Can You At Least Admit that The Act is Wrong?

[EnemyPartyII]

But the people of God are called to a higher standard than secular law.

Okay..... I don't think I've seen you around here before... but you may come to notice after a while that any time people come out in support of things that AREN'T approved of by secular law, there is a whole slew of people who will come out and say that the Bible calls on us to follow our temporal leaders...

It gets a bit confusing trying to remember which bits of the Bible that contradict other bits of the Bible we are following on any given day

 

[MrPirate]

They can create what ever the heck they want but they cannot justify them rationally.

Actually they are just as easy to justify as any religious based ethical system.

Religious based ethics use (for the most part) an appeal to authority for rationalization

That's what you seem to be missing. They cannot justify the immorality of someone killing babies for fun.

Yes they can.
Christians can justify the immorality of killing babies by appealing to a secondary authority, God.
Atheists can justify the immorality of killing babies by appealing to a secondary authority, society.

BTW athiest say that there is no purpose in the world yet they create morals. They contradict themselves more than anyone like many other liberals.

I have never hears any atheist say this

Atheists do exactly what Christians do, they adopt an ethical system.

I do find it interesting that for the most part the ethics of atheists are more consistent than the ethics of most Christians and also the ethics of atheists are more concerned with the greater good than most Christians.

 

[MrPirate]

What special rights though? I don't have a legal right to marry a person of the same-sex either.

The right to discriminate against a minority is a special right

The right to pretend that a minority does not have equality is a special right

The right to force personal prejudice onto society is a special right.

 

[MrPirate]

You are absolutely, flat out, plain WRONG!

I had to go sign some trust documents this morning - not 12 hours ago - in order to ensure the same rights that you would receive by getting a $60 marriage license in King County.

My legal bills over the last 20 years, in order to keep up with you, come to more than $14,000.

Don't you DARE submit that we have equal rights.

If you think we do, then you owe me $13, 940 dollars...then we would be equal.

Give me just ONE good reason why YOU should enjoy SPEACIAL RIGHTS!

 

[MrPirate]

What special rights though? I don't have a legal right to marry a person of the same-sex either.

the same argument was used by those opposed to the marriage of Mildred and Richard Loving (ironic name huh?) it was stated that Mildred and Richard did not have the right to marry as they chose as their marriage violated the laws of God. Further it was stated that either Mildred or Richard could have married people of the “correct” skin color. It was an argument for racism….now you and DMagoh are using here to justify prejudice against another minority.

 

[Zaac]

Nope. No one is necesarily lying here... although the people who extrapolate that simplistic tribal laws of bronze age desert dwellers are applicable to modern urbanised societies may be misguided...

Enemy,what purpose does God's Word serve in your life?If the Bible says 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and you decide that there are certain parts that do not apply to your life because you live in modern times, who gets to decide what is applicable today?

You or your neighbor? Does each individual get to decide?

I've said this before in other threads, but it bears repeating here.

If God left His Word with the intent that everyone gets to decide which parts are applicable to His life, then no one could ever have any measure of what truth is.

It would suddenly become subjective.

You can ALWAYS tell when a suggestion for dealing with questions of faith are not of God.

The suggestions(just like yours to not havae certain things applicable) all open the door for confusion.

AND CONFUSION IS NOT OF GOD.

 

[Zaac]

Okay..... I don't think I've seen you around here before... but you may come to notice after a while that any time people come out in support of things that AREN'T approved of by secular law, there is a whole slew of people who will come out and say that the Bible calls on us to follow our temporal leaders...

It gets a bit confusing trying to remember which bits of the Bible that contradict other bits of the Bible we are following on any given day

Then let me clear up something that many are confused by.

Yes, God's Word calls for us to obey the authority of the land. But I'm going to go right back to what I just said about confusion.

Would a God Who does not author confusion tell you to obey a law of the land that goes against what He says?

He couldn't do that without being a liar.

