussing the topics of marriage and divorce between one man and one woman. I don't see how that isn't clear.

Then you'd better read it again. Oh, and just to keep you from trying to wiggle out of another corner, both Deuteronomy 21:15 and Exodus 21:10 explicitly allow polygamy, and you've already posted that both you and Jesus (Matthew 5:17-18) agreed with every single verse. You also posted quotes from Leviticus to support your claims, so you can't turn around and waive OT laws now.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

it's ridiculous to think that Christianity did not define marriage until 1500. The Catholic church was writing its own rules regarding marriage, it was not writing the rules for all of Christianity. It's as ridiculous as saying that Democracy was not defined until the United States constitution was ratified in 1787 because the United States is the biggest Democracy so it makes all the rules.

It's as ridiculous as saying U.S. marriage laws should be defined by Christian standards, because they're the biggest group.

The Catholic Church was indeed writing its own rules, and other sects had their own ideas on marriage. Martin Lutherâ�� "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

Message edited by author 2009-12-22 18:59:35.

12/22/2009 06:57:54 PM · #3284

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There's that selective application again. You had no problem invoking Leviticus to support your positions earlier, now suddenly the OT no longer applies. :-/

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

12/22/2009 08:44:14 PM · #3285

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
People may claim to be Christians and advocate crimes like slavery and genocide but they were probably not true Christians and they were probably using old testament law to justify it, which is ridiculous since Christians are not supposed to live by old testament law.

There's that selective application again. You had no problem invoking Leviticus to support your positions earlier, now suddenly the OT no longer applies. :-/

Scalvert, I can tell that you are looking for any possible way to make all of this seem ludicrous. Well, if you actually knew what you were talking about and you read the new testament thoroughly, this would all make perfect sense to you. Instead of copying and pasting a ton of verses for you, I'm just going to summerize.

Adam and Eve lived in perfect harmony and relationship with God, which was what God desired. Adam and Eve could do anything they wanted and make any choice that they wanted. The only thing they couldn't do was eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They didn't listen and they ate from the tree, and so they gained the knowledge of good and evil. Before, Adam and Eve couldn't do anything wrong because they didn't even know that evil existed. By eating the fruit they sinned against God, severed the perfect relationship with him, and opened themselves up to a life of sin. From that point on God's plan was to bring humanity back into perfect relationship with him. Humanity was now spoiled by sin and utterly disgusting and revolting to God. So God gave humanity the law so that they could recognize their sin and make sacrifices to atone for their sins and be righteous before God. But, nobody could follow the law perfectly so nobody could obtain righteousness. So God sent his son, Jesus Christ to come and make things right. Jesus was fully human and fully God. Jesus had to be fully human so that he would be bound by the law like all other humans, and he had to be fully God so that he could actually have the ability to fulfill the law perfectly. Jesus did fulfill the law perfectly and was therefore righteous before God. Humans were not righteous and deserved death. Jesus was righteous and he did not deserve death, but he bore the penalty of sin that we deserved on our behalf. Then Jesus went to hell for 3 days and rose again which eliminated the grip of death that humans face, so that we can have eternal life. In doing all this Jesus fulfilled every single prophesy and requirement of the law. Because Christ became a sacrifice for us, God's wrath against humanity was satisfied and his justice was carried out. Jesus Christ did not remove the requirements of the law, but instead he fulfilled all the requirements of the law for us. So, when we put our faith in Jesus and believe what he did for us, all of the righteousness that Christ achieved for us is attributed to us, and we are thus justified before God and in right standing with him.

That is the gospel of Christ in a nutshell. I added the emphasis to make this point: the law still applies to us, but we are not required to fulfill it because Jesus already did.

Message edited by author 2009-12-22 20:44:36.

scarbrd

Leica M10

12/22/2009 08:56:27 PM · #3286

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
People may claim to be Christians and advocate crimes like slavery and genocide but they were probably not true Christians and they were probably using old testament law to justify it, which is ridiculous since Christians are not supposed to live by old testament law.

There's that selective application again. You had no problem invoking Leviticus to support your positions earlier, now suddenly the OT no longer applies. :-/

Scalvert, I can tell that you are looking for any possible way to make all of this seem ludicrous. Well, if you actually knew what you were talking about and you read the new testament thoroughly, this would all make perfect sense to you. Instead of copying and pasting a ton of verses for you, I'm just going to summerize.

