Where's God?

[Clizby WampusCat]

Exodus 22:21-24, Lev. 19:33-34, and Exodus 23:9 among others.

YOu are assuming that all Hebrew slaves were voluntary servitude. This is untrue as I pointed out in my other thread on slavery.

Yes, and God and Moses knew that there were non-Hebrews among the Israelites even when they left Egypt many Egyptians went with them. And also God knew in the future that strangers and foreigners would settle in Israel in the future. So the term "all the inhabitants of the land" plainly meant non Hebrews and foreigners from surrounding lands. So yes, all the slaves were freed. Hebrews could be freed after just six years.

At best then you have contradictions in the bible. You are just choosing to believe one passage over another.

If you are referring to the verses that state their enslavement was forever that was hyperbole for either until death or jubilee.

If you say so. The bible does not indicate this at all.

True, but if it is found out that the master was too harsh he could be punished according to lex talonis by a judge.

Yet the bible does not indicate this at all.
↑

No, but it is an atheist based political philosophy. Most theists that perform terrorism are not Christians, most are Muslims over 90%.

There is no such thing as an atheist based political philosophy. This is your misunderstanding of what the definition of an atheist is. The fact that someone does not believe a god exists has no bearing on their political philosophy. There are atheist humanists, anarchists, communists, socialists etc. Just like there are Christian communists, humanists, socialists etc.

No, because Christian morality is based on the objective existing moral character of the True Creator God. There are no other creator gods.

What is your evidence that there are no other gods? Most atheists don't even say this because there is no way to show this statement is true.

Even if there is only one God, that does not mean that the God is moral.

The goals may be slightly different. But their source for morality is the same, humans. That is what humanism means.

No. This is not what humanism means.

Humanity is the measure of all things. But humanists from western nations generally borrow their morality from Christians up to a point but then look to what feels right to them for the rest. While humanists that like communism get their morality primarily from Marx.

There are different type of humanists but their humanism whatever type they are does not come from their atheism. The fact that there are different humanist thought from atheists confirms this.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In order to continue the survival of a society in an optimal way, a good government should encourage it. Look what is happening in Europe. Their culture and survival as free nations are in the balance because they have failed to do so.

The goal of our society is not to survive in an optimal way. If that were so we would not allow smoking, taco bell, energy drinks etc. These are detrimental to an optimal survival of a society. We want to allow maximum freedoms. You want to restrict freedoms unnecessarily due to your religious beliefs. This goes against what the constitution was designed to allow. You are free to have your religious beliefs but you are not free to force those on others unnecessarily through governmental laws and policies.

No, according to our founding documents our nation is based and founded on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God.... Both the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God only allow for real marriage, ie marriage based on biology and anatomy.

You are smuggling in a god into our constitution where it specifically says you cannot do that. You are free to practice your religion as you please as long as it does not infringe on others rights to practice their religion or lack of religion. Which of your rights are violated by two gay men getting married? None. The right to marry for the gay couple is with your view.

The government and SCOTUS was wrong in this case. They cannot make up rights that dont exist. It has made many wrong decisions such as Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade being among the most notorious.

I have disagreed with many SCOTUS rulings as well like Roe v Wade however that does not make the decision a mistake. It is how our government is set up. The ruling says that if a state is going to allow marriage to heterosexuals they have to allow it for homosexuals as well. They cannot discriminate. It is up to the states to allow and regulate it. But it must be regulated in a non discriminatory way. The 2015 ruling did not make marriage a right, it upheld previous decisions that it is a fundamental right. There have been at least 15 major SCOTUS decisions since 1888 that have upheld that marriage is a right in the US, the 2015 decision was not the first.

Christians have a right work through legitimate processes to correct such erroneous rulings or at least make them less odious out of love for our nation and its founding.

Maybe instead of loving our country and its founding, love the intent and ideals behind the founding and strive to make that a reality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yes because society has agreed that they are immoral for various reasons and should not be granted the right to marry.

