| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2010 03:54:38 AM · #5251 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Jesus is not putting a universal ban on public displays of faith, but he is condemning public displays of faith when they are performed selfishly for one's own benefit. |
I am puzzled my your term "Public displays of faith". It seem "displays" are exactly what is spoken against; at least as I understand display (to show or exhibit; make visible: to display a sign.) Acts based from the teachings of faith, such as feeding the poor, behaving humbly and the like, are of course intended to be public; prayer is intended to be private; and putting your faith on exhibition is....well, frowned upon by my reading.
To say that the condemnations are lifted if you do it for the right reasons, or have the right attitude, is to say that the laws are optional; that each person can decide if they need to follow them or not depending on what they feel their private motive is.
Message edited by author 2010-12-05 04:12:44. |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 09:18:20 AM · #5252 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Ha! You claim that he nailed it based on some bullet point arguments from a religious tolerance website. That website doesn't even scratch the surface on what the Bible has to say about prayer. You're going to have to do a little more research than that to convince me that Brennan's interpretation is the right one. |
You're actually protesting my use of an objective source that presents the views of both liberal and conservative Christians and refers to "New Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Testament Volume", "Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible", "PC Study Bible: Matthew Henry's Commentary", "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" and "Abba Father: Understanding and Using the Lord's Prayer"? The Bible itself lists numerous accounts of Jesus praying in private and precisely zero of him praying in public. As you relentlessly continue to distance your beliefs from that of other Christians, you're painting yourself into an ever-shrinking corner.
Message edited by author 2010-12-05 11:16:27. |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 04:01:45 PM · #5253 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I am puzzled my your term "Public displays of faith". It seem "displays" are exactly what is spoken against; at least as I understand display (to show or exhibit; make visible: to display a sign.) Acts based from the teachings of faith, such as feeding the poor, behaving humbly and the like, are of course intended to be public; prayer is intended to be private; and putting your faith on exhibition is....well, frowned upon by my reading. |
Then what do you make of this?
"In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 5:16)
Seems to me that public displays (or expressions, proclamations, etc.) of faith are encouraged.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
To say that the condemnations are lifted if you do it for the right reasons, or have the right attitude, is to say that the laws are optional; that each person can decide if they need to follow them or not depending on what they feel their private motive is. |
On the contrary, the laws are not optional but are nullified/non-binding. Jesus fulfilled the law, thus nullifying it. The New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant. There are no laws (binding, legal precepts) in the New Testament, only teachings and commands that believers should comply with as a response of faith. Laws demand a response of obedience/compliance while faith produces (not demands) outward expressions of an inner attitude. This is known as "gospel freedom". Christians are free to do whatever they want, but that freedom is not freedom to sin (wrong motives) but freedom to glorify God (correct motives).
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're actually protesting my use of an objective source that presents the views of both liberal and conservative Christians and refers to "New Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Testament Volume", "Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible", "PC Study Bible: Matthew Henry's Commentary", "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" and "Abba Father: Understanding and Using the Lord's Prayer"? The Bible itself lists numerous accounts of Jesus praying in private and precisely zero of him praying in public. As you relentlessly continue to distance your beliefs from that of other Christians, you're painting yourself into an ever-shrinking corner. |
I'm protesting your use of that objective source because, as I said, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the issue. Just because the website references a few commentaries doesn't mean all the evidence is there. Those aren't even great commentaries. If you want to bring some good research to the table, you're going to have to use something other than google. How am I distancing myself from other Christians? Most Christians do support public prayer. Every worship service or church event that I've ever attended has had public prayer. I'm supporting the majority view. You're painting yourself as someone who argues over issues that they know very little about. You say that I'm distancing myself from other Christians when clearly I'm agreeing with the majority of them. Do your research. Preferably good research.
Message edited by author 2010-12-05 16:02:00. |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 04:23:07 PM · #5254 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... I'm agreeing with the majority of them. Do your research. Preferably good research. |
And all of this posturing of yours has what to do with the subject matter...or have you forgotten what it is?
