An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Couple A are not allowed to share a room because they are not married. However, they can get married and then they wil be allowed to share a room.

Couple B are not allowed to share a room because they are not married.
However, they are not legally entitled to get married, ever.

This is called discrimination.

That’s where I would argue with you. Two people of the same sex cant form the same union as a man and a woman. So it cant be discrimination.

 

[Andreusz]

^^ But the authenticity of every single one of the 'Pauline' letters is disputed by scholars. How, then, can you 'know' that 'Paul gives the teachings of Christ', when experts in the field do not know this for certain?

 

[Andreusz]

To Andreusz,
That’s where I would argue with you. Two people of the same sex cant form the same union as a man and a woman. So it cant be discrimination.

Christian logic is different from secular logic. Christians can never reason in the way that secularists can. Therefore Christians should be denied the right to vote.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

^ But the authenticity of every single one of the 'Pauline' letters is disputed by scholars. How, then, can you 'know' that 'Paul gives the teachings of Christ', when experts in the field do not know this for certain?

The answer is most scholars don’t. The reliability of the NT books is more certain than most accounts of contemporary antiquity. They were written and in circulation before the gospels.

 

[Andreusz]

Read Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities) for one.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Christian logic is different from secular logic. Christians can never reason in the way that secularists can. Therefore Christians should be denied the right to vote.

Well anyone can see that the union of man and woman can reproduce the species and that a same sex one can’t and that’s a significant reason the two relationships cant be the same. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see that, atheists and members of other religions can see this

 

[Braunwyn]

To Andreusz,
Well anyone can see that the union of man and woman can reproduce the species and that a same sex one can’t and that’s a significant reason the two relationships cant be the same. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see that, atheists and members of other religions can see this

It has already been established, and you know this, that marriage w/out children is a benefit to society, so your argument here rings hollow (for the 100^100th time).

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Read Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities) for one.

Most Christians would not consider that Christian, but rather heretic.
Is your main concern disproving Christianity?

 

[Andreusz]

From Wikipedia (please notice the 'near' in the phrase 'near consensus'):

"Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the "Pastoral Epistles", are widely regarded as pseudographs,[2] though certain scholars do consider them genuine.[3] There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the alleged New Testament epistles.[4] Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary liberal scholars reject Pauline authorship.[5]"

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Braunwyn,
Not at all, what you have said is a subjective view which is disputed. That there are the two sexes needed to reproduce is a rather fundamental difference and a reason why if a same sex union can’t be seen as the same as a man/woman marriage.

 

[Andreusz]

To Andreusz,
Most Christians would not consider that Christian, but rather heretic.

It is an objective and scholarly book. Anyone of any intellectual integrity would have to take the disputes about Biblical authorship into consideration before declaring the Bible true.

Is your main concern disproving Christianity?

I know of no evidence for the truth of Christianity. I would be very interested to hear of any.

 

[Andreusz]

To Andreusz,
Well anyone can see that the union of man and woman can reproduce the species and that a same sex one can’t and that’s a significant reason the two relationships cant be the same. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see that, atheists and members of other religions can see this

As has been pointed out to you about 5 million times, infertile heterosexual couples cannot reproduce either, yet they are allowed to get married. You seem to think that the fact that they are heterosexual makes some kind of difference, but you have never explained it in a way that I can understand. (Please do not use the word 'dysfunctional' in your answer).
I conclude that Christian logic is different from secular logic.
Therefore Christians should not be allowed to vote.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Wikipedia isn’t necessarily a good source. However in this case its not bad.
However the list I gave the letters to the Corinthians and Romans are in Wiki considered authentic by most. So I would review your previous claim.

Incidenatlly…

Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary liberal scholars reject Pauline authorship.[5]"

Many non liberal orthodox scholars don’t think its Paul either. Apollos is my favourite.

 

[John1032]

the first 2 don't mention homosexuality at all, and the last 3 aren't Jesus' teachings. Have you ever actually read your Bible?

Well, usually when our Lord speak of things there is also the opposite to those things, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see this, for an example our Lord talks about them that “at the beginning made them male and female”, our Lord didn’t make the “male and male, or female and female”, did He?