Adam and Eve lived in perfect harmony and relationship with God, which was what God desired. Adam and Eve could do anything they wanted and make any choice that they wanted. The only thing they couldn't do was eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They didn't listen and they ate from the tree, and so they gained the knowledge of good and evil. Before, Adam and Eve couldn't do anything wrong because they didn't even know that evil existed. By eating the fruit they sinned against God, severed the perfect relationship with him, and opened themselves up to a life of sin. From that point on God's plan was to bring humanity back into perfect relationship with him. Humanity was now spoiled by sin and utterly disgusting and revolting to God. So God gave humanity the law so that they could recognize their sin and make sacrifices to atone for their sins and be righteous before God. But, nobody could follow the law perfectly so nobody could obtain righteousness. So God sent his son, Jesus Christ to come and make things right. Jesus was fully human and fully God. Jesus had to be fully human so that he would be bound by the law like all other humans, and he had to be fully God so that he could actually have the ability to fulfill the law perfectly. Jesus did fulfill the law perfectly and was therefore righteous before God. Humans were not righteous and deserved death. Jesus was righteous and he did not deserve death, but he bore the penalty of sin that we deserved on our behalf. Then Jesus went to hell for 3 days and rose again which eliminated the grip of death that humans face, so that we can have eternal life. In doing all this Jesus fulfilled every single prophesy and requirement of the law. Because Christ became a sacrifice for us, God's wrath against humanity was satisfied and his justice was carried out. Jesus Christ did not remove the requirements of the law, but instead he fulfilled all the requirements of the law for us. So, when we put our faith in Jesus and believe what he did for us, all of the righteousness that Christ achieved for us is attributed to us, and we are thus justified before God and in right standing with him.

That is the gospel of Christ in a nutshell. I added the emphasis to make this point: the law still applies to us, but we are not required to fulfill it because Jesus already did.

Your version sounds like God set man up to fail. Are you saying God couldn't have predicted that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of knowledge even though he told them not to?

And, Jesus didn't fulfill EVERY prophesy, which is why the Jews do not accept him as the Messiah. Namely, the return of the Jews to the promised land and the rebuilding of the Temple.

For someone who claims to know the bible, you're leaving out some important facts. Plus, you appear know very little about the Catholic church.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/22/2009 09:22:51 PM · #3287

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Hang on a second - You believe the Adam and Eve story is literal?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/22/2009 09:44:07 PM · #3288

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I'm sure that God knew Adam and Eve would fail, but if he had stopped them from eating from the tree then he would be taking away their free will. There were 99999999999999999999x10^9 things that Adam and Eve were allowed to do and only one thing that they were not allowed to do. You think that's a setup for failure? Sounds like a setup for success to me.

Okay, I need to clarify myself again. Jesus fulfilled every prophesy that related to him. The return of the Jews to the promised land and the rebuilding of the Temple are both prophecies of the end times, which obviously hasn't taken place yet.

Actually I know quite a lot about Catholicism... but is there any reason why I should know anything about it? I'm not Catholic...

Originally posted by JH:

Hang on a second - You believe the Adam and Eve story is literal?

When did I say that?

Message edited by author 2009-12-22 21:44:54.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/23/2009 12:12:54 AM · #3289

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by JH:

Hang on a second - You believe the Adam and Eve story is literal?

When did I say that?

Maybe here ...

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you're referring to me, I have to argue with you. I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

12/23/2009 12:32:29 AM · #3290

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

That is the gospel of Christ in a nutshell.

Yikes. That's so full of logical holes and common sense problems that it's utterly amazing anybody would believe even part of it. Genesis itself is written from a narrator's point of view, supposedly detailing direct quotes and actions that took place before any human was alive to record them (an impossibility). The words are simply recited without any pause for consideration. Addressing each would take an entire off-topic thread, so I'll just touch on one to demonstrate:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God's plan was to bring humanity back into perfect relationship with him. So God gave humanity the law so that they could recognize their sin and make sacrifices to atone for their sins and be righteous before God. But, nobody could follow the law perfectly so nobody could obtain righteousness.