But are the reasons rational and objective especially now that "marriage" means the opposite of what it used to mean?

cw: Society doe snot view gay marriage as immoral, why should it be? They are two consenting adults that want to get married.

According to our founding documents, especially the DOI, it is immoral. It says our nation was founded on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God. Homosexual behavior goes against both.

cw: How does God know when someone is married? Does God require a marriage certificate from a government?

When a man and a woman leave their parents and make a public lifelong commitment to each other, God considers them married.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The tragedy with Judas is that he ended his life in despair; the reality of his betrayal overcame him with grief and so he took his own life.

It is sometimes popular to regard Judas as so particularly heinous to have been beyond redemption; but of course that simply is not true. Had Judas not been so overcome with despair that he took his own life, Judas Iscariot the betrayer could have been St. Judas Iscariot the Apostle. This is not something to revile Judas over, but rather to lament. To lament the tragedy of Judas' story.

And--and I believe this is very important--that we believe and confess emphatically in the kindness of mercy of God. If there was, and is, no hope for Judas, then there isn't much hope for any of us. For Christians have, all of us, betrayed the Son of God now and then in our lives, and very often for far much less than thirty pieces of silver.

Salvation isn't a step by step process. Salvation is the outpouring of grace upon a sinful world from God, through Christ. The thief on the cross full of remorse does not so much as "repent" as to acknowledge his guilt as a brigand, and implore Christ to remember him. But what does Christ say? "Today you will be with Me in paradise." That is, "You will be counted among the righteous". What did the thief do to earn this? Nothing. What steps did the thief do to achieve this? None. Rather the Son of God speaks, and it is the mercy of God that breaks through.

The ultimate fate of Judas is not known. Nobody in the Church is in any position to say or to know what happened to Judas after he took his own life. Dantie Alighieri may have placed Judas, along with Brutus and Cassius who betrayed Caesar, in the deepest level of hell, in the circle of the traitors, with Judas positioned as the single most damned of any man; but Dante's work of fiction is not theology, it is fiction. Nobody in the Church can judge the fate of any man, not even the man who betrayed Christ. Judgement belongs exclusively to Christ, the Savior and Lord of all, which is a glorious thing, for we have not a God of anger, but a God of compassion and mercy. And we all must put our hope and trust in God's merciful judgment which is found in and through Christ, who gave Himself for all, in order that all should live.

I would argue that the Church must, indeed, pray that when all is said and done, there too shall be Judas, healed and bandaged from his self-inflicted wounds of betrayal, in the brightness of God's uncreated light and love in that future world.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree that if Judas had truly repented, he could have been saved but there is no evidence he did. But yes, we dont know for certain but I think Christians can say where certain people MOST LIKELY ended up such as Judas, Hitler, Stalin, and any unrepentant sinner.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: Yes, and sometimes being healed promotes spiritual growth. It depends on the person, everyones spiritual growth is different.

hs: One of my personal favs is the "it's a god thing he didn't die in that accident."

Sometimes God does prevent someone from dying in an accident, whats your point?

ed: But ultimately it is just subjective feelings for other humans, it is not based on anything objective.

hs: Are seriously suggesting that selflessness and group cohesion is not an objective measure of a groups survival?
You need to read Tribe by Sebastian Junger.

You are not going deep enough. If there is no God then the only ones that care whether humans survive are just some other humans with their irrational sentimentality for their own species. But there is no objective basis for caring whether humans survive or not since they are no more valuable than cockroaches or even amoebas.

ed: ↑And if atheistic evolution is true,

hs: It is.

That is a whole other discussion.
↑

ed: then there is no rational basis for treating humans better than any other species other than you are a member of that species.

hs: Survival of the group is an evolved trait. This has been observed in thousands of species, including humans. There is well understood at this point.

