Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[TLK Valentine]

I surrendered?

That's "you" in the collective sense. Christians.

Even the law school in the OP doesn't seem to care.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We were discussing "importance" but if that's what it takes for you, have at it.

I'm not sure what the rest of the sentence is supposed to mean, but going back to the beginning of the circle, Jack's original statement was "Do you realize that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality?"

This seems to suggest that the topic was not important to him, again at least in comparison to the things that he did spend a lot of time talking about.

 

[Sparagmos]

I'm not sure what the rest of the sentence is supposed to mean, but going back to the beginning of the circle, Jack's original statement was "Do you realize that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality?"

This seems to suggest that the topic was not important to him, again at least in comparison to the things that he did spend a lot of time talking about.

I’m still waiting for one of the virulently anti-gay posters to take the same stance towards someone not being charitable to poor people, since clearly that was a topic HUGELY important to Jesus.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not sure what the rest of the sentence is supposed to mean, but going back to the beginning of the circle, Jack's original statement was "Do you realize that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality?"

This seems to suggest that the topic was not important to him, again at least in comparison to the things that he did spend a lot of time talking about.

Indeed -- so, lacking any guidance form Jesus, many Christians turn to Paul, on the assumption that he would know Jesus' mind on the topic.

Except that, as previously noted, there are times when Jesus has spoken on far more important topics, and Paul flatly contradicts him, so this might not be the soundest assumption.

 

[JackRT]

We were discussing Jesus, the moral philosopher, as recorded in the NT.

Quote: JESUS of NAZARETH: HIS LIFE, TIMES AND TEACHING ( 1925 ) by Joseph Klausner:

"In his ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and his forcible epigrams serve, in an exceptional degree, to make ethical ideas a popular possession. If ever the day should come and this ethical code be stripped of it's wrappings of miracle and mysticism, the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures in the literature of Israel for all time."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Again, this is another popular misuse of statistics that anti-LGBT folks love to trot out as "evidence of issues with the lifestyle"

The glaring logic flaw with this one...you're assuming that this is due to the behavior or preference itself. When, in fact, all evidence points to this being byproduct of the way they're treated by society.

This simple map of LGBT suicide attempt rates by region illustrates that very well.

View attachment 247660

If the suicide rates and attempt rates were purely just tied to the lifestyle itself, then we wouldn't see this disparity by region and it'd be a little more uniform across the board.

It's especially no surprise that in the south, where LGBT are marginalized the most (and treated the worst) the suicide attempt rate is nearly double what it is in the Northeast, where they have much more acceptance. ...and I'm betting dollars to donuts that if you removed rural PA from the "Northeast" section of the map, that 19% would drop even further.

It's no surprise that when people are treated poorly by society, and have limited or no support systems at their disposal, that suicide attempt rates are higher.

There are a number of reputable studies, both from European and US psychiatric organizations (that we can cover if you'd like), that have concluded that:

Mental disorders constitute the most important risk factor for suicidal behaviour. Studies have found that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) individuals are at increased risk for mental health problems, as a consequence of a hostile stressful environment.
(as well as a simple look at the data for LGBT suicide rate by nation, showing that nations that have more tolerant attitudes towards it have lower suicide rates among that community)


Basically, many conservative evangelicals are creating a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. They take the stance "Behavior XYZ is wrong", then subject people engaging in that behavior to the sorts of things that would give anyone mental issues. And when the people, undoubtedly, do end up with mental health issues as a result of the way they're treated, those same evangelicals use that broken mental state as evidence of how "see, we were right all along, that's bad for you!!!"



I'll use an analogy to illustrate it.

If every time you ate carrots, someone punched you in the nose, would you view it as a valid conclusion that "Carrots increase the risk of broken nose"? Or would you take the logical stance of "Carrots don't cause you to have broken noses...carrots aren't harmful in that way...people just need to stop punching me in the nose"




...again, another glaring logic flaw. There's no way you, or anyone else on this planet, is applying this standard evenhandedly. The "increased rates of this negative health concern is proof that it's evil and nobody should do it" seems to be a favorite for people to cherry pick when wanting to take an anti-LGBT stance, but is rarely invoked in any other conversation.