Setting aside talking snakes or the bewildering assertion that laws such as avoiding the consumption of shellfish or having sex with your brother's widow would somehow atone for sins (you said it was ONE sin) or make a person righteous... God's plan was to create laws that he knew nobody was capable of following? I'm not looking for a way to make this stuff sound ludicrous. It just is. It's also completely irrelevant to modern civil law and the context of this thread, neither of which should be based upon the personal beliefs of any single religious group. All the various evils the Bible attributes to interracial and interfaith marriages are now regarded as private matters, and we no longer bar such couples from marrying or fear that they'll force unwilling churches to perform the ceremonies. The exact same principle applies to gay marriage.

Message edited by author 2009-12-23 00:43:08.

scarbrd

Leica M10

12/23/2009 01:29:53 AM · #3291

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Your version sounds like God set man up to fail. Are you saying God couldn't have predicted that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of knowledge even though he told them not to?

And, Jesus didn't fulfill EVERY prophesy, which is why the Jews do not accept him as the Messiah. Namely, the return of the Jews to the promised land and the rebuilding of the Temple.

For someone who claims to know the bible, you're leaving out some important facts. Plus, you appear know very little about the Catholic church.

I'm sure that God knew Adam and Eve would fail, but if he had stopped them from eating from the tree then he would be taking away their free will. There were 99999999999999999999x10^9 things that Adam and Eve were allowed to do and only one thing that they were not allowed to do. You think that's a setup for failure? Sounds like a setup for success to me.

So, God creates Adam and Eve in any way he wants, gives them free will and all that goes with it, and then gives them an impossible temptation knowing full well that they'll fail? Sounds like a classic set up to me.

Put kids in a room full of toys and a box, tell them they can play with any and all the toys, but just don't look in the box. Guess what? They'll look in the box.

And the price for this predestined failure? Damnation for all that come after? Dang, and the species was soooo close.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Okay, I need to clarify myself again. Jesus fulfilled every prophesy that related to him. The return of the Jews to the promised land and the rebuilding of the Temple are both prophecies of the end times, which obviously hasn't taken place yet.

So these prophesies get moved from Isaiah to Revelations and that connects all the Old Testament dots? Well that sure was convenient. Too bad the Jews still hold these to be the requirement of the first coming, not the second. Not to mention the singularity of God in direct contradiction with the Trinity.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Actually I know quite a lot about Catholicism... but is there any reason why I should know anything about it? I'm not Catholic...

Well, you call it a "sect". A sect is defined, in terms of religions, as a subdivision of a larger religious group, or a dissenting clique. In the Christian world there is no religious group larger than the Catholic church, by a long shot. By definition all the non-Catholic Christians religions are sects.

So, I recommend that people should refrain from defining other people for them, especially if you don't know the words you're using in the definition.

merchillio

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/23/2009 10:31:34 AM · #3292

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

So.. there is not single verse of the Bible you disagree with, except those from revelation because they are prophesies, and except those from the OT because they no longer apply, and except some others because they have to be put in their historical context where slavery and oprression toward women were common, and except.... I guess your bible must be pretty thin if you take all those out.

I think there is only one truly important passage of the bible: the one where Jesus says that we should all love each other.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female..."

12/23/2009 11:10:15 AM · #3293

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by JH:

Hang on a second - You believe the Adam and Eve story is literal?

When did I say that?

Maybe here ...
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you're referring to me, I have to argue with you. I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.

So when I say, "I agree with the Bible" that comes across to you as, "the whole Bible is literal"?

Originally posted by merchillio:

Did I say that I disagree with Revelation? No.
Did I say that I disagree with prophesies? No.
Did I say that I disagree with the old testament? No.

What I actually said, is that the books of the old testament and the the prophesies in the Bible are not commands or guidelines for living.

If your boss tells you to bring him coffee, that's a command, so you do it. If your boss tells you that he thinks the Patriots will win the super bowl, that's a prophecy, so you do... oh, wait... you can't do anything because it's a prophesy.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female..."

So people that are born with both sexes or unclear sexual identity are not God's creations? Or are they simply not allow to marry since they are neither male nor female and mariage is only between a man and a woman? [/quote]

All human beings are God's creations. All human beings, regardless of gender or sexual preference are God's creations.

