An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Shane Roach]

For Shane Roach.


Hi Shane I am not a sticky-beak, but I have a habit of checking people out on Google and I punched in their user name, and yours popped up.

As hard as it is, there are always people who post on Christian forums who lack compassion or sincerity and they post a persons article onto obnoxious forums. I noticed one of your postings made a number of years ago on:

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/fundies/fstdt_aug02.htm


Interesting, you must have made a good point on that posting for you to end up on "fundies".

Keep preaching brother!

You have never hears of FSTDT? It was started by a guy who used to frequent these boards, Winace.

That appears to be the site we're talking about?

 

[Wyzaard]

That appears to be the site we're talking about?

"God is real, and therefore of course is "real by default". There are any number of perfectly good reasons why you yourself don't believe in God, all of them coincide nicely with what the Bible says about people who refuse the knowledge of the truth.

Because God is real, and because you use false assertions, basically lies, to deny His reality, and refuse to even discuss the issue in a rational way, supposing for the sake of argument that the matter is as yet unsettled, but rather insist that God, who reveals Himself to all through conscience and through the natural world, has somehow magically never revealed Himself to you personally, I am safe in my understanding. I need not open my mind or question my beleifs fully, because the default position is that God is real and that you are a liar going to hell."
- Shane Roach, ChristianForums"


Woooooooow... ummm... honestly, there's not much to say about whoppingly huge fallacies such as this.

 

[Wyzaard]

Civil rights are spelled out in the Constitution. All other laws are left to the usual process.

No. Again:

"The 9th amendment implies that citizens are presumed to have rights by default, and that onus for depriving them of such is on the state to provide a compelling interest in doing so, a fairly high bar. Believing something to be immoral is NOT a compelling reason as far as the health and well-being of the public is concerned. "

The 9th was SPECIFICALLY designed to counter your misconstrual: that the rights enumerated are the only ones we have... that is patently incorrect.

 

[Wyzaard]

Many homosexuals and lesbians have been delivered from their strongholds and strongmen, set free from their captivity of bondage, and healed by counselling through the healing ministry.

If by 'many' you mean 'none but those who were bisexual enough to fake it'... sure.

Yes, His Word is silent on many things, but commonsense is a thing that our Lord gave us when He created us---din't He?

And commonsense tells me that a cosmic being that created quadrillions of star systems cares not one fig for whether a man likes to be inside of another man.

 

[Wyzaard]

That one was after about the 2,026th claim that atheism is the default position of all thinking people.

Non-belief is the default position about all things.

 

[Shane Roach]

No. Again:

"The 9th amendment implies that citizens are presumed to have rights by default, and that onus for depriving them of such is on the state to provide a compelling interest in doing so, a fairly high bar. Believing something to be immoral is NOT a compelling reason as far as the health and well-being of the public is concerned. "

The 9th was SPECIFICALLY designed to counter your misconstrual: that the rights enumerated are the only ones we have... that is patently incorrect.

How about we look at the ninth amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

These first ten amendments were meant to be a check on federal power. The purpose of the 9th amendment is to counter the idea that by enumerating rights, the precedent is set to argue that the federal government is the sole arbiter of what are and are not rights.

If the federal government is not the sole arbiter, then who is? Well, we did not want to give that power to the states because they might use it to abuse as well, so we left it to whom?

Retained by whom?

By the people. Not the court. Not your personal opinion. Not the APA. By the people. Your interpretation seems to be that "the people" only includes you and anyone you agree with, but "the people" actually includes all the people, and among the various rights retained by the people is the right to self government, meaning we all decide what is and is not to be legal.

Not just you.

 

[Shane Roach]

Let me help you spread that word.

"God is real, and therefore of course is "real by default". There are any number of perfectly good reasons why you yourself don't believe in God, all of them coincide nicely with what the Bible says about people who refuse the knowledge of the truth.

Because God is real, and because you use false assertions, basically lies, to deny His reality, and refuse to even discuss the issue in a rational way, supposing for the sake of argument that the matter is as yet unsettled, but rather insist that God, who reveals Himself to all through conscience and through the natural world, has somehow magically never revealed Himself to you personally, I am safe in my understanding. I need not open my mind or question my beleifs fully, because the default position is that God is real and that you are a liar going to hell."
- Shane Roach, ChristianForums"

 

[Shane Roach]

"God is real, and therefore of course is "real by default". There are any number of perfectly good reasons why you yourself don't believe in God, all of them coincide nicely with what the Bible says about people who refuse the knowledge of the truth.

Because God is real, and because you use false assertions, basically lies, to deny His reality, and refuse to even discuss the issue in a rational way, supposing for the sake of argument that the matter is as yet unsettled, but rather insist that God, who reveals Himself to all through conscience and through the natural world, has somehow magically never revealed Himself to you personally, I am safe in my understanding. I need not open my mind or question my beleifs fully, because the default position is that God is real and that you are a liar going to hell."
- Shane Roach, ChristianForums"


Woooooooow... ummm... honestly, there's not much to say about whoppingly huge fallacies such as this.

What fallacies? Religious? Christian? Logical? Please feel free to make your case, since obviously you find something about these statements interesting in some way.

 

[Braunwyn]

To Braunwyn,

Well I disagree as I would say it is subjective as different studies can be provided contesting the views.

Again, no. I'm speaking strickly of the benefits of marriage regardless of orientation. Much of this probably comes from census data, not "studies".

What is objective is that a same sex union cant reproduce whereas a male/female one can.

Again, so? I am married. I do not have children. Not having children does not affect the fact that I'm married. Why this is so difficult for you to grasp, I'm not sure.