Ray |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 09:11:09 PM · #5255 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There are no laws (binding, legal precepts) in the New Testament,Christians are free to do whatever they want,
|
You are reading the book in a different way than I am. The use of terms such as "Gospel freedom" implies a degree of codification and arcanery where you are free to bend and fold the fabric of the text to suit your belief. Much of what Christ spoke against, such as the invocation to avoid love of mammon and pride has been obviated by many modern believers. You may believe that Christ allows you to work against his words and be in the faith, I do not. If you worship in a manner that Christ told you not to, are you not sinning?
To take this back to the question of the thread; If Christians are free to behave however they wish, how can they impose a limit on the behavior of others, based on their (unshared) faith? |
|
|
|
12/05/2010 10:16:21 PM · #5256 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You are reading the book in a different way than I am. The use of terms such as "Gospel freedom" implies a degree of codification and arcanery where you are free to bend and fold the fabric of the text to suit your belief. Much of what Christ spoke against, such as the invocation to avoid love of mammon and pride has been obviated by many modern believers. You may believe that Christ allows you to work against his words and be in the faith, I do not. If you worship in a manner that Christ told you not to, are you not sinning? |
I'm not bending or folding anything. Gospel freedom is a biblical principle. Read Galatians 5:1-15. If I do any bending or folding it is of myself, in order to conform to the teachings and principles of the text, not the other way around. At any rate, as I already explained before, public prayer (or worship) is not condemned unconditionally. There are numerous places throughout the Bible where prayer and worship is conducted publicly in a way that honors God. If Christ told us not to pray (or worship) in public, then why did the apostles do it? One would think that they would have a much better understanding of what Jesus taught than we do today, since they spent years living with him and learning from him.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
To take this back to the question of the thread; If Christians are free to behave however they wish, how can they impose a limit on the behavior of others, based on their (unshared) faith? |
I don't think that Christians should impose their behavior on non-believers. I believe that the only thing Christians should impose on others is the gospel (i.e. explain who Christ is, what he did, etc.) but not in a forceful way. However, in the case of gay rights, I don't think that Christians are imposing any behavior on the gay community. The laws defining marriage and marital rights were in place long before the modern day political clash came around, and those laws were put in place by the government, not by Christians. In fact, at least in the U.S., no laws are established by religious institutions except for those within the institutions themselves. You might say that Christians have influenced government decisions to uphold the laws that were already in place, but it is government that establishes law, not religion. Might I add that a Christian person in the U.S. has no more influence on government than a gay person? In fact, in today's political atmosphere, a gay person probably has more influence on government than a Christian person. My point is this: working to have one's political convictions recognized through representative government is not the same as directly imposing those convictions on another person. I doubt that there are many Christians around who support a certain political platform for the sole purpose of imposing their beliefs on another. Most people (including Christians) probably support a given platform because they support a number of its agendas, not just one. |
|
|
|
12/06/2010 12:05:25 PM · #5257 |
For those actually interested in the topic, KQED Radio's Forum program will have a discussion starting just after 9am PST, and they are carrying audio of the oral arguments from the Federal Appeals Court starting at 10am -- both should be available to stream from their website for those out of the area.
Also, both the KQED site and The California Report (one of their programs) site have blogs on the subject. |
|
|
|
12/06/2010 03:21:52 PM · #5258 |
Okay, I'm confused (which is easily done). It seems like an answer to the Prop 8 question won't be answered? I read one website and it seems like there is some legal language about if the appeal was done correctly. Something about the California Supreme Court answer a question of who veto an initiative.