Yes but that is irrelevant in the big picture, see above. So what if certain species survive, without God it doesnt matter if humans survive or if cockroaches survive and humans go extinct. That is why it is just purely based on subjective feelings for favoring humans over other species. There is no objectively rational basis for condemning serial killers or mad dictators or slaveholders.

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
Most Christians including myself are none of those things and in fact they are condemned by the teachings of Christ and the Bible. Someone that acts and believes those things is committing a sin.

ed: Humans dont have any idea which person is which, only God knows. So we as Christians are commanded to do good to everyone out of love for humans and God.

hs: Yet, all you have done is demonstrate homophobic hate speech.

How is desiring the best for all people, including gays, in this world and the next, hate?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why?

The usual proof text given for this comes from the Epistle to the Hebrews, specifically Hebrews 9:27. But I'm not really convinced by this argument.

I originally had a significantly longer post going into far more detail. But I'm concerned about going wildly off tangent.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree that if Judas had truly repented, he could have been saved but there is no evidence he did. But yes, we dont know for certain but I think Christians can say where certain people MOST LIKELY ended up such as Judas, Hitler, Stalin, and any unrepentant sinner.

I would argue that as a people whose lives are centered upon and grounded in the Gospel, in the grace of God, and the Cross; we should abstain from presuming too much. It seems like something that's very easy with figures like Hitler--of course Hitler goes to the bad place because Hitler was bad, the absolute worst of the worst. It's not difficult for me to indulge my darker side and imagine--even enjoyably so--that Adolf Hitler will receive a limitless amount of agony for the sheer volume and scale of his evil. But, I intentionally mention about indulging my darker side. I don't think I should do that. I don't think, even with Hitler, I should allow myself to be the kind of person that delights in the notion that someone--even an Adolf Hitler--being tormented, or being destroyed, or experiencing the all the weight of pain that he put his millions of victims through. As a believer in the Gospel, as a believer in the Cross, as a believer in the immensity of God's grace and kindness. I don't want to indulge my depraved sense of vengeance. Rather, and instead, allow me to kneel and confess, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

To profess Christ as Lord is to profess with boldness that God loves sinners. Even the worst of us. I mean, what does St. Paul say? "Here is a trustworthy saying worthy of full acceptance: That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." Throughout the Apostle's letters he makes an important point in not pointing the finger at others, that they are the worst of the worst; but rather always pointing at himself, he speaks of himself and calls himself the worst of the worst. It teaches us not to go around pointing fingers, saying, "Hey, check out that speck in your eye" even as we have this massive 2x4 stuck in our own. It doesn't let us say, "I thank you Lord that I am not like all these sinners here, especially that tax collector" but rather to say, "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner." I am the sinner who needs to repent. I am the sinner who needs grace. I am the sinner who confesses Christ and what Christ has done, and that if God loves me, He loves everyone.

Yes, in the depravity of my flesh I absolutely think that not only does Hitler deserve the deepest and darkest parts of any conceivable hell, but the idea of that makes me happy. But rather than justifying that, let me grieve for feeling that way, for thinking that way. Lord, have mercy on me. Christ have mercy on me. Give me a clean heart, O God, and a contrite spirit, O Lord. That is how I should respond here. Again, the sin in my own eye, the hardness of my heart, the ways in which I fall short and need God's grace. To drown myself in repentance, and again give thanks to God who gives Himself to me so freely and kindly through Jesus Christ our Lord.

May the Lord be merciful. May God show kindness. May it never be said that anyone is beyond redemption, that there is anything which the Lord cannot restore. Let it never be said that it is impossible for in that Eternal Day for even the darkest heart, the most staunchest sinner, the most craven traitor, the most heinous of any to be found in the bosom of Christ. And let us never fall into the error in thinking that it depends on us, for it has already been written, that "it is by grace that we have been saved, through faith, and this is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God, and not by works lest anyone should boast." It is Christ and Christ alone who saves. I believe there is far better reason, therefore, for hope than there is for despair.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are not going deep enough. If there is no God then the only ones that care whether humans survive are just some other humans with their irrational sentimentality for their own species. But there is no objective basis for caring whether humans survive or not since they are no more valuable than cockroaches or even amoebas.