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

I'm not suggesting that. The only thing I've ever suggested, to all and any members on this forum that are under the idiotic impression that they feel they should have a say in another person's marriage, is that you should mind your own beeze wax.

I also sense the infamous slippery slope, a skill I'm learning from your ilk, that such a day would not be far off for you all to start demanding that anyone who wants to be married must adhere to this or that set of cockamammy beliefs. So here I feel that if you discrimate against one group, you'll discrimate against all and you must be pushed back.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

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

Please..


and as a Catholic you know that all scripture is inerrant and God breathed. So don't go tell other Christians that "this part is Jesus's teachings, and the epistles aren't so that means it has not effect" knowing that your own faith doesn't even teach that. Thats simply mind play.. Since Paul's writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit it defiantly is Christs teachings. Have you actually ever read about the canonization process? So don't claim that others haven't "read they're bible" when your the one who is bringing up un-orthodox rhetoric..

 

[Shane Roach]

Non-belief is the default position about all things.

Ignorance is the natural state. Not "non-belief". Not "lack of belief".

"Do you believe in God?"
"What's a 'God'?"
"Oh, God is the supreme being, creater of the universe, that sort of thing."
"Anyone ever see Him?"
"Well, historically people claim to have."
"Heh, well I mean recently..."
"No. No, not recently, but many say the feel his presence in their hearts and souls."
"Soul? What's a soul?"
"Oh, you know... you, your inner self... like, who you are inside?"
"Oh yeah, I gotcha. I have to say I have no idea though. I really don't know if there is a God or not."

That's the default position. Not, "well, until you show me one I don't believe it exists." That's skepticism, in the broadest sense -- the tendency to actively resist belief rather than to maintain an open mind.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So? Being left handed is a behaviour as well, does that mean we can arbitrarily deny rights to left handers?

Don’t forget that religion is also a behavior. And by the “logic” presented here it must be acceptable to discriminate against religious minorities

 

[BigBadWlf]

Yeah, I understand that.
I'm not holding it against you. What I would like to know is if homosexuals are capable of understanding how that could effect someone who isn't homosexual?
If you can't then that's really the only thing I have to hold against homosexuals.
I'm not saying it's your fault you are who you are. But I am saying, you have a responsibility to understand how homosexuality can be viewed by people and how it can effect your relationship with them.

Are blacks capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other blacks could effect someone who isn't black?

Are Jews are capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Jews could effect someone who isn't Jewish?

Are Hispanics capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Hispanics could effect someone who isn't Hispanic?

Are left handers capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other left handed individuals could effect someone who is right handed?

Are Muslims capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Muslims could effect someone who isn't Muslim?

Are Buddhists are capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Buddhists could effect someone who isn't Buddhist?

 

[BigBadWlf]

In fact topically in the UK in a national newspaper on Sunday we have a report of a Christian couple who own a hotel also in trouble with refusing a gay couple a shared room. As they have pointed out they have always been refusing unmarried couples rooms and no-one has made formal complaints to the authorities. Of course gay same sex couples can not get married in the UK, it’s a civil partnership, just seems everything is ok until gays don’t get what they want.

Were they denied a room because they were not married? Or were they denied a room because there were members of a minority? I would be anything it was because of the latter.

In the United States a whole heap of bother started because a black woman didn’t want to sit in the back of the bus. Those pesky blacks, everything was OK until one of them didn’t get what she wanted….

 

[BigBadWlf]

To Lighthorseman,

Jesus condemns homosexuality

But as was correctly pointed out. Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.

In fact I never said He condemns homosexuality thats what you said.

You just said “Jesus condemns homosexuality”

No Paul points out when he gives his own opinions such as 1 Corinthians 7:12, so when he starts the passage, because of so much sexual immorality each man should have his own wife he is speaking what Christ has revealed to him, see Galatians 1.

We Christians know Paul gives the teachings of Christ just as all the NT does. Paul encountered the risen Lord, we don’t think Luke did.

Paul doesn’t say homosexual. He says no word that can be demonstrated to mean homosexual.

 

[Shane Roach]

Don’t forget that religion is also a behavior. And by the “logic” presented here it must be acceptable to discriminate against religious minorities

I like it when you admit that's part of your agenda.

 

[BigBadWlf]

*BUMP*

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how B&B's that are openly homosexual-friendly are undermining religious freedom.

 

[BigBadWlf]

To Andreusz,
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.

Unless you can provide an up to date survey of all authorities on ancient Greek and their opinions of the very modern translation of αρσενοκοιται to mean homosexual you cannot claim “most scholars don’t”
A significant number of scholars do contest and/or disagree with the very modern translation of αρσενοκοιται to mean homosexual

 

[Shane Roach]

Paul doesn’t say homosexual. He says no word that can be demonstrated to mean homosexual.

Technically speaking you really can't demonstrate any word means anything. They are all of them metaphors.

Jesus does say He is God though.

Matt 26:64

64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
KJV

John 9:35-37

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God ?

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
KJV

John 10:30

30 I and my Father are one .
KJV

The law was given Moses by God. The law does not use a word for homosexual. It describes the act.

Therefore, Jesus condemns homosexuality, by strict deductive reasoning, even by the red letter interpretation of the scriptures.

But that's not really the point is it?

 

[Shane Roach]

Unless you can provide an up to date survey of all authorities on ancient Greek and their opinions of the very modern translation of αρσενοκοιται to mean homosexual you cannot claim “most scholars don’t”
A significant number of scholars do contest and/or disagree with the very modern translation of αρσενοκοιται to mean homosexual

Then you should have no trouble presenting their arguments here instead of claiming they are legitimate without proof.