Just seems like the judgment is being thrown back to the California Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2010 07:36:44 PM · #5259 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I read one website and it seems like there is some legal language about if the appeal was done correctly. Something about the California Supreme Court answer a question of who veto an initiative. |
What happened here is that an outside interest group ran a multimillion dollar voter campaign that narrowly succeeded, the court struck it down as unconstitutional and the organizers have not been able to demonstrate that they would be materially affected by allowing gay marriage (surprise, surprise). Therefore they don't have a legal standing to appeal the case. Judge Hawkins: "What's your best case supporting standing for initiative proponents?" Cooper: "I don't have one." The question involves the governor and AG's refusal to appeal the Federal court ruling. Neither had the power to veto a voter initiative, but by declining to appeal the result is similar. However, if voters pass an unconstitutional law- requiring Irish kids to attend separate schools, for example- it can be struck down by a court which DOES have that "veto" power. So the judges here are asking the California Supreme Court to clarify whether state law compels government officials to defend the initiative. In the [likely] event that officials aren't required to appeal against Federal court decisions, then Prop 8 supporters have no legal standing and gay marriage is again legal in California.
If by some miracle the case does go forward, the situation doesn't change much. The proponents have to prove a state interest in denying gay marriage and so far they've come up empty. Their primary arguments have relied upon claims of encouraging stable families and procreation, neither of which hold water. Divorce was cited by one of the judges as a far greater threat to family stability, there are no fertility tests or prohibitions against elderly marriage to support the second claim and one judge already noted that gay couples can procreate by other means. Appeals to tradition aren't likely to override constitutional rights either. It would be like trying to argue that only men can vote because that's the way it's been throughout history. In short, we're waiting for the California Supreme Court to indicate whether Prop 8 will be shot down immediately or after its backers further embarrass themselves with baseless attempts to interfere with the relationships of others.
Message edited by author 2010-12-06 19:40:31. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:15:09 PM · #5260 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
one judge already noted that gay couples can procreate by other means. |
This is kinda related to this thread since if gay marriage is recognized, there would be (and are) some interesting cases going on right now of, "who's the parents?"
A lesbian couple find a different egg donor along with a sperm donor. The one lesbian couple find another lady to actually carry the baby. This gives us 5 people who are potentially the parents:
1. Egg donor
2. Sperm donor
3. Lady carrying the child
4. Lesbian Lady #1
5. Lesbian Lady #2
|
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:23:46 PM · #5261 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
one judge already noted that gay couples can procreate by other means. |
This is kinda related to this thread since if gay marriage is recognized, there would be (and are) some interesting cases going on right now of, "who's the parents?"
A lesbian couple find a different egg donor along with a sperm donor. The one lesbian couple find another lady to actually carry the baby. This gives us 5 people who are potentially the parents:
1. Egg donor
2. Sperm donor
3. Lady carrying the child
4. Lesbian Lady #1
5. Lesbian Lady #2 |
... and your point would be what?
I personally had two sets of parents. The parents I had at the time I was born, and the parents I had subsequent to adoption, for a total of four...and they were all my parents.
...and while your scenario is plausible, it is much more likely that all that would be needed is a donor and the rest would follow the usual path...pretty much like what happens with some heterosexuals couples.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/10/2010 06:17:29 AM · #5262 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
one judge already noted that gay couples can procreate by other means. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
This is kinda related to this thread since if gay marriage is recognized, there would be (and are) some interesting cases going on right now of, "who's the parents?"
A lesbian couple find a different egg donor along with a sperm donor. The one lesbian couple find another lady to actually carry the baby. This gives us 5 people who are potentially the parents:
1. Egg donor
2. Sperm donor
3. Lady carrying the child
4. Lesbian Lady #1
5. Lesbian Lady #2 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and your point would be what?
I personally had two sets of parents. The parents I had at the time I was born, and the parents I had subsequent to adoption, for a total of four...and they were all my parents.
...and while your scenario is plausible, it is much more likely that all that would be needed is a donor and the rest would follow the usual path...pretty much like what happens with some heterosexuals couples. |
Hey, how 'bout that, Ray.....I'm adopted as well. You don't suppose that gay couples could........adopt, do you?
Nah!......8>)
It's kind of funny.....I was very close to my mother; she was my friend, confidant, advisor, role model, and of course, Mom.