Let's try a thought experiment. Say that two universes exist. Universe A has no life. No plants. No people. No god. Universe B has a planet earth with many humans living happy, prosperous, fulfilling lives. Now which universe is better? I prefer B. Can I objective prove that B is better? No. But I prefer B.

Now let's add another universe, Universe C. Universe C has plants, animals, people, and also God. Now let me ask you. Which is better, Universe A or Universe C. No doubt you will pick Universe C. But why? Because God prefers C? On what basis does God prefer C? Because it is best for him? But how can it be best for him? If all that existed was Universe A, there would be no God to say, "You know, I really wish I existed." But somehow your God prefers Universe C. How is that not "subjective"?

And so it is with me. I prefer a universe with life, with trees, with frogs, with whales, with people that are living happy, fulfilling, self-actualizing lives. The only way people can live prosperously in this planet is by cooperating with each other, each doing things for the other. And so, preferring the universe with happy campers, I willingly choose to help the other campers here achieve success. And they help me. We call that morality. I love humans. I love that kind of morality.

But you downplay the desire to help simply because I subjectively love people and want to help. You say that it needs to be based on what God says. But I am seeing nothing better in your morality. It is simply a list of commands, such as when and how a person can get sexual fulfillment, or when and how a person can have slaves. Follow the commands. Do what you are told. That is what I see in your morality.

I prefer my morality.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The usual proof text given for this comes from the Epistle to the Hebrews, specifically Hebrews 9:27. But I'm not really convinced by this argument.

I originally had a significantly longer post going into far more detail. But I'm concerned about going wildly off tangent.

-CryptoLutheran

But forgive me - that seems to be saying that there is no chance to change your mind and repent and be saved after death; but it doesn't say why not.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

But are the reasons rational and objective especially now that "marriage" means the opposite of what it used to mean?

It doesn't.

According to our founding documents, especially the DOI, it is immoral. It says our nation was founded on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God. Homosexual behavior goes against both.

First, what goes against God is of no concern to a secular society such as in the USA, whether "Nature's God" or any other. Secondly, how is homosexuality against the laws of nature?

When a man and a woman leave their parents and make a public lifelong commitment to each other, God considers them married.

Well, that sounds reasonable enough. And when a man and a man, or a woman and a woman love each other very much, and want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, that's different because...they can't have babies?

It would be nice if we could see a rational argument from you that wasn't (a) based on religious prejudice, or (b) echoing arguments against interracial marriage.

What exactly is wrong with homosexuals marrying each other?
It's never been done before? So what?
They can't have babies? Irrelevant.
Gay sex is bad for you? The type of sex you have has nothing to do with whether you're married or not.
It'll be bad for society? Irrelevant.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: God will make sure that what happens is the right outcome for that particular person.

dm: So thousands of people suffer from COVID, leaving their bodies damaged for life. And God know that this is the right outcome for that particular person?

And thousands suffer and die of COVID, leaving their families devastated. And God know that this is the right outcome for that particular person?

And thousands of children are sexually abused by adults. And God know that this is the right outcome for that particular person?

Pardon me. What kind of a God do you worship?

Yes He knows because He is in control of the universe and He is the real God who can not be tamed or controlled by us. The fact that He does things that we cannot fully explain at this time is evidence that He is not a man made god.

ed: humans dont know which person should get which. We are just commanded by God to love everyone and do good for them

dm: I have pointed out several times that you say that. Every time I point out that you say it you deny it. Then you say it again.

Your God may know that it is best for a child to suffer from a disease or physical abuse. And your God may command people to help that child. But, according to your words, your God knows that it is best if the disease or abuse continues.

