Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you talking about other historical writings that are accepted from that time or the distant past? If so we have many. For example the writings of Historian Josephus and Roman emperor Tacitus are accepted. Even the Jewish Talmud is accepted. What Paul had written as far as instructions for the early church is no different to a description by any historical writings such as instructions and letters from past Monarchs in how those laws or regulations were to be applied. Or descriptions of events that happened back then.
I can remember how people were saying airplane were going to fall out of the sky, and society was going to come to a standstill. Many people were worried and there was lots of speculation about financial matters such as the stock market. It was associated with how computers were able to change their date from 1999 to 2000 as they thought it could not be done and this would cause a glitch because computers would not be aligned due to the wrong date. But nothing happened. From memory there was some issues with setting dates where people had to adjust their computer. I was actually installing the internet at that time so this related to my work. But it was a big storm in a teacup.
no hate and violence is being equated with hate and violence
if someone disagrees with interracial marriage -- IE deny that married interracial couples are actually married. Work for laws denying interracial couples from adoption or being foster parents. Supporting businesses that refuse to provide goods and services to such couples -- are they hateful?
do you really think that those opposed to interracial marriage just rejecting the idea and not the people involved?
It is possible by context and by really knowing the Word. Otherwise, you have no idea what continues and what does not according to scripture.
and hate is still hate no mater who it is directed against
and when those acts are directed against anyone else it is just has hateful. That was the point being made.
so why are gay people having to fight in the courts to ensure they are not denied equal access to those publicly offered goods and services?
So is Exodus 22:2-3 ceremonial or are we still expected to follow it?
It's possible by looking at the NT and Christian experience to see that many things in the OT don't apply to us. Acts 15 and Paul both make the kind of distinction. But breaking the OT law into moral, ceremonial, and municipal suggests that there's an actual distinction in the OT law. I don't think you can decide what applies to us by any distinction that's present in the OT itself. In Lev the whole Holiness Code is moral. It describes the purity that God requires in order to accept worship. But parts of that are (correctly) not accepted by Christians, even though it was clearly the original authors thought that anyone who didn't follow it was rejected by God.
So how do you explain how people think that disagreeing with same sex marriage is hateful and bigoted when it is a legitimate position to take under a society that supports cultural and religious inclusion. If it was so wrong why did most western nations have a vote on it. Having a vote recognised the right for people to disagree with same sex marriage.
First marriage is a traditional belief that is well recognised and under the laws and human rights of cultural and religious freedom people (including indigneous people) have the right to express their beliefs even if they may seem opposed to other peoples views. Why do you think we had a referendum on same sex marriage. Thats because people had the right to disagree with such an important issue. So how could it be against the law or hateful if we were able to vote on it like we vote for anything else that is a legal view to have.
Like I said this is a red herring you are bringing up. But if you want to talk about same sex marriage well people do have long held beliefs based on beliefs that have nothing to do with hating the individual. Its got to do with a belief position that God made man and women and the insitution of marriage and that they become one in marriage. Most people were against changing the meaning of marriage rather than denyng same sex couples the right to be married under civil laws. They were just protecting their beliefs that they have a legal right to.
Is holding that same level of disagreement with equal civil rights hateful and bigoted? (hint - Yes, yes it is)
People have the right to hate minorities, and many exercise that right. Exercising that right doesn't make it good or ethical.
what is the motivation of that "simple truth claim"?
what makes something like racism a legitimate opposing view.
and they get to face the consequences of their choice to publicly engage in that expression
civil rights are not based popularity
Racists would disagree but its a moot point as religion doesn't grant anyone the right to discriminate
and they get to face the consequences of exercising their free speech. If that speech is hateful then they should expect to be confronted with that fact.
Just like people have long held beliefs about racial equality that have nothing to do with hating the individual.
same was said about those opposing interracial marriage
You’re still creating a false analogy. Racism and the colour of a person’s skin is not the same a same sex marriage. For one there is no Christian belief against race. In fact the Bible states that all people are equal IE
But as I said disagreeing with same sex marriage is not being hateful. Its a right that people have in expressing their view about their belief about what marriage is. That belief is based on the Bible and has been around for thousands of years. As a society we cannot start denying cultures and religions their right to belief otherwise we become like China a communist and totalitarian nation.
There is no motivation. Scientific facts have no feelings or motives. They are just facts. Its a biological fact that a man cannot magically become a women. They have different sex organs, DNA, and hormones. Its a scientific fact that a man cannot become a mother and a child needs a mother.
No one is talking about racism. Once again you’re introducing a red herring, something I haven’t mentioned and has nothing to do with marriage and gender. I am saying it’s legitimate in todatys society to disagree with same sex marriage and that a man cannot magically become a women. Its just aprt of the diverse views in society that people have. So long as no one incites violence there is no law against it. Otherwise like I said we risk becoming a totalitarian nation like China where we dictate to everyone what they can and cannot believe and think.
Yes truth claims based on the evidence above.
But they should not face any consequences as they are doing nothing wrong. Anyone who tries to make any consequences are the ones doing something wrong. You have got things back the front. Expressing a view opposed to same sex marriage is legal and a right to do under Human Rights, freedom of speech and the right to hold and express religious belief so long as it does not incite violence.
You are still introding a false comparison. We are talking about people’s views and beliefs on marriage. Belief about marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. No Christian is stopping a same sex couple from having the right to marry under a civil union under secular law. They are objecting to people trying to change the meaning of traditional marriage between a man and women which has been the meaning of marriage in society for 100's of years based on Christian beliefs.
Well it is a moot point because racist cannot dictate Christian belief. Christian belief is based on the Biblical and not personal opinion. But you are right in saying that Christianity doesnt allow anyone to descriminate because it is clearly against Christian beliefs.
But people’s views on same sex marriage and gender (a man cannot become a women) are not hate speech. So they should not face any consequences. And yet they do from radical ideologues who want to silence free speech.
So therefore you agree. People have the right to their beliefs regardless of what others think so long as it doesn’t insight violence.
you keep introducing a Red Herring argument, interracial marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage because the issue is about marriage being between a man and women which is about a belief based on Biblical scripture. There is no Biblical scripture about interracial marriage.