My dad basically terrorized me, and made it abundantly clear that I was a failure and a disappointment.
I didn't want to be anything like him.
I could have had two Moms, huh?
|
|
|
|
12/10/2010 08:36:24 AM · #5263 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
...there would be (and are) some interesting cases going on right now of, "who's the parents?" |
The same question applies to infertile heterosexual couples and nobody doubts their right to marry. Plenty of married couples decide they don't even want to have kids even if they can, so procreation is clearly a separate issue from marriage. |
|
|
|
12/10/2010 01:46:43 PM · #5264 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
...there would be (and are) some interesting cases going on right now of, "who's the parents?" |
The same question applies to infertile heterosexual couples and nobody doubts their right to marry. Plenty of married couples decide they don't even want to have kids even if they can, so procreation is clearly a separate issue from marriage. |
Something Catholics aren't allowed to even consider within their own bubble, so it's no surprise that they absolutely don't get it. "What do you mean, decide to NOT have kids!? YOU HAVE TO HAVE KIDS!!" Ugh. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 12:37:06 PM · #5265 |
Back to ' Are gay rights evolving'.
No, not in Qatar or by international organizations like FIFA.
No gays at the World Cup in Qatar in 2022
Blatter said that homosexual fans “should refrain from any sexual activities” that are illegal in Qatar.
Don't give me any crap about their laws and that we have to respect them.
Should they get such high profile tournaments if they're living in the 12th century, still.
Will Jews be allowed to attend?
How about white people in general?
Has anyone ever attended a soccer match without drinking a pint? LOL |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 01:47:25 PM · #5266 |
This made me laugh. It's an ad for a film festival.
Film festival ad. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 06:34:41 PM · #5267 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Back to ' Are gay rights evolving'.
No, not in Qatar or by international organizations like FIFA.
No gays at the World Cup in Qatar in 2022
Blatter said that homosexual fans “should refrain from any sexual activities” that are illegal in Qatar.
Don't give me any crap about their laws and that we have to respect them.
Should they get such high profile tournaments if they're living in the 12th century, still.
Will Jews be allowed to attend?
How about white people in general?
Has anyone ever attended a soccer match without drinking a pint? LOL |
Is the FIFA president suggesting that gay people respect the discriminatory laws of another country, or is he suggesting that gay people avoid doing anything that could get them arrested or possibly killed? The article didn't really make that clear. I believe that people should respect the laws of other countries. Otherwise, you make yourself out as an arrogant westerner who goes around the world doing whatever the heck he/she wants because you think "our country is the best place ever so I don't care about your laws 'cause you should just be like us anyway". |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 08:49:08 PM · #5268 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Back to ' Are gay rights evolving'.
No, not in Qatar or by international organizations like FIFA.
No gays at the World Cup in Qatar in 2022
Blatter said that homosexual fans “should refrain from any sexual activities” that are illegal in Qatar.
Don't give me any crap about their laws and that we have to respect them.
Should they get such high profile tournaments if they're living in the 12th century, still.
Will Jews be allowed to attend?
How about white people in general?
Has anyone ever attended a soccer match without drinking a pint? LOL |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is the FIFA president suggesting that gay people respect the discriminatory laws of another country, or is he suggesting that gay people avoid doing anything that could get them arrested or possibly killed? The article didn't really make that clear. I believe that people should respect the laws of other countries. Otherwise, you make yourself out as an arrogant westerner who goes around the world doing whatever the heck he/she wants because you think "our country is the best place ever so I don't care about your laws 'cause you should just be like us anyway". |
Only an arrogant westerner would assume that they were talking only about Americans...
Maybe ask  Jac where he's from, and actually read where the gay protests came from.....sheesh!!!
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:34:56 PM · #5269 |
Perhaps the saddest aspect ot this rests in the fact that the president of an international sporting organization has so little regard for a segment of our community that he would even utter such drivel.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:59:10 PM · #5270 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Jac:
Back to ' Are gay rights evolving'.