No, there have been times in history when society followed Christ's teachings about children better and the number of abuse cases has gone down. In addition, as we have used God's principles in studying nature we have improved and reduced the number of disease that attack children and adults.

dm: In your view, your God commands people to help the abused child, not because God wants the abuse to stop, but because God commands it. Your morality is all about following commands, not about ending the suffering.

No, He does want it stop. But He can bring good out of evil. And of course, He does want people to help and stop the abuse. All suffering will end forever once evil is destroyed forever at the return of Christ.

dm: My morality sees a sometimes hostile world, sees that these things are not the right outcome for people, and works to have better outcomes.

How do you know that these things are not the right outcome for people? Especially as an evolutionist you should know that without suffering and death evolution is not possible.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Yes, and sometimes being healed promotes spiritual growth. It depends on the person, everyones spiritual growth is different.

dm: You say this in response to, "Are there times when your God wants people to suffer with the spiritual growth, instead of being healed without the growth?"

That is exactly what I told you that you were saying, that God sometimes wants people to suffer. Now, in spite of all those denials on this thread, you admit that God often wants people to suffer.

Yes, but I think you are confusing the wanting of suffering for suffering's sake. He does not want that. Only suffering that brings good. That is why He often brings good out of evil. Now of course, sometimes people suffer because they have done something wrong. That sometimes occurs just naturally out of the way He has designed the universe. He has built in consequences to breaking both His natural laws and His moral laws in this universe.

dm: In context we were talking about suffering that is so severe that it leads to death or permanent crippling bodily harm. And you tell us God often wants that because of the resulting good.

Yes, sometimes to bring about great good.

dm: If God wants that person to suffer, can you give us a compelling reason why humans should work to stop the suffering that God wants?

First, we dont know which person God has determined to suffer to get a greater good. And second, Because at least for Christians, we are commanded to love people and help them any way we can, such as healing them as Jesus did. He is our example. And after you become a Christian you will want to help relieve suffering out of love for humans and God.

ed: But ultimately it is just subjective feelings for other humans, it is not based on anything objective.

dm: Subjective feelings that humanity is good are a good enough reason for me. Viewing humanity as good, and knowing there are things I can do to help other humans, I help. Do you have a problem with that?

The problem is that it is a slippery slope. If you dont have an objective foundation for morality it is like a house built on sand with no foundation so it cannot withstand the forces of evil when they began to erode your foundation. Stalin and Fidel Castro's moralities were based on subjective emotions too, only you came to a different conclusion, but your foundations are the same. So you dont have an objective basis to condemn people like them. It is just your personal preferences against theirs.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But forgive me - that seems to be saying that there is no chance to change your mind and repent and be saved after death; but it doesn't say why not.

You're right. I also don't think that's what the text is saying at all. I only bring it up because it is very often a proof text offered by some Christians to say that repentance is impossible post-judgment.

It's not a position I take, as I don't think that's what the passage is saying. As I mentioned in my previous post, I had originally written a significantly longer reply, but I was afraid of taking things off tangent.

Speaking personally I not only hope that repentance and restoration is possible; I truly do hope and pray that ultimately, truly ultimately, all will be found restored and reconciled to God. To put it another way, I truly hope and pray that hell is ultimately empty.

It's an area of theology that I refuse to engage dogmatically about, but instead try to point out that this has always been a topic that has had a wide diversity of opinion in Christianity; and there has never been a definitive position on the subject. There is no de facto singular orthodox position on the subject. There is, instead, and always has been, a range of ideas and opinions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Stalin and Fidel Castro's moralities were based on subjective emotions too, only you came to a different conclusion, but your foundations are the same. So you dont have an objective basis to condemn people like them. It is just your personal preferences against theirs.

What is your morality based on? How do you know what right and wrong is?

 

[doubtingmerle]

According to our founding documents, especially the DOI, it is immoral. It says our nation was founded on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God. Homosexual behavior goes against both.