The Bible does not contradict. You've just got a lot of folks who are depending on their own understanding and thus their understanding contradicts. But the Bible says 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14

God's law supersedes man's law.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Enemy,what purpose does God's Word serve in your life?If the Bible says 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17,

You will note, however, that the Timothy passage does NOT say that all scripture is inerrent, unalterable, and eternally applicable...

who gets to decide what is applicable today?

This is why God gave us the ability to reason as WELL as the Bible... so that, by using our reason AND appreciating Jesus' message, we may determine what he means for us today

If God left His Word with the intent that everyone gets to decide which parts are applicable to His life, then no one could ever have any measure of what truth is.

If the Bible were clearly written to apply to ALL circumstance and all situations, I'd be happy to follow its explicit and complete teachings... however, even the most devoted, literalist fundamentalist Christian is as guilty of "picking and choosing" which parts of the Bible to use as any of the rest of us... I am sure there are Bible verses that you yourself don't follow literally, whatever your justification for that may be. And if this is true, than the Bible is JUST as subjective for you as it is for me.

You can ALWAYS tell when a suggestion for dealing with questions of faith are not of God.

The suggestions(just like yours to not havae certain things applicable) all open the door for confusion.

But there are parts of the Bible that you don't feel apply to you, so... is this a double standard, or what?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Would a God Who does not author confusion tell you to obey a law of the land that goes against what He says?

"render unto Caesar"

apparently.

 

[Zaac]

The right to discriminate against a minority is a special right

No it's not. Minorities are discriminated against all the time. Can you not discriminate against a Black person if you want?

And where in the laws of the land are homosexuals legally listed as a minority?

Wouldn't you have to be afforded minority status before you could be discriminated against as part of a minority?

Minority status is afforded to groups who involuntarily are part of a group. No one has proven that they are living a gay-lifestyle because they have no other choice.

The right to pretend that a minority does not have equality is a special right

You haven't been afforded minority status and until you reach the legal requirements that every other minority group had before it could be classified as minority, it's a moot point.

As a citizen who has not been afforded minority status because your group does not meet the legal standards for such nationally, you are still afforded the same rights as is every other citizen.

The right to force personal prejudice onto society is a special right.

Does that not work both ways? Are you not pushing your wants?

 

[ReformedChapin]

What non Christian presuppositions? I'm Christian and have been all my life... I'm pretty sure that any pressupositions I have are actually fairly dense with Christian influence... but all that aside... are we still on the same topic?

You asked for a non religious, rational explanation for morality, right?

I provided you with one.

Now you are coming out with stuff about emotional world views and anti-intelectualism... I'm not sure we are talking about the same point anymore.

What do you think I have said that is anti-intellectual?

You didn't prove anything, all you showed is that your emotions come with ethics...which is illogical and unbiblical. The only rational system is the traditional christian system which perfectly explains ethics.

 

[Trying2BaFaithfulServant]

And arsenokoites doesn’t translate as homosexual and there is no reason to believe that is what Paul meant when he wrote it. Ancient Greek has a handful of well known words meaning homosexual…but he didn’t use them

FYI... The Greek work "arsenokoites" is a compound word. "Arsen" meaning man (as in adult male) and "koites" meaning bed ("koites" comes from the Latin word "coitus" which should properly convey the subtext of the word). "Arsenokoites" literally means "manbedder." It is unclear if this "manbedder" means a homosexual man or a heterosexual man who sleeps around a lot.

The first component ("arsen") has a variant form. When a man is the recipient of the action, the compound is usually formed with "arren." Compound words formed with "arsen" indicate the man is doing the action. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that "arsenokoites" actually means a heterosexual man who have multiple/frequent sexual encounters. This translation actually makes more sense in the Scriptural context since the word "arsenokoites" appears in lists where all the other sins are sins of excess, not kind.