And that “the two shall become one flesh”, which is the basic element in marriage between two people, male and female, NOT male and male or female and female. And that covenant is physical intimacy, NOT an intimacy between male and male or female and female.

In Mark 10 the same principles were discussed, and that He design male and female to be equal in value and worth, but they fulfilled a different function roles in His design, He didn’t design male and male, and female and female to be equal in value and worth, nor as a function role in His design as a relationship between them.

And our Lord’s Apostle, Paul, wrote the last three and are our Lord’s inspired teachings through the Holy Spirit to Paul, and it appears that you haven’t read His Word at all and to understand that Paul is our Lord’s representative, and not someone giving a personal opinion.

In Eph. 5 He talks about Marriage---Christ and the Church in regards to submission by the spouse and love by the husband. This wasn’t written for male and male, or female and female.

In Gal. 5 we could consider homosexuality as “uncleanness”?

In 1 Cor. 6:9 it is written that “homosexuals and sodomites will not inherit the Kingdom of God”, and Paul also said “do not be deceived”, meaning that believers need to live righteously, not as a homosexual or a sodomite, to inherit His Kingdom. And further on in 1 Cor. 7 he speaks about sexual immorality and wife and husband affection, and there is no mention about a male and males or a female and female affection. And that husband and wife have authority over each others body, and there is no mention about a male and male or a female and female to have such authority.

In Jude 7 it speaks of “sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh”, which is reference to sexual perversion and homosexual acts, which will all be judged by our Almighty God, the same as they were in Gen. 19:5.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

As has been pointed out to you about 5 million times, infertile heterosexual couples cannot reproduce either,

And pointing something that’s irrelevant a trillion times still doesn’t make it relevant. The union of man and woman can reproduce the species as opposed to a same sex one which can’t is the reason.

You seem to think that the fact that they are heterosexual makes some kind of difference, but you have never explained it in a way that I can understand.

Man and woman in union as opposed to man and man is not necessarily heterosexual, it is based on the sex not the sexual attraction.

(Please do not use the word 'dysfunctional' in your answer).

Why not when that is what it is. Are you out to stifle debate?

 

[Braunwyn]

To Braunwyn,
Not at all, what you have said is a subjective view which is disputed. That there are the two sexes needed to reproduce is a rather fundamental difference and a reason why if a same sex union can’t be seen as the same as a man/woman marriage.

Um...no, it's not a subjective view. Married people have more financial security, live longer, have better physical and emotional health. These things are good for society and have nothing to do with my views. And it has also been pointed out ad nauseum that marriage is not a requirement for procreation. Your agrument here falls flat (as usual).

 

[John1032]

Right. So quit claiming Jesus condemns homosexuality, when, as you quite rightly say, nothing Jesus said mentions homosexuality.

We Christians follow the teachings of Christ, not Paul. Paul said that his writings were his own opinion, not Christ's.

Please tell me sir, where His Word says that Paul's teachings are only Paul's opinions? And who told you that we believers only follow His teachings. So you are saying that all the other chapters that follow Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rubbish? His Word of the New Testament starts at Matthew and finishes at Jude. I am very interested to know how you receive such knowledge that Paul's writings are only an opinion? And what about John's teachings?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To John1032,
I agree with you.
There are plenty of references in the NT for us to know God considers same sex sexual relations are wrong. I would add to what you said Romans 1 and also Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7. In Matt 19 martial unfaithfulness between husband and wife is ‘poreia’ and in 1 Cor 7 apart from celibacy, it is because of porneia that the each man should have one wife and each wife her husband.
All Lighthorseman and Polycarp1 do is say they don’t agree, they cant offer any scripture to support what they are saying.
The problem is for those of us who believe what the Biblical testimony says and believe it is God’s word and purpose, we do have evidence that we know God finds same sex relations offensive, they do not have evidence that we don’t.

 

[communityny]

When i read this topic, i think about that sort of things http://sourceradix.com/m/mon.html
You may check that, and most likely it would change your mind. Whatever.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Braunwyn,
Well I disagree as I would say it is subjective as different studies can be provided contesting the views. What is objective is that a same sex union cant reproduce whereas a male/female one can.
I am sure you are suggesting the criteria should be based on fertility rather than the sex of the couple, but that would only deny some male/female couples and all same sex couples, so ist not really quite the same.