First the declaration of independence says nothing about needing to follow nature's God. Rather it says that nature and nature's God entitle us to pursue happiness however we want, and "That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." ( emphasis added) The preamble to the declaration is all about choosing governments that subjectively seem best to us. It is not about establishing governments that force people to obey your views on marriage. Have you ever read it? Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence

Second, lesbian acts are totally natural. I grew up on a dairy farm. I regularly saw female cows pleasuring each other when there was no bull around. Why do you say that is not natural?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf, let me make one thing absolutely clear. It is never the right outcome for a child to suffer sexual and physical abuse.

Period.

I cannot believe I need to explain this to you.

Yes He knows because He is in control of the universe and He is the real God who can not be tamed or controlled by us. The fact that He does things that we cannot fully explain at this time is evidence that He is not a man made god.

You wrote this in response to, "And thousands of children are sexually abused by adults. And God know that this is the right outcome for that particular person?"

And your response is that God knows that this is best for the child, because it will lead to the child's spiritual growth? You think he does things like allow abuse of children as a means of spiritual growth?

(Shaking my head in sorrow).

 

[doubtingmerle]

How do you know that these things are not the right outcome for people? Especially as an evolutionist you should know that without suffering and death evolution is not possible.

When I referred to "the right outcome for people" I was using your words, not mine. I would not usually use those words when discussing morality. What I was referring to was that outcome that is best for people (being free of crippling diseases, being free of sexual abuse, etc.) I should have put "the right outcome for people" in quotes.

You say that evolution involves suffering. Yes, I understand that. And it is precisely because of that suffering that morality is so important. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest. And a solitary human being without any benefits of society is not very fit. Even with the best of training in favorable conditions, few could live a prosperous life in complete isolation. Add an infant or two, and the task of keeping self and babies alive in the wild becomes almost impossible.

Other animals are much better at this. For instance, I just saw two baby deer and their mother out in the woods, easily maintaining their existence. That would be nearly impossible for a human.

Humans have huge brains that require great quantities of protein and energy. On their own, they are not very good at getting it. But when working in cooperation, oh what a difference that makes.

So as I explained to you before, the natural forces of evolution are against humans, causing suffering and death. But when humans help each other--we call this morality--it makes all the difference in the world.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf, I wrote to you asking, "If God wants that person to suffer, can you give us a compelling reason why humans should work to stop the suffering that God wants?" In response you wrote:

First, we dont know which person God has determined to suffer to get a greater good.

Uh, when it comes to things like sexual abuse of children, we do know if it is good or not. The sexual abuse of children should never be allowed because it could bring about a greater good in a child. Surely your God would know that.

But let's suppose that what you say is true, that God sees the abuse and stands back, because he knows the abuse is leading to ultimate good. Then, in spite of the fact that God steps back, you recommend people should work to stop it. If it turns out God has no purpose in the abuse, then good, they were on the right side. If God was allowing the abuse in order to create a greater good, well in that case, they are working against God's purpose--in the view you express here--but somehow that is still good.

If being abused is in the child's best interest, how can it be good to work against the child's best interest? (I find it very difficult to even write that question. But that is the kind of question one must ask when talking to someone who believes children have suffered abuse because that was ultimately in their best interest.)

And second, Because at least for Christians, we are commanded to love people and help them any way we can, such as healing them as Jesus did. He is our example. And after you become a Christian you will want to help relieve suffering out of love for humans and God.

"Because we are commanded" to do so. That is what it keeps coming down to with you. We are commanded to do things. Therefore we should do them. The thing we are commanded to do may be ultimately best for people or it may be for their eventual harm. It does not matter. We should just be quiet and do what we are told. That is the morality you express in this post, and in several previous posts.

I say to do good because it is good for people. We should try to stop sexual abuse, because it is good to stop it. We should try to cure people with COVID, because it is good to cure them.

