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.
Of course. I agree with your exegesis of those passages. But historically, the same conservative tradition that now rejects gays used them. My argument wasn't that they were right about race, but that they are wrong about gays, and that once the culture changes enough that Christians can think straight about gender and sex, that will be understood.
there are many who would disagree with you. it is their personal interpretation and that has as much validity as your personal interpretation of what the bible says regarding homosexuality.
and people have a long history of trying to twist and distort the bible to fit their personal views on sexuality.
Zipporah was a Cushite but that didn't make her black. She was the Eldest daughter of Jethro a priest in Midian. Midian is in Arabia. The book of Ezekiel tells us that Cushites come from Arabia and Persia and Midian which is modern day Jordan. The book of Isaiah also speaks of the great Cushite leader Nimrod who was from Mesopotamia.
But its not about personal interpretation and personal interpretation is not how we judge things. As I said expert scholars who have studied theology state that the verse has anything to to do black people and slavery. Thats like saying that the flat earthers view is just as valid as what the experts have said that the earth is round lol. Those who used the curse of Ham during the time of slavery to justify slavery had a motive to see things that way.
Is this your personal view. No Zipporah was a Midianite. She was referred to as a Kushim or Cushite because that is the Hebrew word for dark-skinned Africans. Once again Wiki an independent source and more sympathetic to atheist views agrees with this.
I agree that that’s the normal case. But there’s every reason to think that Jesus would make exceptions where justified. Don’t confuse him with the Pharisees.
Just like those who use the bible to justify prejudice against LGBT individuals have a motivation to interpret the bible to see things as they wish.
that is what i said.
she wasn't from Africa, she was from what is today Jordan.
Well I think the interpretation is pretty clear when it comes to Christianity that marraige is between a man and women. Even Christ for which Christianity is based on states this truth. I agree that some will add and twist things to the Bible but this should be seen as unjustified as it has no Biblical support.
You acknowledge Zipporah was a Cushite and according to Wikipedia and the Hebrew Bible Cushi refers to a dark skinned person of Northeast African descent. But you still ignored the fact that the argument doesnt just rely on Moses's marriage to Zipporah. Black people of African decent were part of the Isrealites so were itermarrying anyway.
Then why would the government allow such a situation where they very well knew that there could have been a possibility that the no vote won thus allowing people to influence the lives of others.
For one the example of Margaret Court is but one of many.
Then once again why did the government allow people to vote on same sex marriage. What if the 'no ‘vote won which was a possibility, what then. The reality is the vote wasn’t about whether gays and lesbians could marry, that could have been done through civil laws. It seemed to be more about changing the Christian idea of marriage and I guess that is why many were opposing the idea.
Like I said no one was denying anyone the right to marry in secular society. But I think equating this with violence is a dangerous idea because as far as I understand from history that violence begets violence.
Certainly biological sex is not on any spectrum. Its binary, the science is clear on this and there are only two biological sexes male and female. That doesn't deny that there is a self identifying aspect. But where the confusion comes in is when the biology is cut out altogether. Gender is indelibly connected to sex. This is evidence by the conflicts and problems it causes in society when people try to separate it.
I am not either. I believe secular society has the right to determine laws based on rights. But those rights also include free speech and cultural & religious freedoms and inevitably some rights will clash. Once again one has to ask why the government allowed a vote on same sex marriage that could have potentially limit others.
Because like anything we need an objective measure and just not one based on subjective ideas when it comes to such an important thing that can affect other people.
As the idea of gender/transgender ideology has been applied to society we are seeing problems come up when it is applied to practicle life situations. This will only happen more with governments like Bidens allowing executive order changing laws on gender identity or sexual orientation and many are concerned on both sides of politics.
Then why are some trans women dominating women’s sports. In one case 2 transgirls amassed 15 championship titles that 12 cis girls had worked hard for. The fact is despite hormone therapy the advantage still remains. Transitioning after puberty is too late as males gain bigger heart/lung capacity, skeletel muscles and red blood cells. There are no regulations in junior sports and the regulation for adult sports is that a transwomen only needs to stay under 10.0 nmol/L. The average women have around 3.0 nmol/L which gives transwomen over 3 times the advantage.
I did this for SilverBear here #524 IE
Depends what you mean by oppression. For some it’s not about oppression but a justified reason to deny people access or the claimed right based on safety or duty or care reasons. Or because there is not enough evidence to justify the allowance.
yes people said all sorts of things. The government based on science said black people were inferior. What was worse is that they used science which should be impartial and fact. People can claim all sorts of things under the guise of religion but that doesn’t make it right. Like I have said there is no Biblical basis for claiming any race is inferior or denying interracial marriage. But there is for opposing same sex marriage.
So let’s turn it on its head. Should person C be given rights based on an arbitrary view of who they are? If we use other examples like race, age, height, weight etc. we can test this through biology, genetics and with measurement such as the BMI to determine whether peoples claims are correct or not.
But we are not talking about racism but sex identity.
When I say accept it I don’t means Christians give up their beliefs and then accept it. I mean they accept that secular laws allow same sex marriage. They are not going to break the law but rather accept it. They are acknowledging just like with divorce and abortion that secular society has its own way of seeing and doing things. It is separate to a Christian’s way of life. Christians cannot force secular society to conform to their beliefs. That is the type of acceptance I mean.
No people can disagree with Court but what was happening was not just disagreement. It was a concerted effort to destroy her. This is happening a lot more in modern society. People have been ridiculed and attacked, had threats against them, been sacked or force to stand down and retract their views because of Political correctness.
Of course not. That is even more reprehensible as it hides behind what is supposed to be a faith that represents love, justice, equality and kindness. It is a sheep in wolfs clothing.
because hate groups pushed for such votes.
Margaret Court has and continues to promote bigotry and violence against LGBT individuals.
no they could not have done so under civil laws. the referendums on same sex marriage were about the defense and promotion of discrimination.
no one cares about opposing views. It's about discrimination. Denying a minority the right to marry isn't disagreeing, it's hate.
It's obviously typical for married couples to be of the opposite gender. However I claim that Jesus tended to make exceptions to rules where individual cases justified it. He felt very strongly that divorce was not allowed, but made an exception for sexual immorality, and Paul made one for people married to non-Christians. Similarly, Jesus got in trouble for making exceptions to Sabbath rules. I don't see any reason he wouldn't make an exception for gays. Normally Christians are pretty understanding about special cases. OT law treated those who weren't perfect specimens of humanity as impure. See Lev 21:16-21. But Jesus didn't. I think your approach is more like Leviticus than Jesus.
But it was the government who suggested and promoted the idea of having a vote on same sex marriage.
Margaret Court just has a more fundelmentalist view. But she still has the right to diagree with same sex marriage and not be threatened with violence.
It was about redefining marriage which many didnt want changing. An additional law could have been introduced that allowed same sex marriage under a different definition of marriage without changing the original one.
But you said just having an opposing view of same sex marriage was descrimination
Then why does society deny polygamy and 3 way marriages. Is that a form of hate that society disagrees with these types of marriages.
I agree but what has that got to do with people having the right to their religious beliefs.
State referendums are started by individuals not the government. You should have learned that in high school
"homosexuals are after our young ones, that’s what they are after” Margaret Court isn't disagreeing, it's bigotry
I have indeed answered you, and supported my claims with evidence and examples, more than once. You simply keep reiterating your question as if it has not been addressed.
Well, ok, presuming that person is in Christ and walking in the Holy Spirit, I can't argue with that.