Look folks... I'm not going to go to the courthouse or Buddha's temple and object to a gay marriage. But if two men came to my church and wanted to get married... I would tell them they came to the wrong place.

12/23/2009 11:21:10 AM · #3294

Originally posted by scarbrd:

First, you're assuming that Adam and Eve had the decisive capacities of children. Interesting...

Second, you're assuming you deserve or that God owes you life, and that it's not fair when he takes that away. Go ahead and argue with God if that's what you want.

Originally posted by scarbrd:

The prophesies in Isaiah are different from the prophesies of Revelations. They are not the same at all. The singularity of God is not contradicted by the Trinity, you just don't understand the theology of the Trinity apparently.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Actually I know quite a lot about Catholicism... but is there any reason why I should know anything about it? I'm not Catholic...

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Well, this is what the dictionary says a sect is.
1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

I personally define the Catholic church as a dissenting religious body that is heretical. It is dissenting in the idea that the church, or body of Christ, includes all Christians in heaven and on earth with Christ at the head, and even though Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination, it is much smaller than the whole of the church of Christ. Also, a sect is synonymous with denomination.

Message edited by author 2009-12-23 11:28:49.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/23/2009 11:49:33 AM · #3295

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

What I actually said, is that the books of the old testament and the the prophesies in the Bible are not commands or guidelines for living.

Three days ago, you attempted to make that exact connection. Summary:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Did you know that old testament Jewish law forbade gay sex?

Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13

[Jesus] didn't need to repeat the old law to those who already knew the old law. ...since the gentiles weren't Jews, then they didn't know or practice Jewish law, which means they didn't know that God commanded not to have gay sex.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

First, you're assuming that people would understand the concept of right and wrong without the benefit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or that they would comprehend deceit having never experienced it before. Interesting...

Second, you're assuming that God wouldn't already know the inevitable result of temptation before he placed the tree in their midst (along with a talking animal), became upset with the outcome, and then continued on with a divine plan that relied on a perfect compliance that you claim was beyond the capacity of humans. Go ahead and argue with the concept of omniscience if you want.

Message edited by author 2009-12-23 12:15:47.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/23/2009 12:25:41 PM · #3296

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Look folks... I'm not going to go to the courthouse or Buddha's temple and object to a gay marriage. But if two men came to my church and wanted to get married... I would tell them they came to the wrong place.

But... what if your church at some point opted to do just that, what would you do then... find another church.

Ray

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/23/2009 12:34:18 PM · #3297

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

you just don't understand

Dude, you say this every time you get caught out. Point is, your clear set of guidelines/rules/whatever, is about as far from clear as it gets.......virtually no one can agree on what the Bible says across the board. There are various interpretations, and many different ways of looking at it without even getting into any of the inconsistencies and outright contradictions.

When someone talks about the Bible condoning slavery, and you talk to us about how it doesn't mean the same thing now as it did in those days and you have to look at it in context, you get so wrapped up in what you're saying that you apparently don't even realize that you're validating the exact point some of us are trying to make, and that's that it's foolish and irresponsible not to take the writings as allegorical, and to a certain extent, on faith. But you cannot debate it logically because it falls short if you're not willing to accept what it is that YOU want us to see in the way of interpretation.

If you say that "I agree with each and every phrase.", then you can't come back and say "What I meant was I agree with the concept.".

Because then you have to validate OUR points as they apply to modern life, and that means you have to love and care for all God's children, even the gay ones, because we know now that men and women both are, that black and white are....

merchillio

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/23/2009 01:59:01 PM · #3298

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Merchillio:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female..."

So people that are born with both sexes or unclear sexual identity are not God's creations? Or are they simply not allow to marry since they are neither male nor female and mariage is only between a man and a woman?

All human beings are God's creations. All human beings, regardless of gender or sexual preference are God's creations.

Look folks... I'm not going to go to the courthouse or Buddha's temple and object to a gay marriage. But if two men came to my church and wanted to get married... I would tell them they came to the wrong place. [/quote]

But what about an hermaphrodite, that is not clearly a man nor a woman, can he/she get married at your church? Since marriage is only between a man and a woman, and not between a man or a woman and someone in between. where does this person stands in god's view of marriage ?

David Ey