Do we always understand perfectly what is best for people? No, of course not. For instance, is it better to protect a child from allergens, or expose him to things to build up his immunity? Our knowledge may be imperfect, but we do the best we can with what we know. And we always try to understand things better.

So again, my morality says do good because it is best for people when we do good. You say do good, because we are commanded to do so. That is the difference.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, He does want it stop. But He can bring good out of evil. And of course, He does want people to help and stop the abuse. All suffering will end forever once evil is destroyed forever at the return of Christ.

In the meantime millions of people have suffered abuse while god just looks on. No bother, he will just fix it later. These people still suffered abuse. Sick!

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm afraid I've has a rather busy period recently, and have not been able to reply. I'm sorry to have kept you waiting. But I'm pleased to see that @Clizby WampusCat has rebutted you on the slavery question.

Fraid not.

ia: So to answer your objections to gay marriage:
↑
No, I am saying on what basis besides subjective emotion are you restricting marriage to only those who consent? Actually, requiring consent for marriage is a Christian principle borrowed by the secular humanists. But they have knocked out the rationally objective foundation to the principle.

ed: Ignoring the red herring there, the salient point is that you do agree that a marriage should be based on consent. So, that answers your question: no marriage between adults and children, animals, plants or inanimate objects, because none of them are able to give consent.
Therefore, your slippery slope argument is invalid. But even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't matter; the point is whether it is moral to deny marriage rights to gay people. And it isn't.

No, the slippery slope is still there because there is no rationally objective foundation for the consent principle. It is like building your house on sand, when the forces of evil come, there is no basis for refuting them and the house collapses. There is no moral reason to deny marriage to your daughter or son or dog or computer. Because you have no objectively rational basis for denying it. And as I demonstrated earlier there is no right to marriage even for heterosexuals.

↑

ed: Yes, that is a Christian principle. So that Christian principle you are going to arbitrarily keep but not the other principles about marriage being only a man and a woman because you feel sorry for gays.

ia: Society has no need to base its laws on anything Christians believe. You're welcome to be bigoted against gay people if you like. Just don't expect religion to have any say in the laws of the land.

Almost all laws are based on a religion or philosophy. And according to America's founding documents, ours are based on the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God (the Unitarian God). The Unitarian God revealed His moral laws in nature and the Bible. He just never commits any supernatural acts unlike the Christian God.

ed: No, the definition of marriage goes beyond just a personal relationship. For society marriage has always had a functional aspect to it. Gays cannot engage in sexual intercourse. Legally in the past, a marriage was annulled if it wasn't consummated by sexual intercourse. Gays cannot perform that act, which also involves a real union of persons. Two homosexuals cannot form a true union, only a heterosexual couple can joint together biologically to form a single reproductive unit, irrespective if the unit actually produces children. Only the heterosexual union is actually recognized by biology.

ia: Ah. So a marriage is not valid in your eyes if it cannot produce children? So people who are too old to produce children, or infertile for some reason, or who choose not to produce children - they shouldn't be allowed to marry either?
Of course, nobody checks with straight people who wish to marry that they are capable of and willing to bear children. Therefore, your argument falls apart.

You misread my statement. I said only a heterosexual couple can joint together biologically to form a single reproductive unit, irrespective if the unit actually produces children. Only the heterosexual union is actually recognized by biology and only heterosexual sex unites two persons into a single reproductive unit. So even if there are cases where the union does not produce children that is still its primary purpose and why society is concerned with that function because otherwise the society may not endure.
↑

ed: Of course not, an apple is still an apple even if it has a worm in it.

ia: "of course" you should not annul marriages of people who cannot or will not have children? Fine. Then we agree that you do not have to be able or willing to have children in order to get married.
Or are you willing to follow your arguments to their logical conclusion? If your objection to gay marriage is that it cannot produce children, do you then think that all straight couples who cannot have children should not have the right to get married?

See above.
↑
To be continued.