God bless.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You didn't prove anything, all you showed is that your emotions come with ethics...which is illogical and unbiblical. The only rational system is the traditional christian system which perfectly explains ethics.

I'm sorry... bearing in mind that "God says" is not, in itself, a rational explanation, can you please explain the rationale behind the traditional Christian system?

 

[ReformedChapin]

I'm sorry... bearing in mind that "God says" is not, in itself, a rational explanation, can you please explain the rationale behind the traditional Christian system?

It's not what about God says, it's about how he DESIGNED his being to be. When we don't follow his purpose and design we are out what we are made to be therefore we are in sin or away from the target.

 

[Zaac]

You will note, however, that the Timothy passage does NOT say that all scripture is inerrent, unalterable, and eternally applicable...This is why God gave us the ability to reason as WELL as the Bible... so that, by using our reason AND appreciating Jesus' message, we may determine what he means for us today.

Again, I say that you're putting forth a defense that authors confusion and I think that you are well aware of this.

If God's Word is error filled, changeable, and not eternally applicable, where are you getting your Jesus message from?

If God's Word is what you're implying that it is, we once again leave RIGHT open to subjectivity. And once again, you've got confusion because one person's right or wrong isn't the next.

If your method's author confusion, they are NOT of God.

If the Bible were clearly written to apply to ALL circumstance and all situations, I'd be happy to follow its explicit and complete teachings... however, even the most devoted, literalist fundamentalist Christian is as guilty of "picking and choosing" which parts of the Bible to use as any of the rest of us

But it does. And as much as people like to point out the character flaws of Christians as an excuse to continue disobeying God's Word, the Christians are not the standard.

Jesus Christ, the Living Word exampled in the Written Word is the standard.

A large part of Christendom is a flat out poor example of what Christ intended His Witnesses to be. And you have to wonder after a while, after seeing so much picking and choosing of what they will obey by supposed "Christians" whether or not they really are Christians.

... I am sure there are Bible verses that you yourself don't follow literally, whatever your justification for that may be.

I'm sure there are too. But if someone points it out to me, I pray that God leads my spirit to align with Him and that HE forgives me for doing that which is sinful.

But I must first be able to admit that God's Word is right every time. If I did not, there could be no standard which by to live a Holy life because it would be open to everyone's opinion. And enter confusion again.

And if this is true, than the Bible is JUST as subjective for you as it is for me.But there are parts of the Bible that you don't feel apply to you, so... is this a double standard, or what

That's a false assumption because the Truth of God's Word hinders upon Him, not upon my, or any Christian's ability to obey His Word.

What parts of the Bible are you referring to? As a Christian, I have to apply ALL of God's Word to my life. I can be reading parts of the Scripture that I haven't read in a while and be like "God forgive me because I did this and that against your Word."

 

[Zaac]

"render unto Caesar"

apparently.

How does this illustrate God telling you to do something that goes against His Word?

The Bible says Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Matthew 22:21

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If God's Word is error filled, changeable, and not eternally applicable, where are you getting your Jesus message from?

I think the record of Jesus works and words is pretty firm... not much room for confusion there...

I follow Jesus' teachings, and from them, I believe I have a fairly firm idea of his message... its about loving one another and doing our best to be good to each other...

If your method's author confusion, they are NOT of God.

So all the confusion surrounding the Bible implies what, exactly?

Jesus Christ, the Living Word exampled in the Written Word is the standard.

However Jesus teaching does not explicitly cover every possible scenario or situation one may find ones' self in... the best we can do is attempt to apply the SPIRIT of Christ's teachings to situations that his direct teaching does not cover.

I'm sure there are too. But if someone points it out to me, I pray that God leads my spirit to align with Him and that HE forgives me for doing that which is sinful.

But I must first be able to admit that God's Word is right every time. If I did not, there could be no standard which by to live a Holy life because it would be open to everyone's opinion. And enter confusion again.