Ringworm is more prevalent among high school athletes
Heart disease is more prevalent among those who consume animal products
Tooth decay is more prevalent among those who consume more sugary and acidic foods

...yet, I'd highly doubt you hold the same level of animus toward high school sports, eating meat & eggs, and drinking orange juice. Nor would I imagine you thinking that these byproducts of those activities are evidence that they should never be engaged in.


Basically, I think the anti-LGBT community knows that there is no reason to oppose it that meets 1st Amendment standards (serving a compelling an secular purpose, per the Lemon Test), so they attempt to grasp at straws to find non-religious reasons to oppose it. The issue is that all of their reasons are A) not actually caused by the behavior itself, but with the way the people are being treated... or B) based on an inconsistent standard that they're literally not applying to any other behavior.

Rather than negating my argument as you imagine, it confirms it. Of course the suicide rate should be higher in places where it lesbianism is less accepted,which attests to it being a negative quality, as is any behavior or belief which leads to people engaging in self-murder. Evangelical Christians are the most despised by the MSM, and homosexual rights results in such being in danger of being unable to practice business and expression the way want, yet if that results in self-murder then then there is something wrong.

As for your ringworm argument, analogy, that confirms a cause and effect relationship due to practices, and in which benefits vs. risks are to be weighed, but the negative physical effects of the homosexual lifestyle are not invoked as being the reason they are wrong, but as testimony to a proscribed unnatural practice which is deleterious in other ways (as is all disobedience to the word of God) also being accompanied by negative physical effects.

And yet, just how do you think the consensual practice of the Lord's supper would be treated if it was accompanied by the diseases rate MSM is?

As for what meets 1st Amendment standards, that is subject to change based on the ideology of judges and those who elect them. We work to preserve basic traditional judgments, and must deal with the effects of modern liberalism.

We who go by a higher transcendent moral standard can be severely punished for refusing to agree to create a work (and thus be complicit) for the express purpose of celebrating what is Biblically wrong, and even wrong per changeable constitutions, or practice what is illegal depending upon location, yet here we must stand.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's "you" in the collective sense. Christians.

I know.

Even the law school in the OP doesn't seem to care.

I didn't notice either way but what has that got to do with me?

This seems to suggest that the topic was not important to him, again at least in comparison to the things that he did spend a lot of time talking about.

I guess you'll see what you choose to see, that or your just jumping on the band wagon of a common defense that never made sense to me.

Think of it this way, you know what God thinks of homosexuality and Jesus and God are of like mind. It's really not hard to put together, that is if you want too.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm not sure what the rest of the sentence is supposed to mean, but going back to the beginning of the circle, Jack's original statement was "Do you realize that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality?"

This seems to suggest that the topic was not important to him, again at least in comparison to the things that he did spend a lot of time talking about.

Pinging Jack T.

That parroted polemic is like arguing that since the Lord Himself while on earth said nothing explicitly about rape , pedophilia, cannibalism, etc., then it means He "says absolutely nothing about" them, and which attests to either blindness, ignorance or a fallacious idea of how a subject can be addressed.

When the Lord broadly condemns "fornications" (plural) and defines marriage as specifically being btwn male and female (Matthew 15:16; 19:4-6) - thus leaving all other sexual relationships to be fornication - then yes, He has addressed them.

In addition, the hermeneutic that determines the importance of a subject but how often it is mentioned is a false one. For how prevalent something serious occurs normally is what determines how often it is mentioned.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Indeed -- so, lacking any guidance form Jesus, many Christians turn to Paul, on the assumption that he would know Jesus' mind on the topic.

Except that, as previously noted, there are times when Jesus has spoken on far more important topics, and Paul flatly contradicts him, so this might not be the soundest assumption.

Paul does not, and if you want to provide some examples then this can be demonstrated when i return later.

Do you believe the epistles were also wholly inspired of God, and with Paul being the writer of most?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And here is an interesting definition -- A Christian is a Christian not by what they know, but by the effect that knowledge has on them.

Alas, I have to disagree with your interpretation of these scriptures. A Christian who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but cannot/will not/does not act on that knowledge is a poor Christian, but a Christian nonetheless.

Similarly, a person who gets their annual flu shot, but still catches the flu, cannot be said to have never received a vaccination, can they?