No, not in Qatar or by international organizations like FIFA.
No gays at the World Cup in Qatar in 2022
Blatter said that homosexual fans “should refrain from any sexual activities” that are illegal in Qatar.
Don't give me any crap about their laws and that we have to respect them.
Should they get such high profile tournaments if they're living in the 12th century, still.
Will Jews be allowed to attend?
How about white people in general?
Has anyone ever attended a soccer match without drinking a pint? LOL |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is the FIFA president suggesting that gay people respect the discriminatory laws of another country, or is he suggesting that gay people avoid doing anything that could get them arrested or possibly killed? The article didn't really make that clear. I believe that people should respect the laws of other countries. Otherwise, you make yourself out as an arrogant westerner who goes around the world doing whatever the heck he/she wants because you think "our country is the best place ever so I don't care about your laws 'cause you should just be like us anyway". |
Only an arrogant westerner would assume that they were talking only about Americans...
Maybe ask Jac where he's from, and actually read where the gay protests came from.....sheesh!!! |
When I said "you" I didn't mean "Jac" and when I said "westerner" I didn't mean "American". Sorry if that was confusing.
Actually, I didn't even say "American", so what makes you think I assumed they were talking only about Americans?
Message edited by author 2010-12-14 23:00:51. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:10:45 PM · #5271 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Actually, I didn't even say "American", so what makes you think I assumed they were talking only about Americans? |
...could it be because you used the term "our country" in your response to NikonJeb and since both of you are "Americans", he followed what (I assume) he considered the most logical path?
Ray |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:15:23 PM · #5272 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Actually, I didn't even say "American", so what makes you think I assumed they were talking only about Americans? |
...could it be because you used the term "our country" in your response to NikonJeb and since both of you are "Americans", he followed what (I assume) he considered the most logical path?
Ray |
No, in the syntax of Johnny's response, ANY "Westerner" would have been thinking that about his/her own country of origin.
R. |
|
|
|
12/15/2010 12:59:47 AM · #5273 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Actually, I didn't even say "American", so what makes you think I assumed they were talking only about Americans? |
...could it be because you used the term "our country" in your response to NikonJeb and since both of you are "Americans", he followed what (I assume) he considered the most logical path?
Ray |
No, in the syntax of Johnny's response, ANY "Westerner" would have been thinking that about his/her own country of origin.
R. |
Actually, Bear is right. I used quotation marks to show what a random arrogant westerner might say. |
|
|
|
12/15/2010 06:04:20 AM · #5274 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Actually, I didn't even say "American", so what makes you think I assumed they were talking only about Americans? |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...could it be because you used the term "our country" in your response to NikonJeb and since both of you are "Americans", he followed what (I assume) he considered the most logical path?
Ray |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, in the syntax of Johnny's response, ANY "Westerner" would have been thinking that about his/her own country of origin.
R. |
Sorry, Robert.....I call BS on this one as Johnny has on numerous occasions pointed out his views on how privileged and arrogant we Americans are in his eyes.
His general verbiage is consistent with his views expressed elsewhere on a few occasions.......especially this part:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
who goes around the world doing whatever the heck he/she wants |
|
|
|
|
12/15/2010 09:21:09 AM · #5275 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Sorry, Robert.....I call BS on this one as Johnny has on numerous occasions pointed out his views on how privileged and arrogant we Americans are in his eyes.
His general verbiage is consistent with his views expressed elsewhere on a few occasions.......especially this part: ... |
Jeb, some advice on debating successfully: don't get too distracted with irrelevancies, especially where your argument is weak, because losing an inconsequential side argument (which you are doing and drawing out unnecessarily) will taint the persuasiveness of your core argument.
The weakness in Johnny's argument is that he's switched from his usual position that "laws should follow morality", to "it is moral to follow laws". Attack that, not some perceived arrogance (which is of no relevance whatsoever here).
|
|