But even (what you say is) God's word contradicts other bits of what is supposed to be God's word... I mean, according to your understaning, both "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye" are God breathed, right? Well, kinda by definition, which ever one you follow in any given situation, you are rather necesarily disobeying the other, right?

So, where does that leave us? Using our rational, God given brains to decide what is appropriate and most in line with Christ's teaching, and thats about the best we can do

What parts of the Bible are you referring to? As a Christian, I have to apply ALL of God's Word to my life.

Would you use the Biblical definition to determine rape? Do you shave? Do you wear clothes of mixed fibre? do you think execution is suitable punishment for disobedient children? Are we saved by works, or is it acts? Is slavery acceptible to God? How about polygamy? What are your views on circumcision? Would you follow the Biblical directions for dealing with certain diseases or would you ask a doctor to treat you if you get sick?

There is a LOT in the Bible that I don't think many contemporary Christians follow blindly... and rightly so

 

[MrPirate]

FYI... The Greek work "arsenokoites" is a compound word. "Arsen" meaning man (as in adult male) and "koites" meaning bed ("koites" comes from the Latin word "coitus" which should properly convey the subtext of the word). "Arsenokoites" literally means "manbedder." It is unclear if this "manbedder" means a homosexual man or a heterosexual man who sleeps around a lot.

The first component ("arsen") has a variant form. When a man is the recipient of the action, the compound is usually formed with "arren." Compound words formed with "arsen" indicate the man is doing the action. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that "arsenokoites" actually means a heterosexual man who have multiple/frequent sexual encounters. This translation actually makes more sense in the Scriptural context since the word "arsenokoites" appears in lists where all the other sins are sins of excess, not kind.

God bless.

Compound words do not necessarily derive their meaning from the meaning of their component words.

To understand has noting to do with standing or having dangled above ones head.
Chairman is neither a man transformed into a chair or a chair sculpted to look like a person.

koitLs is in reference to a bed, not specifically carnal relations. Worse for koitLs is feminine (i know gnedered words are strange ot me too) …so therefore it is a female or woman’s bed the man is in. making the claim of it maning homoseexual even more unlikely.

even ignoring the gender of the bed the man is in it is equally plausible to claim that the two root words for arsenokoités come together to mean a man who stays in bed thus meaning Paul is condemning the lazy.

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use. The fact that writers contemporary to Paul were also using this word (even though rarely) indicates that Paul did not just make the word up nor did he created this word from combining words from the Septuagint. However writers contemporary to Paul did not use arsenokoités to mean homosexual. In fact the translators of the bible didn’t make arsenokoités mane homosexual in its other appearance in the new testament. Writers contemporary to Paul were using arsenokoités to mean a man purchases sex from a women…that is a man who employs prostiutes. (and thanks to the gender of the bed we can say it is a female prostute being employed.)

And the final nail in the coffin of arsenokoités being twisted to mean homosexual comes from the basic fact that ancient Greek had several well known words that meant homosexual and or homosexual relations, if Paul had wanted to specifically condemn homosexuals he would have used these well known words not an obscure word meaning, in modern vernacular “a John”

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You didn't prove anything, all you showed is that your emotions come with ethics...which is illogical and unbiblical. The only rational system is the traditional christian system which perfectly explains ethics.

Christian ethics is rational? That's a new one. I thought you just did what the Bible said, consequences to the wind.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

What argument. You said special rights and I just wanted you to explain how its a special right if NO ONE can do it.

You can marry the person of your choice just like everybody else if you do it within the confines of the law.

If a law is enacted that says same-sex couples can marry, then you go right ahead and marry. Just don't expect God's people to tell ya that it's of God.

But you can let go of the special rights stuff.

First off, it is indeed a silly argument.
I am gay by God's design.

Second - you DO have special rights as long as you are able to marry the person of your choice, and as long as I am paying taxes to subsidize YOUR lifestyle while mine is kept unequal.

Third - I am one of God's people, and there are many, many, many others who disagree with you.