Being a Christian is not a flu shot, but is by faith, and thus those who abandon it no longer are.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You're assuming that the mob's motivation was sexual desire, and not to show the strangers in town who's in charge...

Correct: Genesis 19

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I seem to recall some guy talking about letting he who was without sin cast the first stone... but nobody listens to that guy these days.

Which would make you disobedient, but this - as with another text abused by hypocrites, "judge not," refers to condemning something in particular you are practicing yourself.

No wonder you think Paul contradicted Christ.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I’m still waiting for one of the virulently anti-gay posters to take the same stance towards someone not being charitable to poor people, since clearly that was a topic HUGELY important to Jesus.

And evangelicals are among the most generous in giving humanitarian aid, and as said, when you stand in the middle of a golf course during a thunderstorm with upraised club, calling all clouds to salute it, do not be surprised at the kind of attention you can get.

If adultery was promoted like homosexuality/relations/marriage/affirmation has been and is, and and even mild opposition strongly censored, then it also would become much the lightening road as an example of immorality.

How much the more when the first command given to man as regards others was that of male and female being what is joined in marriage, she being what was created for man (after animals would not do).

Thus the devil, who seeks worship via a alternative society, promotes perversions of what God has ordained, first on the spiritual level by seducing man to lust after and worship created things (including not just things but proxy servants of his) vs. the creator, and then on the horizontal level perverting the foundational union for man. The rest follows.

Be back later, by God's grace.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Paul does not, and if you want to provide some examples then this can be demonstrated when i return later.

Already did, but I don't mind repeating it.

Is everyone who calls on God saved? Yes (According to Paul, Romans 10:13), or no (according to Jesus, Matthew 7:21)?

Do you believe the epistles were also wholly inspired of God, and with Paul being the writer of most?

Nope, and define "most."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Being a Christian is not a flue short,

Analogy - Wikipedia

but is by faith, and thus those who abandon it no longer are.

But were they ever in the first place? That's the question...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which would make you disobedient, but this - as with another text abused by hypocrites, "judge not," refers to condemning something in particular you are practicing yourself.

Ah, but I'm no hypocrite. As I am not a Christian, the instruction never applied to me.

No wonder you think Paul contradicted Christ.

Your correction on the matter is welcomed, but not expected.

 

[JackRT]

Do you believe the epistles were also wholly inspired of God, and with Paul being the writer of most?

Paul wrote quite a number but some were written pseudonymously in his name. I don't think "most" is accurate.

 

[Arcangl86]

Paul wrote quite a number but some were written pseudonymously in his name. I don't think "most" is accurate.

"Most" is accurate. Out of the 13 Epistles with Paul's name, 7 are agreed to have been written by him.

 

[JackRT]

You said "Do you believe the epistles were also wholly inspired of God, and with Paul being the writer of most?" I didn't know that you were only referring to Paul.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Already did, but I don't mind repeating it.

Is everyone who calls on God saved? Yes (According to Paul, Romans 10:13), or no (according to Jesus, Matthew 7:21)?
Nope, and define "most."

All that does is make the ol Catholic restriction on access to the Bible seem warranted, for such isolationist exegesis is simply not how you study the Bible.

Jesus and Paul says the same things:

Is everyone who calls on God saved? Yes according to Jesus, Paul and Joel:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:9-13)

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call. (Joel 2:32)

Notice that contrary to your isolationism, "call" is that of the expression of saving faith, and thus only in that context, that of those who believe on the Lord Jesus ("For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation") are those who call upon the Lord saved.

Moreover, this does not say, For whosoever has called upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, but who do, that being those who continue in the faith. Thus in that context, everyone who calls on God is saved.

Which brings us to your next imagined contradiction:

Is everyone who calls on God saved? No, according to Jesus and Paul if not in obedient faith:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
(Romans 2:13)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:22-23)

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Titus 1:16)

Thus your charge has been shown to be fallacious. Got more? That you could go this long on a forum without being shown this, if indeed you have, is sad.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑Do you believe the epistles were also wholly inspired of God, and with Paul being the writer of most?

Nope, and define "most."

Thus you deny that they belong in the canon of wholly inspired Scripture. As for Paul being the pen of most of the epistles, most means at least 13 to me, but that all 27 books are wholly inspired Scripture is what is important.